Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 050

Saturday, November 9 2002

• RE: handshaking
• Re: pasukim that begin and end with the first and last letter of your name
• Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• g Re: zecher/zichron
• Re: g Re: zecher/zichron
• eilu v'eilu
• Re: head covering
• Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• Re: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• RE: Shittas ho'Rambam
• Chazal
• re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?

From: Gil Student [mailto:gil@aishdas.org]
> Moshe Feldman wrote:
> >Aha! Well, then, I would appreciate a sevarah grounded in
> >gemara & rishonim for that hypothesis. As RYHHenkin
> >pointed out, what is required is a maaseh that's derech kiruv
> >basar (people do not shake hands as a warm-up to bi'ah).
> 
> I'm not so sure that RYHenkin's point is so pashut. I've definitely
> seen this elsewhere but can't remember offhand, but the Od Yosef Chai,
> in prohibiting hand-shaking, says that it is "os chibas 
> shalom" and the
> Sdei Chemed says that it is "be-derech chibah ve-rei'us". Evidently,
> they do not require a "derech chibah" that will/can lead to relations.

Not everyone (esp. Sefardic poskim) agrees with the Shach (I believe
the Beis Yosef says otherwise), but Ashkenazic poskim do, by and large.
Od Yosef Chai is Sefardi.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 11/07/2002 1:31:23 PM EST, sbacher@icon.co.za writes:
> Does anybody have a good source to find the pesukim one recites at the
> end of Shmoneh Esrei that begin that refer to ones name.

bar ilan cd

KT
Joel RIch

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> : It is at least a Dochak to say that this is Pshat in the Bracha...
> 
> Then the burden would be to find what compelled the rishonim to offer
> it. Never mind the rishonim, R' Yehudah (who knew R' Meir quite well)
> in the Tosefta (Berachos 6:23).

That is something I would like to know the answer to.

...
> Therefore, men thank G-d for the chiyuvim, and women for being
> created desirable to Him. (To justify: ratzon means desirability, not
> desire. [Thanks RMP!] As in "Yihyu leratzon imrei fi".)

G-d created EVERYBODY desireable to Him. If you are saying that the real
understanding of SheAsani Kirtzono means that women are thanking him
for making them more "perfect" than we once again have the question,
why are man denied this perfection. The answer: More Mitzvos in order
to reach perfection... the argument beomes circular.

Also, there is no equity in the Brahcos. Men are thanking G-d for
the negative... "NOT making me a woman", and women are thanking Him
for the positive... of making him according to His will which seems so
generic! Would it not have made more sense to have composed the Bracha the
same for men as for women like the rest of the Brachos are? We could have
both said SheAsini Kirtzono and made a generic Bracha applicable to both
genders. Instead we have two gender specific Brachos where one sounds anti
woman and the other sounds like... a consolation prize. Please understand
that I am not saying that this is what I beleive to be the reason for the
Brachos. I am only saying that all explanations so far seem to fall short
of what seems like this simple understanding which is derogatory to women.

I know Chazal were not derogatory to women. I simply do not understand.

HM

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 09:33:05PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
:> 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...

I was actually arguing that mesorah assumes that intellect is a function
of the soul, and therefore cognitive issues ARE spiritual ones. (FWIW,
des Cartes also identified the mind with the soul.)

As I said, the Gra in PAKA attributes self-awareness, thought and
emotion to the ru'ach. Gasat ru'ach is an overenlarged sense of "I" --
egotism. The Ramchal places these functions in the nefesh. But both are
making them features of the soul. It's the soul who thinks.

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 01:44:08PM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
:> Then the burden would be to find what compelled the rishonim to offer
:> it. Never mind the rishonim, R' Yehudah (who knew R' Meir quite well)
:> in the Tosefta (Berachos 6:23).

: That is something I would like to know the answer to.

I thought I gave the simple (Ashkenazi) answer: who ever said that
tefillos were crafted tp be taken at face value. Ein davar yotzei miydei
peshuto need not apply to non-pesuqim.

Sepharadim, whose paytanim tried to provide tefillos with simple peshat,
would have a problem.

:> Therefore, men thank G-d for the chiyuvim, and women for being
:> created desirable to Him. (To justify: ratzon means desirability, not
:> desire. [Thanks RMP!] As in "Yihyu leratzon imrei fi".)

: G-d created EVERYBODY desireable to Him. If you are saying that the real
: understanding of SheAsani Kirtzono means that women are thanking him
: for making them more "perfect" than we once again have the question,
: why are man denied this perfection....

