Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 117

Monday, February 25 2002

• saboraim
• bet din
• Re: Segulos
• Hilchos Megilah v'Chanukah?
• women reading megilla
• RE: women reading megilla
• Re: Purim, Megila , shitos HaBhag and Marcheshes
• RE: women reading megilla
• women reading megilla
• Re: Women Reading Megillah For Men
• Toras Purim 5762
• Re: conflicting reports
• Re: tzaddik vs. tzaddi
• Re: custom vs gezerah
• Re: calendar
• Re: Segulos
• RE: Purim, Megila , shitos HaBhag and Marcheshes
• Calendar
• WOMEN AND MINYAN FOR THE READING OF THE MEGILLA

>I seem to recall that whenever I encountered such Talmudic sections in the
>past, the speaker was always stama d'gemara. Does the Maharatz Chayus
>mention other examples where an Amora is cited rather than stama d'gemara?

Gil wrote:
<Rav Achai is generally under suspicion as being a saborai (or sabora?),
e.g. Kiddushin 13a. See Tosafos in Zevachim 102b sv parich and Kesuvos
2b who disagree.>

I understand that according to R. Feldblum of Bar Ilan (is Avi still on
the list?) large portions of the B. Talmud are from the Saboraim.
-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 02/22/2002

David Riceman writes
<<I quoted the Aruch HaShulhan to him, who says that a competent BD has
three basic responsibilities:
i. resolving financial disputes ii. punishing ovrei aveirah (and
preventing people from being oveir aveiroth) and iii. preventing people
from having treasonable thoughts about the Czar.>>

I thought one of the main jobs of the bet din was to watch out for the
rights of widows, orphans and other downtrodden

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 02/22/2002

On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 11:15:21AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: Shocking as it may seem, could it be that more people admit to the former
: because there is evidence against segulos? Part of the problem here is
: that you have to distinguish true cases of metaphysical law from poplar
: superstition...

There has been plenty of bad science over the centuries, no one gave up
on the notion that there are laws of nature. I'm sure there have been
far more quacks than real medicine.

:> But there is a reason why such a technology never emerged.

: What is it (other than the one I suggested above)?

Because the laws of nature can be easily induced (and I mean inductive
reasoning in particular) from observation. And with more data, we get
progressively more accurate conclusions. Thereby being able to better
judge the results of our actions. Although having enough precision for
nearly all day-to-day activities was acheived back in Kayin's day.

Neis does not necessarily have laws, so I'll divide nissim from other
non-natural causation by talking about "laws of segulos".

The laws of segulos are, as I said, hard to distringuish from laws of
physics. It is no easier to see a magnetic field than it is a ko'ach
ruchani. In both cases, their presence would need to be deduced because
they're the simplest explanation for the pattern found across multiple
physical and empirical events.

The only real difference is that segulos (and the like) presume that
the hidden causes can be non-physical. Which presumes a non-physical
existance. Even thinking this venue of answers exists persumes a level
of emunah. Every time our confidence in one of those answers is
increased we are more convinced of that faith.

OTOH, every time a physical law is experienced it reinforces or denies
what in terms of emunah or bitochan?

:>:     A miracle is not something that violates physical law - it is
:>: something that was assigned religious significance by a navi.

:> The reason given for neiros Chanukah is pirsumei nisa. Chanukah post-dates
:> the hiatus of nevu'ah, and yet the word "nisa" is applied.

: I accept the amendment. It needs to be assigned religious significance,
: but the assignment need not be made by a navi.

Where do you get this definition? As I elaborated in my earlier post,
the word "neis" lends itself more to "something that draws attention
to the Yad Hashem", the way a banner (neis) does.

: I think this is the crux of our argument (which goes back at least to
: Peter Abelard). Even if you can predict the physical results of an action,
: can you predict its social significance? ...

Since that's not my definition of neis, I do not see how the question
is relevent to me.

