Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 032

Monday, June 23 2003

• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: Kiddush bemakom se'uda
• Prika u'T'ina
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• RE: schar ve-onesh
• existential angst
• Re: Defining ervah: woman's hair covering
• Re: perika u-te'ina
• Re: Defining ervah: woman's hair covering
• Re: existential angst
• RE: Revadim Project
• RE: existential angst

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:24:59AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer  wrote:
: > I don't understand your question. He quotes three shittos.
: > How does his further discussion of the third shitah in ShT
: > change the presence of the fist and 2nd in the MB itself?

: Where do you see three shitos? I see Tosfos and the Mordechai 
: regarding b'tzia generally, who say that the guests should not eat 
: unless the ba'al bayis eats ...

(I'm now repeating myself.)

The shitah quoted in the Rama comes in two flavors. The first assumes
this is only if the ba'al habayis is not mocheil his right. The second
is that of the Derishah, that he can.

: I see the Drisha - not contradicting the previous two ...

Then why does the MB call it a veyeish omerim?

:                                                        and I see the 
: Taz, the Graz and the Magen Giborim (the latter two being brought as 
: "she'ar achronim" or the consensus) saying that since they cannot eat 
: anyway, he should eat before distributing to them. I don't see any of 
: those shitos being cholek on each other.  

This is a third shitah. The two versions of Tos' shitah is that it's
only tasting that is at issue.

In contrast to what you wrote:
...
: > The other two shitos are variants of what Tos and Mordechai hold. That
: > those achronim who do not hold like the rishonim  hold like the Taz
: > doesn't change the Rama's words.

: No, they're explaining Tosfos and the Mordechai.

Prove this? Is there a "since" for your "since they cannot eat
anyway?

: ...
: > While I agree with RCS that that's the ShT, I need to reraise the
: > question of how do you know whether that's the din. You're identifying
: > "the rest of the acharonim [ie those who disagree with the rishonim]"
: > with "the consensus of acharonim".

: Well, one way I know it is by looking up the Bach :-) The Bach (167:16)
: says " she'ha'botzea y'hei nizhar l'chatchila LITOM MEYAD v'lo lases
: lifnei kol echad chelko kodem she'yitom hu."

Bringing more voices to the machloqes doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org            I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org       I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            -  Rabinranath Tagore

R"n Rena Freedenberg wrote <<< Women are MUCH cleaner than men in general
and much more likely to be zrizot in the case of uncleanliness. >>>

My first reaction is to totally agree. IIRC there's something in Gemara
Pesachim about how the men should do bedikas chometz because the women
will be *too* zariz and go overboard. (Or it that another "phantom
maamar chazal"?)

In any case, we cannot ignore the fact the the Mishna Brurah did write
that women "ain zrizos li'zaher". Our next task will be to see from whom
he took those words, and where that idea originated. Any takers?

Akiva Miller

> I didn't look them up (he recommended I buy a Yad Moshe, BTW which I
> really should have long ago), but it's in Igros Moshe, I believe he said
> 4th volume OC AND 3rd volume YD, or vice versa.

I have five citations of kiddush bemakom se'uda on page 346 Shabbos:Kiddush
    CM I #39 page 78
    OC IV #63 page 97
    OC IV #63.2 page 99
    OC V #16.7 page 33
    OC I #100 page 160

If I missed something please notify me

    Daniel Eidensohn

I looked up the She'arim Mitzuyanim b'Halacha that R. Elly Krimsky cited
earlier today (189:1). He paskens that the obligation to help with a
masuy on a car or truck only applies (at all) if the car or truck is
broken down (or stuck).

I can walk past moving vans again :-)

-- Carl

Reb Joel asked what the rate prevalence is of urinary incontinence
in males vs. females. I just went over an epidemiological study
which examined over 100 prior papers and examined the findings for
heterogeneity. Taking into account all the types of incontinence
(stress, urge, overflow [bladder obstruction], total [vesicovaginal]
and stratified by age, the average rate in males in 2.2% and in females
over 19.3%. That's an odd's ratio of 8.7 and very significant.

Halachically, one could surmise that males don't have a chazaka for
incontinence whereas females do have a chazaka for this. Ergo, females
have a chazaka of NOT having a "guf naki". BTW in multiparous females
(women who have had more than 1 child) the rate goes up to anywhere from
28 to 60%.

Josh

I wrote <<< Everything I do between my saying hamotzi and my eating the
challah can be seen as l'tzorech my own eating: a) I say Hamotzi. b) I cut
several slices, because the first slice is often not the best slice. >>>

R' Carl Sherer challenged: <<< And the halachic significance of the
"best" slice is? >>>

Okay, I think you've got me on this one. I had thought there was a
halacha instructing the botzea to eat from the "best" part of the loaf.
It seems I've misunderstood or misremembered the beginning of Siman
167, which attaches some kind of importance to the crust. I'll have to
learn that again, but at first glance, it looks like whatever is being
demanded there can be accomplished with the first slice, and does not
involve choosing from several slices.