That's like asking why aren't we mal'achim. They purely perform retzon
haBorei, and don't require any chiyuvim. Different situations have different
advantages: even if those situations are being created closer to His
ideal (female -- kirtzono) vs being given more opportunity to work toward
that ideal (male - chiyuvim).

But I'm repeating myself. I don't get what's new about your question
that wasn't yet answered.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucious
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

>'Zecher' means 'memory' as in "the memory of the departed" while zichron'
>means 'memory' in the sense of ability to remember things ("he has a good
>memory") or with the sense of  'something that reminds you of something.'
>Hence, in modern Hebrew, terms like: 'zichron devarim' or 'zichron 
>edut.'

I would call that a good try at a distinction, but unfortunately missing
the point.

In qiddush we say zikaron lema`aseh vereishit, while in the 18 we say
zeikher lema`aseh vereishit.

As far as I can see, the meanings of these phrases are totally identical.

---------------------------
IRA L. JACOBSON
---------------------------
mailto:laser@ieee.org

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 10:11:56PM +0200, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
: In qiddush we say zikaron lema`aseh vereishit, while in the 18 we say
: zeikher lema`aseh vereishit.

: As far as I can see, the meanings of these phrases are totally identical.

And then there's "zecher", with the infamous "zeicher" vs "zecher"
distinction.

So, to resturn to the original statement:
>'Zecher' means 'memory' as in "the memory of the departed" while zichron'
>means 'memory' in the sense of ability to remember things ("he has a good
>memory") or with the sense of  'something that reminds you of something.'
>Hence, in modern Hebrew, terms like: 'zichron devarim' or 'zichron
>edut.'

It would seem that zikaron and zeicher can be ideantical. But zecher
isn't. It aregues for RCVilozhiner's position, that "zeicher" is a
reminder or memorial, something used to jog a person's memory. That
would be more similar to the kisharon of memory than a given recollection
(zecher) would.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucious
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

It has been mentioned several times here that RMF in intro holds that
there is one objective emes in halacha. Several have posted against
this idea, citing eilu v'eilu. I was surprised to find support for
RMF in Maharal Be'er HaGolah p. 21 that eilu v'eilu was limited to the
machlokes Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai. All later machlokesin have at
least one side of dvarim bteilim.

Shlomo Goldstein

Look in the Aruch Hashulchan ORACH CHAYIM 2 # 10, last 6 lines.

Josh

> I would add that
>this different approach in understanding the rambam (and the view that
>the rambam's approach may be, with suitable humility, ours) is one of
>the main fault lines between MO and RW, and this discussion illustrates
>how unbridgeable the gap is.

I strongly disagree with the above. The position that the Rambam rejects
chazal's view of astrology is not a position which distinguishes MO
from RW.

It is in fact the well known view of the Gra (YD 179:13) "...However,
every rabbinic authority after the Rambam disagreed with him. This
is because there are many gemoras describing use of Divine names and
witchcraft. The Rambam had such a view because he was influenced
by philosophy. Therefore he writes that witchcraft, use of Divine
names, incantations, demons, and charms are all false. His view is
completely erroneous since we see many descriptions in the gemora of
these things. Even the Torah itself gives examples such as Moshe's staff
turning into a snake. The Zohar also describes these things. And there
are too many cases to enumerate dealing with incantations. Philosophy
has warped his understanding so that he describes all these gemoras as
meaningless or interprets them not according to their plain meaning. I
don't accept the philosophers or their approach. To the contrary, all of
these stories are to be taken literally. While they in fact have a deeper
concealed meaning it is not the understanding of the philosophers which
is merely a superficial understanding but rather that of the kabbalists."

While some chassidim considered the Gra a maskil, I don't think most
of us accept that view. The Rambam as well as Rav Hai Gaon held that
Chazal's views concerning metzius e.g., astrology, science and medicine
are subject to error. Therefore it is astounding to see a respected talmid
chachom assert that Chazal must have had a view that astrology is false
because the Rambam rejected the validity of astrology. The Rambam simply
did not feel bound to their views on the matter.

The Gra wasn't the only authority who held that the Rambam rejected the
views of Chazal -- because of his acceptance of secular authority or
commonsense -- and not because there was a daas yachid in Chazal.