: > 2- The singleton solution to the physical law. ...
: > 3- The violation of physical law. ...
: > FWIW, the term "neis nistar" is a shade oxymoronic. ...

: The Ramban preferred "nes b'thoch neis". I don't think he distnguished
: between your 2 and 3. In fact I don't think the Rambam did either.
: The only reason to have category 2 is to avoid the exstence of category 3
: ("hithna hkbh im maaseh breishith" - that Rambam on Avoth again).

Actually, the Rambam could be describing #2 or #3. The question is whether
the word "tenai" refers to singleton cases or violation. Since it was
set into the system miqedem, one could argue that it's part of the
system -- #2.

The difference is only to people who follow the Rambam in saying that
teva is a beryah. Then 2 and 3 differ in whether teva is acting, or
whether HQBH is acting more directly.

:> Second chiluq is between 1, 2, 3 and normal expected occurances vs.:

:> 4- The event -- regardless of whether or not it follows physical law --
:>    that can be fully explained in terms of non-physical law.

: No! The Ramban's point is that ALL events can be explained either as
: physical or non-physical law.

"Or" or "and"? I'm saying that the event could be fully explained in
non-physical terms. That is one side of your "or", no?

: No. Let us suppose that the incantations recommended in the gemara work
: by either coercing or confusing shedim. We could certainly imagine
: demonology as a respectable pursuit without ascribing any religious
: significance to it...

I disagree. I'm arguing that belief in a world in which sheidim exists
presumes emunah that there is a 2nd, spiritual, reality. To my mind
that already is avak emunah.

:> That was my first problem: Physical causality allows one to ignore
:> questions of emunah -- whether or not that's logical, that is the normal
:> human reaction.

: My response was that your observation is culturally determined. Until the
: French revolution physical causality was studied primarily by clergymen
: as part of their appreciation of God's creation...

You're still thinking of science. I'm thinking of stuff you learn
informally, starting with infancy. Dropped objects fall. Heavy once do
more damage. Taking two edges of paper and pulling will tear it.
Etc...

Bechirah chafshi is about deciding whether or not I ought to set fire
to a book (and therefore the predictability of its burning) and only
rarely whether or not a choose to build a new particle accelerator.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Why is the last section of Rambam's sefer Zmanim called Hilchos Megilla
v'Chanukah as opposed to Hilchos Chanukah u'Megilah? Is it merely
chronological order (of the underlying events) or something deeper?

-- Sholom

The L Rebbe asks on the Marcheshes from the Tos.38a (d"h mi) that Hallel
on a nes (like first night of Pesach) applies to women - likewise it
would probaly apply at night - and there dosn't seem to be a machlokes
(at least in Shulchan Aruch) concerning Pesach night regarding women.
Chaim G. Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

On Friday, February 22, 2002 1:02 PM, Gil Student <gil_student@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Perhaps I can restate the disagreement regarding kevod hatzibbur as being 
> over whether a tzibbur can be mochel on its kavod and say that women reading
> megillah is not a slight to their kavod.

> If this is correct, then I point to Magen Avraham 53:9 and Mishnah Berurah
> 59:23 who pasken that a tzibbur may not be mochel on its kavod.

I would not characterize my argument as being one based on a tzibur's
ability to forfeit its kavod. My argument is based on the fact that
in certain times and places allowing a woman to be called to the torah
_might_ not be forfeiting anything.

Again, in Passaic and Lakewood yes. In Willy-B, Yes. In a yuppie MO
community, where shiurim are open to men and woman alike and the funding
for the shul comes as much directly from the woman as from the men (as
opposed to the husband being able to earn more because his wife is home
full time) I'm not convinced.

In my shul I would not have this doubt but I have strong doubts about
it at the extremes of the Orthodox movement.

kt
sk

I would agree with RGS that the Behag's shita that women are obligated in
hearing , as opposed to reading the megila is not just a local machlokes,
but which one which has attracted many approaches from Rishonim and
Acharonim. The Marcheshes argues that women are exempt as follows:

1) According to the Chinuch, women are exempt from warfare.

