Avodah Mailing List
Volume 10 : Number 047
Tuesday, November 5 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:46:59 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 03:56:14AM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
: But if they are equel in some ways and superior in
: others, why thank G-d for not making us women? Doesn't it make us
: equal enough for men not feel thankful for not making them women?
I said inferior in some says and superior in others.
Most rishonim hold the berachah is about thanking HQBH for more
chiyuvim. Not for spiritual status. The Taz (see below) has another
explanation, also not about diversity.
When you do explain the berakhah to a hostile party, two points ought
be useful:
1- The rishonim had no motivation to write an apologetic in defense of the
accusation of sexism. Sexism would not have been considered a negative --
or even considered at all -- by their contemporaries.
2- If someone doesn't like the berakhah, the solution is to learn
more about the berakhah, not reject it in ignorance. The non-O Jew's
willingness to reject the berakhah shows a lack of faith in Jewish
tradition and that there /is/ something there if you look for it.
Here's an email I wrote to a not-specifically frum forum (where most
people assume the worst of "shelo asani ishah") on the subject. Culled
from sources provided in an old MJ discussion. I had already mentioned
that Rashi says the berachos are for the extra chiyuvim incumbent on men.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's also given in the Tur and the majority of nosei keilim ("armor
bearers") on the page of the SA.
I thought the Rashi was on the gemara that dicusses the three berachos,
Menachos 43b, DH "hainu ishah", 2nd position. (The first suggestion is
that it's because a woman is stuck serving her husband.) Also the Rosh
ad loc.
In short, it's the majority opinion. Rashi sticks in my head because he
is on an amud I studied repeatedly before starting to wear murex-dyed
tzitzis -- the majority of the page is about techeiles.
The MA (OC 46 sk 9) even uses it to derive a halachah. If someone
accidentally skipped one of the three berachos, and says a later one
first, he should not go back. After thanking G-d for having more mitzvos
than a woman, how can you thank Him for having more mitzvos than a
non-Jew or slave? It's implied already.
The Bach (sorry for being historically out-of-sequence) uses a similar
argument to explain why the blessing is "shelo asani goy", like Beis
Hillel, rather than Beis Shammai's "she'asani Yisrael". The other position
would make the other two blessings redundant.
The Taz flips the whole thing around, not making it about mitzvos.
According to him, it's about the need for diversity in creation. If
you say she'asani Yisrael, you are implying that Yisrael has function
in creation, and non-Jews do not. In this negative form you're at least
acknowledging that G-d had a purpose in creating non-Jews. He continues
WRT our question "WRT women, it is more critical to remember that there
is a higher [quality] in the creation of women, but he does not need that
quality." (Or is it "He doesn't need [everyone to have] that quality"?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next bit I thought would be particularly powerful to a non-O audience.
Unfortunately, the Sunday Supplement would be more readily accepted by
many of our brothers than quotes from our own religion.
My apologies to those who are offerended by being exposed to non-Jewish
scriptures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
R' Freundel (of Georgetown, Washington DC) suggests that the three brachos
were chosen (as opposed to the versions in Tosefta Berachos ch 6) for
an anti-Pauline polemic.
Contrast to Paul's letter to the Galatians, ch 3 (KJV):
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse:
for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all
things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is
evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of
faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for
us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through
Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through
faith. ...
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs
according to the promise.
(Other versions have "gentile" for "Greek".)
Note his statement: the Law distinguishes between Jew and non-Jew,
slave and freeman, man and woman, but his new religion doesn't.
Same three contrasts, made about how many mitzvos one has.
Ad Kan --------------------------------------------------------------------
-mi
--
Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 16:08:51 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 03:55:40PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Binah yeseirah (Intuition) is a cognitive not spiritual ability.
According to the Ramchal (I don't know where, I saw this in an intro to
Tomer Devorah written by the meivi la'or) and the Gra (Peirush al Kama
Agados), chochmah, binah and da'as reside in the ru'ach. According to
the L Rebbe Rashab, each of NaRa"N Cha"I have their own copy of ChaBa"D
(as well as ratzon and ta'anug).
The dichotomy of mind and soul seems not to be inherent and mesorah.
Nor is it clear "binah" is intuition. The first point of insight is
usually (Tanya, Hirsch's Collected Writings) with the sefirah of chochmah,
and binah is more deduction and logical elaboration of that initial idea.