Ran (Drasha #11) "According to the Rambam -- who follows the view of
the secular scholars -- the stars have no influence on man whether for
good or bad....But his view is questionable since this is not the view
of our Sages who mention in the gemora many consequences of the stars
unless the influence is counteracted by doing mitzvos..."

Rashba (ascribed to Ramban #283)"Therefore one should not consult with an
astrologer but should go in the way of temimos as it says (Devarim 18:13)
Be tamim with your G-d. Nevertheless one sees something problematic
from astrology one should do mitzvos and increase prayer. However if
one sees with astrology that a particular day is not good for his work,
he should take precautions and not rely on miracles because I hold that
it is prohibited to go against the decrees of the stars and assume that
a miracle will happen.... One should be aware that astrology is not a
precise science... On the other hand regarding the words of the Rambam
(Hilchos Avoda Zara 11:9) that anyone who lets astrology or signs
dictate how he acts violates the prohibition of magic [Vayikra 19:26]
and also says [Hilchos Avoda Zara 11:16] it is stupidity and nonsense
and anyone who believes in these things is included together with women
and the ignorant masses -- it is not as he says.

Furthermore the typical view found in the Rishonim and Achronim is not
that astrology is false but that it is a violation of temimos. It is
prohibited to consult an astrologer but if one becomes aware of what
they say one should act on that information.

Again look at the Shulchan Aruch (179:1-2):" 1) It is prohibited to ask
about the future from an astrologer or by using a divination technique.
Rema: Because of the prohibition of be tamim with your G-d (Beis Yosef
citing Tosfos based on the Sifri) and it is surely prohibited consult
with magicians and diviners of all types. 2) The accepted practice is
not to start something new on Monday or Wednesday and not to get married
except while the moon is increasing [i.e., first half of the month]. Rema:
This is why it is customary to start the new period of Torah learning on
Rosh Chodesh because even though we don't consult divination we do utilize
propitious signs. If a person knows that some activity is against mazel
he should not do it and have to rely on a miracle. That is because the
prohibition is only to seek out this information because of be tamim with
your G-d [but one should utilize the information if he has acquired it]."

Maharal (Chidushi Agadata Shabbos):Some ask from the (Pesachim 113b) that
says it is prohibited to consult with an astrologer because of the verse
be tamim with your G-d.... The question about the astrologer is not a
problem at all. The prohibition of consulting with an astrologer is going
to ask one but there is nothing wrong with studying astrology. Someone
who knows astrology should utilize this knowledge to protect himself
since G-d made them to have influence. Thus the only prohibition is
asking them not utilizing this information.... The prohibition only
applies for activities which are not mitzvos. This resolves the question
raised by Tosfos as to how Eliezar the servant of Avraham could utilize
signs to determine whether he had found a wife for Yitzchok. Since he was
involved in a mitzva it was completely permitted. This also applies to
consulting with astrologers -- if it concerns a mitzva it is permitted
while otherwise it is prohibited because of be tamim with your G-d.

Ramban(Devarim 18:13) We are not to consult astrologers since G-d has
the ability to change the mazalos according to His will

Ramban(Toras HaShem Temima)The word tamim means whole or complete. In
other words everyone should be entirely with G-d and not devote anything
to the stars or constellations or to demons. Thus we see at the beginning
of the parsha (Devarim 18:9) when you come to the land which G-d has given
to you -- you should not learn to do...because it won't be necessary
since there will be prophets who tell the future -- while the non Jews
know the future from diviners and magicians.

There are many more sources on the subject.

In sum -- there is apparently not a single statement in chazal rejecting
the validity of astrology in ascertaining the influence of the stars
or the fact that the stars influence human events. The Rambam rejected
astrology because he felt it was nonsense not because there is a daas
yichid in Chazal. Rambam did not view himself bound to accept the views
of chazal concerning metzius when they contradicted commonsense.

                                   Daniel Eidensohn

I regret that RDE takes an untenable position. I agree with him that
labels are immaterial, and that being wrong (or right) transcends RW,
MO, etc.

Now, folks, you probably should join us in learning Rav Wolbe, because
as he makes clear, the way one learns Torah is not to introduce one's
own biases into the pursuit thereof, but to hear what the Torah says:
"Vohs shteit!"

But the Torah speaks in rhythms and cadences, in 70 panim and 98 panim,
and was meant to be perceived ever so slightly differently IN NUANCE,
by the protagonists of what became the different schools of thought. That
was the intended chiddush of the Beriah. Unity in Multiplicity.