2) If so, they are exemppt from wiping out Amalek which is accomplished
by reading the Megila

3) therefore, it makes a lot of sense to say that their level of
obligation is to hear, as opposed to read. One can raise an objection
to this mhalech from a Mishna in Sotah which says that even a Chasan
and Kallah leave their house to fight a milchemes mitzva. Any answers
on this question?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

*The L Rebbe asks on the Marcheshes from the Tos.38a (d"h mi) that Hallel
*on a nes (like first night of Pesach) applies to women - likewise it
*would probaly apply at night - and there dosn't seem to be a machlokes
*(at least in Shulchan Aruch) concerning Pesach night regarding women.

But how is this similar? We all read Hallel to ourselves on Pesach;
women don't motzei men in the reading of Hallel after the seudah. What
we are discussing is whether women can motzei men by reading the megillah
b'tzibbur.

K'nireh li the answer is no, since it seems from what has been discussed
here that we are required to hear the megilla, not to read it. This
seems to be further backed up by the fact that we in these parts are
noheig to have a man come to the home of a woman who cannot get out at
all, even to a women's reading, to read the megilla to her at home. If
a woman were chayav to read the megilla, she would do so b'dieved for
a female neighbor who is unable to leave her house, no? Or even better,
why would we have to have a man read for us at megilla readings for women
at all if women were chayav to read the megilla -- one woman could motzei
another in that case but we don't do it that way. The blessing made by
women at the megilla reading for women is l'shmoa, not l'kro.

I also wish to interject that I don't understand the reason for the entire
flap that is being caused. Why do some women feel that this is something
even desirable to do? Just because one does something publicly does not
make it a more mechubadik thing to do or make one more important. Brain
surgeons work very privately and garbage men work out in the open for
everyone to see. How many of your mothers would rather you be a garbage
man because then everyone can see you do your thing?

[In a 2nd email. -mi]

*I would not characterize my argument as being one based on a tzibur's
*ability to forfeit its kavod. My argument is based on the fact that
*in certain times and places allowing a woman to be called to the torah
*_might_ not be forfeiting anything.

*Again, in Passaic and Lakewood yes. In Willy-B, Yes. In a yuppie MO
*community, where shiurim are open to men and woman alike and the funding
*for the shul comes as much directly from the woman as from the men ...
*I'm not convinced.

But funding doesn't equate to lomdus. The kavod that is in question
is whether there are any men learned enough to read Torah, not whether
a woman has money or donates to the shul. I seem to remember learning
about a very crooked time in our history when we had people "buying" the
title of kohen gadol and it didn't seem to motzei chain b'ainayim shel
Hashem. It is not really a yashar value system that bases kavod on kesef.

Yes, I know that we must make the cohen gadol wealthy if he wasn't before
so that people will respect him, but this is only one of the requirements
that he must fulfill to be worthy to be the kohen gadol.

In this case, the kavod hatzibbur that is being discussed is the kavod
of their learning, not their incomes.

---Rena

From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
> Perhaps I can restate the disagreement regarding kevod hatzibbur as being 
> over whether a tzibbur can be mochel on its kavod and say that women reading 
> megillah is not a slight to their kavod.

First you need to show that kevod tzibur is an issue by kriat megillah.
The Gemara certainly doesn't think so.
 
> If this is correct, then I point to Magen Avraham 53:9 and Mishnah Berurah 
> 59:23 who pasken that a tzibbur may not be mochel on its kavod.

I don't read the Magen Avraham that way. He seems to say that they *can*
be mochel on their kavod, but *in this case* it's still assur for them
to appoint an adolescent as shaliach tzibur, at least lechatchilah.
(I could check on the Beis Yosef, and even Yoel Sirkes, if I only had
a Tur... (TTTO "if I only had a brain")) The MB (53:23) bears this out,
in that it says "bazeh" - in this matter.