Hirsch connects "binah" to "bein" (to make distinctions) and "boneh".
Vehara'ayah: "lehavin davar mitoch davar" (Rambam, Hil' TT).
Da'as is the synthesis of the two. Knowledge, but unlike zikaron,
knowledge about how to think. (Which connects us to the da'as Torah
discussion.) But it also limits the avenues of binah -- logical
elaboration limited to only doing so the /right/ way.
-mi
--
Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 11:04:23 -0500
From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
Subject: Re: Atzas Gedolim
"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
> That the ruach ha'kodesh that is inherent in yedi'as ha'Torah enhances
> their intellectual processes so they are more likely to be mechaven el
> ho'emes
We agree about this (at least about the result). How is "enhances"
different from "augments"?
I don't understand the mechanism. I don't think the mechabnism you
propose fits either the Ramban's opinions or my own. I doubt that
the Ramban thought that ruach hakodesh acts on the sechel. He says
explicitly that he disagrees with the Rambam and with the Kuzari about
the mechanism of nevuah (in particular, he denies the role they assign
to the active intellect and it's relation with the human intellect).
The Ramban (in Toras HaShem Temimah and several other places) lists
various dilute forms of prophecy, and he includes bas kol but not ruach
hakodesh. I found no place where he defines ruach hakodesh or explains
how it works. Any ideas? Any sources? There is a discussion in Iggeres
HaKodesh, but that's not by the Ramban, so I don't know if it's relevant.
> (and, I think, although this is not b'feirush in the Ramban, that
> in certain instances their rulings/advice determine emes).
Right now I'm trying to understand the Ramban's opinion. Any evidence
that he thinks that?
David Riceman
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 14:35:52 GMT
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject: tosaphot
< IF Agus is right that Tosafos were out to justify minhag Ashkenaz even
if we can only find a handful of Tosafos-notes that actually set out
to do so (our lack of chulios in tzitzis, mayim achronim, anyone know
of others?) -- out of how many thousands? Not enough to claim that it's
their standard methodology.
Taking Tosafos at face value, they were out to make Shas consistant,
not justify some external datum. >
I don't think Agus ever meant that was the only reason for tosaphot.
Obviously their main purpose was explaining the Gemara. He meant that
when the sugya impacted on local minhag they tried to defend minhag
Ashkenaz. They did not avoid sugyot on tumah or korbanot because it
didn't affect local minhag
--
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 04/11/2002
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 08:53:24 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
At 06:16 PM 10/31/02 -0500, Michael Frankel wrote:
>RYGB:(in an exchange with someone else) <<..So irrelevant the mind
>begins to boggle. Chazal often dismiss astrology themselves. The leap
>from there to rejecting a Beraisa in..>>
>This unfootnoted assertion is interesting, since I know of no chazal's
>which "dismiss astrology" but am eager to learn of such. Of course there
>are a number of chazal who dismiss the notion that astrology controls the
>destiny of Israel (ein mazal l'yisroel) but not even they dispute the
>"normal" efficaciousness of astrological enterprise -- say as applied
>to goyim. But, perhaps RYGB could cite one and demonstrate that I'm wrong?
Sanhedrin 65b, Lo T'onenu
Pesachim 113b, Tamim Tihyeh
See the famous Tiferes Yisrael on mazal, end of Kiddushin in the Boaz and
Margaliyos ha'Yam to Sand., ibid. #36.
Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/rygb
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:40:06 -0500
From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Nefilas Apayim - practice of the Rav ztl
>Did the Rav zt'l hold that one should do nefilas apayim
>(i.e., kisui panim with arm on forehead) when reciting
>tachanun even where there are no s'forim present? [See
>SA, Orach Chayim siman 131:2 and the MB there.]
>Regardless, are there sources for such practice?
I know that his grandson, R' Mayer Twersky, once announced to the shiur
that he (RMT) held that we should do nefilas apayim when there is no
Sefer Torah in the room. He then said that the most important thing
is that we all follow the same practice so, if anyone wanted, we could
take a vote on whether or not to do nefilas apayim. But this was when
there were seforim in the room.
Regarding not doing nefilas apayim when there are no seforim, the Beis
Yosef quote the Rokeach as the source of this din (re: Sefer Torah
but seforim as a substitute seems to be a later innovation) and adds
"ve-ani omer im kabbalah nekabel ve'im le-din yesh teshuvah".