If you actually read what the Gr"a is saying, he is not saying that the
Rambam induced his "common sense" into Chazal (I choke even on the hava
amina), but, rather, his ear heard Chazal in a certain way because of
his personality, shaped by philosophy.

The same thing, doubtless, the Satmer Rebbe would have said about Rav
Kook, and vice versa, yet both held firmly that they were deducing the
opinions of Chazal, not inducing their own ideas into Chazal.

BTW, who does not know this Gr"a?! Note his glaring omission of astrology
from his litany...

So, Rabbosai, the rest of RDE's post and its "proofs" are as irrelevant
to his position as those of RMShinnar and RMFrankel.

Aderaba! The Rashba serves -- and I thank RDE for this -- as proof for my
position. It is evident that he understands the Rambam to have understood
Chazal that way (I do not see how one can read 11:9 and 16 otherwise,
to be frank). The Ran that he quotes is not as unambiguous he would have
you believe either, as if you look there (p. 205) you will see that he
says: "she'min ha'nireh she'eino ken da'as Razal -- which is perfectly
harmonious with my understanding of those who take issue with the Rambam
on this matter -- they understand him (as the Gr"a expounds in other
areas -- although, not, it seems, astrology...) to have misheard Chazal.

I reiterate: No Rishon imposes his view on Chazal. They hear Chazal
differently. K'shem she'partzufeihem etc.

At 02:45 PM 11/8/02 +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>> I would add that
>>this different approach in understanding the rambam (and the view that
>>the rambam's approach may be, with suitable humility, ours) is one of
>>the main fault lines between MO and RW, and this discussion illustrates
>>how unbridgeable the gap is.

>I strongly disagree with the above. The position that the Rambam rejects
>chazal's  view of astrology is not a position which distinguishes MO from
>RW.

>It is in fact the well known view of the Gra (YD 179:13)  "...However, every
>rabbinic authority after the Rambam disagreed with him. This is because
>there are many gemoras describing use of Divine names and witchcraft. The
>Rambam had such a view because he was influenced by philosophy....

[Email#2. -mi]

You know, Rabbosai, it struck me just now: "Bechhofer, you dunderhead! [I 
know many of you are thinking the same way, but for different reasons...], 
go open the Frankel Madda!" So I did - so you think I am the first one to 
"realize" the Rambam held his approach was pshat in the Gemara?! Of course 
not! So did the Aruch la'Ner and many other fine Jews, who, unlike me of 
course, were not rabid extremists. Turns out I was reinventing the wheel. 
Baruch she'kivanti.

So guys: Get lomdishe. Sit down with the Frankel, Avoda Zara 11:4,8-9,16. 
Enjoy the geshmack of a good shakla v'tarya.

And then you can concede...

As always,
Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

RYGB insists on continuing
You know, Rabbosai, it struck me just now: "Bechhofer, you dunderhead! [I
know many of you are thinking the same way, but for different reasons...],
go open the Frankel Madda!" So I did - so you think I am the first one to
"realize" the Rambam held his approach was pshat in the Gemara?! Of course
not! So did the Aruch la'Ner and many other fine Jews, who, unlike me of
course, were not rabid extremists. Turns out I was reinventing the wheel.
Baruch she'kivanti.

So guys: Get lomdishe. Sit down with the Frankel, Avoda Zara 11:4,8-9,16.
Enjoy the geshmack of a good shakla v'tarya.

And then you can concede...

me
(sigh)
The issue is not whether some held that this was the rambam's pshat in
the gmara - something that in some way, I agree to. The issue is that he
came to this pshat based on extra gmara sources - that based on reason,
he concluded that astrology was false, and then understood the gmara in
light of that understanding.

The fact that many may have held as you is not the issue - Rav Eidensohn
has documented that many rishonim and acharonim have rejected your basic
assumptions about how rishonim approach maamre hazal, and viewed that
the rambam did, indeed, go aainst your assumption that as you said earlier

RYGB
Simply put, Rishonim don't make up stuff. They interpret, extrapolate
BUT NOT MAKE UP SHITTOS BASED ON BOICH SEVAROS OF FALLIBLE HUMAN LOGIC.

me
while the gra writes

The Rambam had such a view because he was influenced by philosophy.
Therefore he writes that witchcraft, use of Divine names, incantations,
demons, and charms are all false. His view is completely erroneous since
we see many descriptions in the gemora of these things.

I am glad to be with the gra's school of understanding what the rambam
meant. If that means that our theologies are completely different...