So even if kevod tzibur were an issue by megilla, this wouldn't obviate
it.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 10:40:31PM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
: Just to add to the sources I cited earlier...

See Gil's Mar'eh Mekomos at <http://www.aishdas.org/articles/kolisha.html>.

(I'm CCing RMTorczyner as he might wish to include much of them in
HaMakor <http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor>.)

-mi

"Gedolah hasoras taba'as yoser m'48 Nevi'im she'amdu l'Yisroel."

Why the emphasis on the *removal* of the ring?

"Ki yad al Kes Y-h milchomo l'Hashem b'Amalek me'dor dor."

"Ein ha'Shem shalem v'ein ha'Kisei shalem ad she'yimocheh zar'o shel
Amalek."

What is the meaning of an incomplete Kisei?

A "Kes" is the letters Kaf-Samech - transliterated CO. (We will use here
CO for Kes and COA for Kisei).

CO means "like ["keh"] a samech." A samech is the only letter in
original Lashon ha'Kodesh ("Mantzepach tzofim amarum") that is completely
closed. It therefore represents concealment - a lid, as in "Michseh" or
"Kisui", and the vacted space in the mashal of the Arizal for tzimtzum
- the Chalal before the Kav of Or shines in. A chair is me'stomo a COA
because while one is sitting it covers one (also, the seat of a chair
is like and O while its back is like a C).

Without the A, the entire world is C-O - like concealment. What is
missing is the yechido shel olam.

(On a tangent, we have two roshei teivos in Kabbalah - the A"O for Ain
Sof and the O"A for Sitra Achra. Lefi devareinu the roshei tevios are
k'peshutom - if the A is before the O then it is the yechido shel olam
lifnei ha'tzimtzum, but put the A on the OTHER SIDE and it is the one
who seems R"L to be sholeit below, after, the tzimtzum, v'duk. BTW, with
this mahlach you can understand very well why he is called the SaMa-el -
as the Samech and Mem are the two most closed letters in the Alef Beis,
especially, of course, a Mem Sofis, and why the remez to Mordechai in
the Torah - Mara Dachya - has to do with Samim - and why zeh l'umas zeh,
v'yesh l'hosif.)

"B' shlosho devorim ho'odom nikkar, b'CiOo, b'Ca'aOo u'b'CoOo."

What is unique about these three things - they all have letters that
break through the concealment - come between the C and the O. The sum
total of all those three letters - yud, ayin, vav - is again Kos (86)
- but also the shem Elokim (86) - the name that is manifest even in the
tzimtzum - and is therefor the vav ha'chibur (the kav that pierces the
tzimtzum, comes between the C and the O).

There is another word of the same character that breaks through the
tzimtzum: "Lech CnoO es kol ha'Yehudim."

Ha'Melech stam in the Megilla is Melech Malchei ha'melochim HKB"H - but
Ha'Melech in gimatryia equals Haman (95 - v'im taskil tovin b'zeh the
sum total of the middos of the aron and the kappores). Zeh l'umas zeh -
O"A vs. A"O ("Ha'Melech v'Haman"). What is the difference? Haman ends with
a nun sofis - nefila sofis (no nun in Ashrei, v'yesh l'hosif here about
the correlation between nun and samech, and about nun sha'arei bina, ten
lchochom v'yechkam od!). Ha"Melech has a lamed-chof sofis. Lamed is the
migdal porei'ach bo'avir - a chof surmounted by a vav (Havaya'"h) the vav
that goes above the line of the letters into Shomayim - limud. That anchor
in Torah - "Hadar Kibluho b'yimei Achashveirosh" - is what gives the chof
sofis its anchor (its top) to survive even when "ragleho yordos movess"
- the end chof goes beneath the line and comes into contact with the O"A.