Gil Student
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:56:26 -0600 (CST)
From: sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu
Subject: Re: Atzas Gedolim
David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com> writes on Mon, 04 Nov 2002 11:04:23 -0500:
> "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
>> That the ruach ha'kodesh that is inherent in yedi'as ha'Torah enhances
>> their intellectual processes so they are more likely to be mechaven el
>> ho'emes
> We agree about this (at least about the result). How is "enhances"
> different from "augments"?
I understand "augment" as extrinsic (an harkava shichnis) while "enhance"
is intrinsic (an harkava mizgis). May just be semantics.
> I don't understand the mechanism. I don't think the mechabnism you
> propose fits either the Ramban's opinions or my own. I doubt that
> the Ramban thought that ruach hakodesh acts on the sechel. He says
> explicitly that he disagrees with the Rambam and with the Kuzari about
> the mechanism of nevuah (in particular, he denies the role they assign
> to the active intellect and it's relation with the human intellect).
I am amused taht you, of all people, whom I know reasonably well and
respect deeply for intellectual rigor (not to mention knowledge, eudition
and wisdom), should admit that your own bias sways your perception *twice*
in the same paragraph!
> The Ramban (in Toras HaShem Temimah and several other places) lists
> various dilute forms of prophecy, and he includes bas kol but not ruach
> hakodesh. I found no place where he defines ruach hakodesh or explains
> how it works. Any ideas? Any sources? There is a discussion in Iggeres
> HaKodesh, but that's not by the Ramban, so I don't know if it's relevant.
Through the wonders of the DBS search engine, yes, Sha'ar ha'Gemul #123.
There, he speaks about the RhK one enjoys by virtue of being present in
Jerusalem (!) and of the analagous RhK enjoyed in the Mesivta d'Rekia, and
alludes to our Gemara as well. The linkage to nevuah is fairly explicit. I
believe my understanding of the Ramban is essentially explicit there, ayain
sham.
>> (and, I think, although this is not b'feirush in the Ramban, that
>> in certain instances their rulings/advice determine emes).
> Right now I'm trying to understand the Ramban's opinion. Any evidence
> that he thinks that?
No, I admitted as much. I'm conflating R' Tzadok and Ramban. Can't we
have some fun?!
"These things are fun and fun is good" - Dr. Seuss, "One Fish, Two Fish"
KT,
YGB
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:02:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 03:56:14AM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
>: But if they are equel in some ways and superior in
>: others, why thank G-d for not making us women? Doesn't it make us
>: equal enough for men not feel thankful for not making them women?
> I said inferior in some says and superior in others.
IOW more or less equal. So... what are we thanking G-d for?
> Most rishonim hold the berachah is about thanking HQBH for more
> chiyuvim. Not for spiritual status.
What's so great about having more Chiyuvim?
> When you do explain the berakhah to a hostile party, two points ought
> be useful:
> 1- The rishonim had no motivation to write an apologetic in defense of the
> accusation of sexism. Sexism would not have been considered a negative --
> or even considered at all -- by their contemporaries.
My question does not stem from concerns about societity's views on
sexism. It is simply a question about what the intent of the Bracha
is. I have yet to find a satisfying answer.
> 2- If someone doesn't like the berakhah, the solution is to learn
> more about the berakhah, not reject it in ignorance. The non-O Jew's
> willingness to reject the berakhah shows a lack of faith in Jewish
> tradition and that there /is/ something there if you look for it.
When a non-Frum person asks the question it may be from the perspective
of a cultural bias toward feminism. But this doersn't invalidtae the
question nor does it necessarily imply lack of faith. It is a simple
question that does not, obviously, have a simple answer. I have been
trying to "learn more about the berakhah" ever since I had the question
back in the seventies. In fact I'm willing to concede that my question
may have been stimulated by feminism but as I said that does not make
it an invalid querstion.
HM
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 01:19:20 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
:> I said inferior in some says and superior in others.
: IOW more or less equal. So... what are we thanking G-d for?
Not sure about this question, given it's about to be answered in the
next paragraph:
:> Most rishonim hold the berachah is about thanking HQBH for more
:> chiyuvim. Not for spiritual status.
: What's so great about having more Chiyuvim?
I guess you've never made a bar mitzvah. Or recall R' Yosef's joy at
learning that his blindness didn't patur him.
"She'anu mashkimim veheim mashkimim..."
"Gadol hametzuveh ve'oseh..."