Meir Shinnar

In the thread about astrology, R' Mechy Frankel asked <<< need I really
point out that the Tiferes Yisroel is not a card carrying member of
chazal? >>>

Can someone teach me what the start and endpoints are for "Chazal"? I've
never really heard a good definition of this term, and always just
presumed it to mean any dead (from "zal") authority (from "chachameinu").
But many people on Avodah seem to take it as a specifically *ancient*
authority, and I'm wondering where the lines are drawn.

Clearly, the acharonim are excluded, but what about rishonim? Perhaps
"chazal" is a collective term for tannaim, amoraim, and geonim? What
about people *before* that era? Could Ezra HaSofer beconsidered among
Chazal? Just wondering...

Akiva Miller

R' Henoch Moshe Levin wrote <<< 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. >>>

Is this a reference to the *creation* of the genders, or or changes that
occured after they ate from the Etz HaDaas Tov V'Ra? I do not recall
any tikkunim for either gender at the initial creation.

Akiva Miller

On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 09:27:44AM -0500, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: All of the above is going only "aliba" R' Harry's proposal in Section
: 2, that the reason for the bracha is related to the greater quantity
: of mitzvos for men. It is entirely possible that the bracha is due to
: other reasons entirely.

That's not RHM's proposal, it's R' Yehudah's in the Tosefta.

AISI, there is no question what the berachah is about. We have its
codifier's talmid's word on the subject.

You might ask why the berakhah doesn't say what it means. To answer RHM,
whether or not "ein davar YMP" ought apply, we know -- davar barur --
that in this case it doesn't. But that's a new question to be asked
and addressed.

Perhaps R' Freundel's he'arah shows that the topic of the three berachos
-- levels of chiyuv -- was obvious to people of the era in which they
were written.

RHM is now asking about why more chiyuvim is the subject for berakha.
Switching to his post:
> Different situations and attendant advantages or disadvantages doesn't
> mean that they are automaticlly different but equal. It just menas
> they are different but not necessarily equal. Don't you see that the
> above statement confers a higher status (spiritual superiority) upon
> women? Women are "closer to His ideal"... men have to work toward
> that ideal?

Agreed. After all, who made the eigel, and who wasn't tempted to do so?

Although, since men have more chiyuvim, they have more opportunities to
become greater. It's those opportunities that merit thanks. So, one thanks
G-d for a starting position, the other for the opportunities to improve
our position.

>            But you also have not explained the nature of the two differing
> constructs of the Brachos: Men in the negative...thanking G-d for NOT
> MAKING THEM a woman, and women in the positive... thanking G-d for
> MAKING THEM more desireable to Him.

The women's berakhah is far newer. It's not necessarily written in
parallel, since the sequence of 3 "shelo asani" don't hold. The men's
berakhah has meaning that derives from context, and parallel language
that simply doesn't hold in the reverse. Perhaps the woman's berakhah
was codified simply to maintain the total number and the waking-up
progression.

-mi

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
...
> I thought I gave the simple (Ashkenazi) answer: who ever said that
> tefillos were crafted tp be taken at face value. Ein davar yotzei miydei
> peshuto need not apply to non-pesuqim.

It seems to me that if "Ein davar yotzei miydei peshuto" should aply
anywhere, it should be by Brachos. Teffilah by it's very nature requires
Kavanah at least in it's optimal form. Kavanah implies understanding. To
say that a Bracha was formulated in such a way that requires Drashos
and Svaros to undertand it seems to undermine the purpose of the
Bracha. Whether a Bracha is written as a means of Shevach to G-d or as
Bakasha from Him, wouldn't it make sense to make the bracha as clear as
Possible in order to minimize any misunderstanding?

...
> : G-d created EVERYBODY desireable to Him. If you are saying that the real
> : understanding of SheAsani Kirtzono means that women are thanking him
> : for making them more "perfect" than we once again have the question,
> : why are man denied this perfection....

> That's like asking why aren't we mal'achim. They purely perform retzon
> haBorei, and don't require any chiyuvim. 

Are you saying that women are created in a purer form, closer to Malachim
than men? That would would argue their spiritual superiority wouldn't
it? Or are you saying that men and women have equal spirtuality. Then
what is the point of giving men more Mitzvos to do?

> Different situations have different
> advantages: even if those situations are being created closer to His
> ideal (female -- kirtzono) vs being given more opportunity to work
> toward
> that ideal (male - chiyuvim).