"Gedolah *hasoras* ha'taba'as" - "V'ra'u kol afsei aretz es yeshu'as
Elokeinu - eimosai? B'yimei Mordechai v'Esther." (BTW, in modern
Hebrew, of course, Efes is a 0!) - the ta'ba'as, the O was removed -
the concealment was peeled back.

The ultimate Ge'ulah is when the vav ha'chibur - the vov extending to the
second heh (bechinas Malchus, b'yesh l'hovin b'zeh bechinas "Ha'Malkah"
in the Megilla, VEKM"L) in the shem is revealed. Then after all of the
CO we will perceive how all was really connected to the A. Prim is a
miniature experience of that ultimate removal of the Hester and the Kisui.

May we be zocheh to perceive that vav in the CoO of Purim and in the
CoO yeshu'os esah hashto ba'agolo u'b'zman koriv!

AFP!
YGB

> In the discussion a psychologist brings his observation that in
> interviewing children he frequently gets diametrically opposite viewpoints
> from children about the identical event that happened within the
> family....

Psychohistory typically is not useful in understanding reality - though
it might be great literature.

Dr. Shapiro - while acknowledging he is not a historian attempts
nonetheless to use his advanced psychological knowledge to "explain"
why the true picture will never be known. Drawing on his experience in
family counseling he has discovered that different family members report
diametically opposite reports of "the identical events." His assertion
is that since close family members have a psychological agenda their
reports are inherently biased. In other words he claims that there
is often in fact a common reality that everyone sees but because
of psychological biases they are motivated to ignore certain facts
and to enlarge others. Additionally it is typically assumed that the
psychologist - being objective - has a better understanding of reality
than the participants.

I strongly disagree with this type of approach. While I do not deny that
this can happen - it is unfortunate to use such an approach l'chatchila
to explain differences. Often the situation is that a parent or rebbe
in fact has different relationships with different people and thus each
is in fact accurately reporting reality as he sees it.. Concerning a
complex genius such as Rav Soleveitchik - Prof Lawrence Kaplan relying
primarily on the written record has concluded that Rav Soleveitchik
was not a typical Lithuanian rosh yeshiva. Rabbi Meisleman relying on
on his intimate contact as relative and study partner has concluded
that Rav Soleveichik had the traditional Lithuaninan yeshiva values.
There is no need to posit that either of them is psychologically biased
and denies reality. They both are fully aware of the evidence provided
by the other but differ as to which position was more representive of
Rav Soleveitchik's values.

This by the way is the Maharal's explanation of disputes in the gemora.
Similarly the Sefer Ikkarim (3:17) explains that even a prophet could
misunderstand his prophesy - because of failure to interpret correctly
what he actually saw. For example he states that Yeshaya should have
realized that he was in error when he thought he had seen G-d because
Moshe - who was greater- said that it was impossible. Ultimately Yeshaya
was killed because of that cognitive error. He does not suggest that it
was psychological bias.

Finally - Purim - as opposed to Matan Torah - was a time of great and
legitimate confusion of interpreting reality. Was Mordechai a trouble
maker or was he the only one who had the script to the play?

My point - was and is - don't utilize judgmental evaluations such as
that someone was lying or was psychologically blinded when there are more
simple and non judgmental schemata which can explain the data. Only when
this cognitive approach fails - is it appropriate to utilize motivational
or psychological schemata.

                                        Daniel Eidensohn

On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 02:50:35PM -0500, Mendel Singer wrote:
:>What is the correct name for the eighteenth letter of the Aleph-beis? Is
:>there any other letter with two (somewhat, alebit similar) different
:>names?

: What about "daled" vs. "dalet"? Or is this a hebrew vs aramaic issue?

Dalet, as in "door" or, as the Zohar puts it "d'leis lah". (Thus
explaining the gemara's "gimel - dalet -- gomel dalim".)

-mi

On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 09:41:48PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: R' Turkel writes <<< I think most takanot started out as minhagim that
: the rabbis wanted to strengthen by making it an official takanah, >>>

: And those minhagim which did *not* need to be strengthened were not turned
: into takanos, I suppose. Perhaps those minhagim which had already been
: accepted and followed by the majority, are the ones which were allowed to
: remain as minhagim....