So we men thank HQBH for having these opportunities for avodah, and
women thank G-d for being more "kirtzono" and not needing them.
There is something positive to each side of the bargain (as you note
above) and therefore each has something to thank HQBH for. (Assuming
you hold that a berakhah serves to thank, as per the Avudraham.)
:> When you do explain the berakhah to a hostile party, two points ought
:> be useful:
:> 1- The rishonim had no motivation to write an apologetic in defense of the
:> accusation of sexism. Sexism would not have been considered a negative --
:> or even considered at all -- by their contemporaries.
: My question does not stem from concerns about societity's views on
: sexism. It is simply a question about what the intent of the Bracha
: is. I have yet to find a satisfying answer.
As I said, "when you need to explain the berakhah to a HOSTILE party"
(emph added), not you -- but some "O is sexist" biased person you might
have to answer.
: When a non-Frum person asks the question it may be from the perspective
: of a cultural bias toward feminism. But this doersn't invalidtae the
: question nor does it necessarily imply lack of faith. It is a simple
: question that does not, obviously, have a simple answer...
Why not? There is a clear consensus of rishonim, which R' Fruendel even
notes is consistant with non-Torah writings of the period.
The question, if any still remains, is with thanking G-d for extra
chiyuvim, not the intent or sexism of the berakhah.
Or, for the hypothetical hostile party, the sexism of the halachos that
pardon women from all those extra chores.
-mi
--
Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 19:49 +0200
From: BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL
Subject: Re: CI - was Violating the Will of the majority
TOSAFOT: saying that "Tosafot" does this and does that doesn't take into
account that there were over 800 (eight hundred) baalei tosafot over 5
generations in 4 different countries.
Josh
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:52:03 -0500
From: "Michael Frankel" <michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Yarmulkes and IM - but London too
From: "Michael Frankel" <michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com>
>refugee german community -- RSHR's transplanted q'hilloh -- and can assure
> you that these yekkish chareidim (they were also solid aguda supporters)
> generally did not wear any head covering in the workplace. I can also
> assure you that r moshe had nothing to do with it...
From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
> But did the Melamed leHoil, who was IIRC in Germany?
While I do not know what the m'lamed l'ho'il personally did -- the only
picture I recall seeing certainly had him in a kippoh -- I would be
surprised if he did not always wear head covering -- but then again, his
day job was rector of the berlin (hildesheimer) rabbinical seminary --
(where his two immediate successors were r arye Kaplan and the s'ridei
aish), which is to say full time in a jewish environment. Perhaps more
interesting and instructive is a t'shuvoh which i recall by the same
m'lameid l'ho'il (I'm at work and can't check out my volume at home for
the exact cite right now) where he mentions, en passant, his visit to
RSRH's school in Frankfurt and the removal(!) of head coverings by the
talmidim when they finished their limudei qodesh and turned to limudei
chol. What was striking (to our modern preconceptions and ingrained
sensibilities to be sure) was not just the mere fact that such would
be the practice in RSRH's very own school, but the en passant nature of
the remark itself. R.D.Z. Hoffman evidently did not think it remarkable
enough to even take special note.
on a completely orthogonal note, i would solicit some information from any
of the UK membership re places to arrange shabbos meals in london. while
i've traveled to london quite often on official business and have always
benefited by the kindness of locals who have unfailingly invited me for
meals, including a few in the golders green area who are now personal
friends, i am coming this time with a large retinue of family members (we
are something on the order of 10 people, including a couple of kiddies)
which is far too many for the usual casual but gracious hospitality which
i normally enjoy on my ordinary travels. (why we are doing this is a
long story -- the short version of which that it's all a big mistake
from which i can't gracefully extricate myself), so i would like to
know whether any organized activities exist which provide for reserving
shabbos meals in the golders green area (we'll be staying at the croft
court). of course we've thought of simply buying challoh/wine/etc and
simply eating dinner in the hotel's downstairs which is my fallback plan,
but am curious whether any more organized options, such as exist in paris,
might be available.
Mechy Frankel W: (703) 845-2357
michael.frankel@osd.mil H: (301) 593-3949
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 13:54:22 -0700 (MST)
From: Daniel Israel <daniel@pluto.ame.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Psak and Smicha
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
> In a message dated 10/7/2002 12:31:35 PM EST, cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
>> IIRC Rav Henkin gave a definition during one of our discussions of
>> the Yoatzot. From what I remember (bli neder will try to find it
>> later), it had something to do with extrapolating from a case given
>> in the Gemara/SA to real life which is considered psak and is not
>> allowed. To read a s'if in SA is - according to Rav Henkin IIRC - not
>> considered psak and allowed for a woman to do.