Different situations and attendant advantages or disadvantages doesn't
mean that they are automaticlly different but equal. It just menas
they are different but not necessarily equal. Don't you see that the
above statement confers a higher status (spiritual superiority) upon
women? Women are "closer to His ideal"... men have to work toward
that ideal?

> But I'm repeating myself. I don't get what's new about your question
> that wasn't yet answered.

See above. But you also have not explained the nature of the two differing
constructs of the Brachos: Men in the negative...thanking G-d for NOT
MAKING THEM a woman, and women in the positive... thanking G-d for
MAKING THEM more desireable to Him.

HM

R' Harry Maryles wrote a post which I consider pretty significant. I'm
going to parse it into four numbered sections:

1) His first question: <<< Why do men thank G-d for not making them
women? >>>

2) He proposed a problematic answer: <<< If it is because men have more
Mitzvos, why are women deprived of them? >>>

3) That problem is based on this presumption: <<< The fact that they are
given special dispensation because of child rearing responsibilities... >>

4) But he finds that presumption troubling: [That dispensation] <<<
means that they cannot hope to reach a man's level of spirituality as
they are Aino Metzuvah and even if they would do all the Mitzvos Aseh
SheHazman Grammah, it doesn't equal the same Schar as does a Metzuveh
V'Oseh. One cannot say that a woman's Mitzvah of child rearing is the
same as a man's Mitzvos Aseh SheHazman Grammah because that would void
the answer to my SheLo Asani Isha question. IOW Man wouldn't have more
Mitzvos, just different ones. >>>

I'd like to suggest the following: I totally agree that the problems
listed (sec. 4) are formidible. Therefore, it is my belief that the
presumption in section 3 is faulty.

The dispensation given to women is not because of child-rearing
responsibilities. If it were, we'd find them (or some form of them)
applied to single fathers, and/or we'd find that childless women do not
have this dispensation. In addition, there are so many exceptions to the
"zman grama" rule that I find it much simpler to consider that rule a
"siman", and not a "siba"; determining what the true siba is, ahh,
there's a real challenge.

It is my feeling that the dispensation must be for some other reason. I'm
open to other ideas, but the simplest would seem to be that for some
reason, women don't need those mitzvos. Why women don't need them is
something we'll continue to talk about.

All of the above is going only "aliba" R' Harry's proposal in Section
2, that the reason for the bracha is related to the greater quantity
of mitzvos for men. It is entirely possible that the bracha is due to
other reasons entirely.

Akiva Miller

This is in response to the comments of R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer, R'
Daniel Eidensohn and R' Mordechai at Phyllostac@aol.com:

1) RYGB: Thank you for informing me that there is nothing on this topic in
the works of R' Tzaddok, but I am reasonably sure that there is something
out there elsewhere.

2) R' DE and R' Mordechai: Let us return to the passage that R' DE quoted
in the beginning:

"Male & Female He created them" 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..."

Now if the teachers of this idea mean that women are superior in all ways
and across the board, I am with the critics. Frankly, though, I find that
implausible; I imagine that they mean that women are superior in some ways
(although perhaps they stress the significance of those aspects).

If then the author of this sefer is saying that they did not come up with
a source for the idea that women are superior in some way, then I think
the two sources I suggested (and that the author purportedly deals with)
fit the bill. It does not make a difference, as R' Mordechai argued,
that elsewhere in the Maharal's oeuvre he focusses at great length
upon the superior aspects af men. The passage in his Derashos states
a complete point and at the very least describes a single valid aspect
of the superiority of women over men. The example R' Mordechai brought
from daatan kalos/binah yeseirah proves this point. If I saw the Gemara
of daatan kalos and nothing else, I would at least know that in some
aspect, their daas is reckoned kal. I agree though that in understanding
the significance of the individual aspects, you must see the entire
"voluminous multifaceted corpus" related to the subject.


In regard to R' DE's comment that "Male & Female He created them does
discuss the above sources. He points out that neither of them indicate
that women are spiritually superior to men in some way but only that they
have different characteristics than men." I think that is a semantic
defense: If women as a gender have a greater faithfulness to their
convictions and a greater sense of duty, then that indicates greater
spiritual aspects. In any case, one cannot criticize the teachers of
the idea that women are spiritually superior in some respects because
they do not make this distinction.

Good Shabbos,
Henoch Moshe Levin
[And thank you for welcoming me to the Chevra]

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


[ 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         ]