Then what about my source, the "beis din shegazru gezeira o tiqnu taqana
*vehinhigu minhag*" of Hil 2:2?

BD does play a role in creating minhagim. Not every werll-accepted
hanhagah is a minhag. (I used to think so, but RCMarkowitz or RCBrown
showed me this ra'ayah in private email a while back.)

-mi

On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 11:17:00AM -0800, Eli Turkel quoted and wrote:
: <<One thing that has always bothered me. If the establishment of the calendar
: was such a momentous event how come it is never mentioned in the gemara. The
: gemara in beitzah is very vague and certainly does not mention Hillel II,
: a Sanhedrin or any such idea....>>

Perhaps it was not a momentous event.

RET later writes (without quote marks):
:  From various gemaras it is obvious that takanot like Rosh Hashana can
: not fall on certain days preceded the establishment of the calendar by
: Hillel II. It is very probable that even this takanah was not done all
: at once but different possibilities were ruled out in different eras.

Hillel II presided over the last Sanhedrin. They therefore had to
premaqadeish the chodesh. As we were using (progressively more accurate)
formulas to know when to accept eidim, they "merely" established the
future months based upon the formula they were using anyway.

IOW, they did not so much invent the calendar as ascribed qedushah to the
future months implied the calendar they inherited, allowing to calendar
to oursurvive the Sanhedrin.

As this would be a necessary step in dismantling Sanhedrin, it didn't
get separate mention.

:  From the whole fight with R. Saadiah Gaon it is clear that the complete
: details of the calendar were not established even by close to end of
: the gaonic era some 400-500 years after R. Ashi.

Then the question becomes whether the last Sanhedrin were meqadeish the
months according to the formula, or allowed for further enhancements
of that formula. In the former case, the debate RSG fought was over
what the forumula they had was. It certainly sounds like the lashon
of the machloqes -- determining the din, not which rule better fits
the astronomy.

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

RSArgomon's father, R' Dr Morris Engelson, sent me an
MS Word file somewhere related to this topic. It's at
<http://www.aishdas.org/articles/miracles.doc>.

Over Shabbos, I cam up with better ways of explaining my two key ideas
in my last posting on this subject.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 07:15:04PM +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
: The only real difference is that segulos (and the like) presume that
: the hidden causes can be non-physical. Which presumes a non-physical
: existance. Even thinking this venue of answers exists persumes a level
: of emunah. Every time our confidence in one of those answers is
: increased we are more convinced of that faith.

A key element of bechirah is the choice between gashmiyus and ruchniyus.
Segulah vs physics pretty much boils down to whether you believe ruchniyus
is involved or not. Therefore believing in the laws that segulos rely
upon already shows a different bechirah-point (to use REED's terminology
as translated by RAC) than non-belief.

I therefore would argue that even an atheistic mechanistic view of
segulos involves damaging the balance of bechirah.

Which is what I later meant by:
: I disagree. I'm arguing that belief in a world in which sheidim exists
: presumes emunah that there is a 2nd, spiritual, reality. To my mind
: that already is avak emunah.

: You're still thinking of science. I'm thinking of stuff you learn
: informally, starting with infancy. Dropped objects fall. Heavy once do
: more damage. Taking two edges of paper and pulling will tear it. Etc...

: Bechirah chafshi is about deciding whether or not I ought to set fire
: to a book (and therefore the predictability of its burning) and only
: rarely whether or not a choose to build a new particle accelerator.

IOW, bechirah chafshi is most affected by the existance of physical laws
as Sammy Sosa mastered them. Not Stephen Hawking's area of expertise.

Therefore, the fact that we are dealing with successive approximations
isn't all that important. The world follows predictable enough rules
for us to make plans and do have some ability lir'os es hanolad.