> Bepashtus any educated lay person can cite Mar'eh Mkomos.
> So any lay baki in Codes or in Tshuvos can simply point a person in
> the right direction w/o officially doing ho'ra'ah
I don't see that this clarifies much. Of course anyone can say "this
is discussed in such and such a place, but there may be other relavant
sources I'm not aware of." In many of the "borderline" cases I can find
a s'if in SA which might appear to give me a clear answer, but a posek
(however you define it) would take into account other sources (either
arguing on the SA, or bringing in other relavant inyanim). So saying
"this is clear from such and such an SA" is, in some cases, psak, no?
Of course, if I simply refer someone to a source, with an appropriate
disclaimer, I haven't given a psak - but I haven't helped either.
Certainly it would often be inappropriate for the person to then pasken
for themselves (based on my suggestion).
--
Daniel M. Israel
<daniel@cfd.ame.arizona.edu> 1130 North Mountain Ave.
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical The University of Arizona
Engineering Tucson, AZ 85711
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 19:05:14 -0500
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject: Re: Takannat Hakahal - RG
RDEidensohn sent me the following information:
<<Look at YD II #4 where he specifically refers to Agudas HaRabonim. is dated
5723
Rabbi Bleich Vol I page 227 says the ruling was dated 27 Elul 5730.
IOW l'misparam this was either written in 1963 or 1970.
REMTeitz had written:
<<From its formation in the early years of the twentieth century until the
late 60s, the Agudas Horabonim was one of the foremost rabbinic bodies,
and -- beginning with WWII -- *the* foremost, having as its members
virtually every posek of consequence in the United States and Canada.
Although the practice of Yiddishkeit in America was abysmal, it possessed
talmidei chachamim of stature far beyond anything we have today. Indeed,
RMF was far from the dominant Torah personality in the Agudas Horabonim
of those days; there were many who were considered on his level as a
talmid chacham, and several who were equally rated as poskim, albeit
few were as accessible as he.
When the Agudas Horabonim made a takanah, it was considered by virtually
all rabbonim as binding.>>
From Micha Berger (responding to my post suggesting that RMFeinstein's
gzeirah was not binding):
> You seem to have forgotten REMT's decription of American yahadus of the
> period and the IhR's role. It /does/ sound much like the Va'ad Arba
> Aratzos.
Rabbi Teitz told me in shul that during the 60's the Agudas Harabonim
was a dying organization, and that it certainly did not compare to the
Vaad Arba Aratzos. AH represented the European-born rabbonim, but the
American-born rabbonim joined other organizations.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 10:55:14 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject: Tefillin on Chol HaMoed
The new issue of Mevakshei Torah indicates that Rav Shach zt"l put on
Tefillin on Chol HaMoed b'tzina. He refused to tell the person who asked
whether he made a bracha (apparently in Europe he did).
-- Carl
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 07:53:08 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Atzas Gedolim
At 12:51 PM 11/4/02 -0500, David Riceman wrote:
>> Through the wonders of the DBS search engine, yes, Sha'ar ha'Gemul #123.
>I'm not sure how you're referencing. Is there a page number and edition
>(I have Chavel and a recent edition of Chiddushei haRamban al Shas)?
p. 298 in the R' Chavel ed.
Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/rygb
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 13:02:16 -0500
From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
Subject: Re: Atzas Gedolim
sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu wrote:
> Through the wonders of the DBS search engine, yes, Sha'ar ha'Gemul #123.
> There, he speaks about the RhK one enjoys by virtue of being present in
> Jerusalem (!) and of the analagous RhK enjoyed in the Mesivta d'Rekia, and
> alludes to our Gemara as well. The linkage to nevuah is fairly explicit.
Now that Rabbi B has provided this source, I can muse about one of
my initial questions: under what circumstances do gedolim get ruach
hakodesh? In particular:
0) Must the gadol be a mekubbal? 1) need it be in response to a question,
or does it apply to unsolicited advice? 2) what restrictions are there
on the subject of advice (e.g. would it work for recommending a good
algorithm for calculating log(x))? 3) does the gadol always get ruach
hakodesh, or is it intermittent? 4) does he recognize that the answer
comes via ruach hakodesh?
I hope to have some time this Shabbos to do actual research, but meanwhile
my kishkes are contradicting each other (does one have but two kishkes,
or are there a large supply?). As a casual reader of thirteenth
century Spanish mystics I suspect that this should work only if the
gadol performs an appropriate kavannah (an anachronistic term which I
hope you'll excuse). OTOH as an occasional reader of halachic texts
I suspect this ought to apply without appropriate kavannoth, but only
when the advice is to be used for avodas hashem, and possibly only in
formal contexts (e.g. bes din).
If anyone has suggestions for useful sources, especially, but not
exclusively, by the Ramban, I would be glad to hear about them.
David Riceman
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:41:08 +0200
From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Subject: Re: Takannat Hakahal - RG
>Rabbi Teitz told me in shul that during the 60's the Agudas Harabonim was a
>dying organization, and that it certainly did not compare to the Vaad Arba
>Aratzos. AH represented the European-born rabbonim, but the American-born
>rabbonim joined other organizations.
More detailed information about the history of Agudas Harabonim is found
in Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet's book "The Silver Era: Rabbi Eliezer Silver and
his Generation. Rabbi Silver was an officer in the organization for 51
until his death in 1968"
Daniel Eidensohn
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 12:54:47 EST
From: HENOCHMOSHE@aol.com
Subject: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
R' Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> cited "Male & Female He created
them" as follows:.
> 2) p 132 "A number of recent books in English propose this idea of women's
> spiritual superiority over men, and reportedly, the idea is taught as
> well in numerous schools for women. The reader should note that none of
> the books in question offer a classical source for the idea and none of
> the several teachers of the idea have been able to supply a source..."
In response, let me posit first that any source we will find will not
claim that women are spiritually superior to men across the board;
rather, as R' Micha Berger intimated in this thread, they are superior
in some respects while men are superior in others. [And in still other
respects the two may be equal.]
With that in mind, please examine Derashos HaMaharal (printed at the
end of Be'er HaGolah, pp.27-28 in the popular London edition) and R'
Samson Raphael Hirsch to Leviticus 23:43, end. Each makes the point that
women are spiritually superior to men in some way.
More fundamentally, one must keep the following in mind: In the Torah's
description of the creation of the genders, we see that the female
underwent more tikkun at the hands of the Ribbono shel Olam than did
the male. I have to believe that this has profound implications in the
spiritual dimension, but my am haartzius in the works of R' Tzaddok
and the like denies me any sources. So here I appeal to my dear friend,
R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer, to enlighten us with any mareh mekomos on
this point.
Henoch Moshe Levin
[This is my first post.]
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:33:05 +0200
From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Subject: Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 03:55:40PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>: Binah yeseirah (Intuition) is a cognitive not spiritual ability.
[From me: -mi]
> The dichotomy of mind and soul seems not to be inherent and mesorah.
I agree that a clear cut dichotomy is not inherent and that in fact
chochma, binah and daas can be used for both cognitive and spiritual
issues. On the other hand it seems clear from the way this term
binah yeseira (BY) is used in the classical sources that the intent
of the sources is to convey what we today label as cognitive and not
spirituality.
Nidah(45b). Age of adulthood in a woman is before man because of BY. This
is concerned with age of independence of vows. Sotah (35b). Goyim were
expected to learn Torah from the plastered stones because they had BY and
knew to peel off the plaster. Rokeach (Commentary to Siddur). Beracha
says the rooster was given Binah. It can ascertain the rains and it
is one of only two birds where the sound of the male and female are
distinct. Thus the rooster is an exemplar of binah and that is the reason
for the beracha.
It is also possible that one must distinguish between the term binah and
binah yeseirah and it is also possible that in the world of kabbala and
chassidus that the term has the connotation of spirituality.
Again the simple question is - are there any sources which directly say
that women have greater spirituality than men?. If there are do any say
that it is a result of binah yeseirah?
One possible resolution is suggested by Shut Yehuda Ya'aleh I YD #248
that the Binah Yeseira was only for Chava before the chet. He also notes
that our experience is that boys mature intellectually prior to girls
in agreement with R' Eliezar not Rebbe in the gemora. Thus the verse is
only an asmachta to reinforce something which in fact is halacha l'Moshe.
Daniel Eidensohn
Go to top.
*********************
[ 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 ]