The laws of segulos are not amenable to this kind of submersion-into-
preconscious learning. There is a parallel to Hawkings' knowledge, but
none to a baby's fear of heights (which is a learned through experience
with gravity and falling).

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

*> I would agree with RGS that the Behag's shita that women are obligated in
*hearing , as opposed to reading the megila is not just a local machlokes,
*but which one which has attracted many approaches from Rishonim and
*Acharonim....

As found in Hilchos Bas Yisrael, note #2 to 22:1, "The Radvaz, in his
commentary on the Rambam, Hilkot Melachim 7:4 states, "Is it the way of
women to wage war?...Yet, we have been taught, 'The bride goes out from
her canopy.' But [the explanation of the mishna in Sotah is] once the
groom leaves his wedding room [to go and fight] his bride is forced to
leave her canopy. She does not celebrate the day of her chuppa."

Thus, it seems that women are still exempt from what we think of as
active warfare. Further on in the notes to the same halacha, we find:

"The Rashash, in his novellae on tractate Sotah, offers another
possibility: 'Perhaps they only go out to cook and bake for the men at the
front [but do not actually participate in the fighting]. The same view is
also expressed by the Tiferet Yisrael in his commentary on the Mishnah."

"Zecher Simcha, #75, cites another interpretation in the name of HaGaon
Rav Ya'akov Etlinger. Women were only required to participate in wars
to conquer the land of Israel during the days of Yehoshua. Since these
wars were carried out pursuant to the mitzvah to conquer Eretz Yisrael in
order to dwell in it [a mitzvah which may be carried out at all times],
they had a non-time-bound character. The war against Amalek, however,
does not involve the conquest of the land of Israel; Amalek is not
counted among the seven nations who live in Eretz Yisrael. Since this
mitzvah is only fulfilled at certain times, women are exempt..."

---Rena

An excellent book on the Jewish calendar is:
Shearim Laluach HaIvri
by Rahamim Sar Shalom
He deals with the history of the calendar on pages 16-30
Kol Tuv and Purim Sameach,
Amihai Bannett

Dear Rabbis this is a very interesting article that a close friend just sent
to me.

I'd love your feedback on it.

Happy Pourim,
Joseph Mosseri

[Perhaps the authors could comment? I also find it interesting that the
same people are discussing the same topic in multiple venues. How do you
decide where to post what? -mi]

From: Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer <frimea@mail.biu.ac.il>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:18:40 +0200
Subject: Women's Megilla Readings and Women and Minyan for Megilla

                        WOMEN'S MEGILLA READINGS
                        (Note: Women for Women!)

               Excerpted from: "WOMEN'S PRAYER SERVICES -
                  THEORY AND PRACTICE", Part 1: Theory
                  by Aryeh A. Frimer and Dov I. Frimer
               Tradition, 32:2, pp. 5-118 (Winter 1998).
     Available at: http://mail-jewish.org/Womens_Prayer_Service.doc

 a) Many leading poskim have concurred that there is no halakhic problem
with women reading Megillah for themselves, individually or in a large
group; see:

(1) In October 1985, R. Chaim Spring requested R. Mordechai Tendler to
discuss with R. Moshe Feinstein the propriety of a women's Megillah
reading held yearly in Rehovot, Israel; R. Tendler answered that R.
Feinstein had no objections to such a reading.

... [deleted for bandwidth, see the URL. -mi]


            WOMEN AND MINYAN FOR THE READING OF THE MEGILLA
          Excerpted from: "Women and Minyan," Aryeh A. Frimer,
                 Tradition, 23:4, 54-77 (Summer 1988).
        Available at: http://mail-jewish.org/Women_and_Minyan.doc

The consensus of leading aharonim is that ten women alone indeed do
constitute a proper minyan for both the reading of the Megillah (in a
regular year and even on Purim Meshulash) and reciting of the ha-rav et
riveinu benediction. See:

... [deleted for bandwidth, see the URL. -mi]

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


[ 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         ]