I gave my translation of the Shaar HaTziun, and explained <<< The way
I read that Shaar HaTziun, his main concern (and possibly his *only*
concern) is that all actions should have an immediate usefulness. >>>

RCS disagrees: <<< His concern is with there not being a hefsek. What
he is saying is that I cannot avoid everyone else's hefsek, so at least
I have to avoid my own. >>>

I don't see where he ever compared the botzea's hefsek to the others'
hefsek. And he never said "You can't do this, so at least do that."

First he explained that *if* they'd be allowed to eat before him, then
his passing out portions is not a hefsek even though he hasn't taken
his own yet. And then he explained that since they're *not* allowed to
eat before him, then his passing out portions *is* a hefsek.

The difference between us is that you take the seifa to mean since
they're not allowed to eat before him, then even the extra slicing is
a hefsek. Or in your own words, <<< I see NO place for distinguishing
between cutting and passing out. >>>

I will now explain why I do see a place to make that distinction...


I wrote <<< It sounds very clear to me that *if* they'd be allowed to eat
their challa immediately upon receipt, then the time he spends slicing and
distributing to them would *not* be a hefsek, because it *is* purposeful,
and is l'tzorech the seudah. >>>

RCS responded <<< He's not talking about tzorech seuda - he's talking
l'tzorech the m'varech eating. >>>

If the critical factor is the m'varech eating, then why - in the reisha,
where they are allowed to eat before him - would it be okay to pass out
their portions before he eats? It must be that it's okay for him to have
a long hefsek, if the profit is that theirs will be shorter. Have you
a different explanation?


I wrote <<< And that's the *only* distinction between the reisha and the
seifa of the ShHaTz. In the real world, if he passes out the portions
before taking his own, what good would it do anyone? >>>

RCS, who sees no difference between slicing and distributing, responded
appropriately: <<< In the real world, if he cuts everyone else's portions
before he takes his own, what good would it do anyone? >>>

I believe (don't ask me where I got this, because I have no idea, and may
have simply invented it myself) that part of the concept of Arevus (as in
"Kol Yisrael Arevim Zeh Lazeh") is that it doesn't really matter whether
you get ahead or whether I get ahead. As long as *someone* is getting
ahead, then we're *all* getting ahead. In this case, I honestly don't
see why it is more important for my hefsek to be minimized than for yours.

The advantage to cutting all the portions before he takes his own is
that it is more efficient. Doing it all at once will minimize the net
average time that each person has to wait between hamotzi and eating. I
really don't think this falls in the category of "westernized, non-Torah
types of courtesy", but simple derech eretz.

(Of course, that could simply be my westernized brainwashed yetzer hara
speaking. I'm nogea b'davar. Anyone want to start a new thread on where
to draw the line between the two kinds of courtesy?)

Akiva Miller

> : Modern medicine has increased the life span from about 50 years in the
> : year 1900 to about 75 years in recent years (depending on country and
> : gender). Does that imply that people have become more virtuous in the
> : last 100 years? ...

That's only the *average* -- because the child mortality rate was so high.
If you made it to adulthood, there was a good chance you would live to
70-80.

Akiva
=================================
"We took risks, we knew we took them; things have come out against us, and
therefore we have no cause for complaint, but bow to the will of Providence,
determined still to do our best to the last."
Robert Falcon Scott

So I was flipping through the Goldin Madrich, prepping for my uncle's
unveiling this Sunday, and came across the following line:

"He who has no son, has no share in the world to come" (Zohar Pinhas 215)

How am I supposed to deal with a line like that?  Even aside from the 
personal pain, what does this kind of thing do to the concept of free
will vs. determinism?  I try to live my life according to Torah, but
something which is *completely* outside my control will determine my
fate in the World to Come?  That's predestination.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 08:35:05AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Some time back the question was raised as to how the very same thing--a
: woman's hair--could be ervah if she was married, not-ervah if she was
: single. It didn't seem to make sense.
: 
: In the current Yated there is a halachic discussion, written by R' Doniel
: Neustadt, about married women covering their hair. Based on what he says
: there, the answer to the old question is a question of definition. It is
: NOT that ervah must be covered, with ervah being defined--who knows how?

You can't mean "definition" in terms of translation, as parashas Emor's
list of arayos, all of which are called "ervah" is pretty clear. "Ervah"
must mean eroticism.

Rather, we can turn the whole question on its head. (As suggested
last iteration on this topic.) Some ervah has an absolute definition,
they are parts of the human body that are inherently erotic without any
cultural issues. Things that are normally covered subsequently become
ervah because seeing that which is normally hidden causes that reaction.

There is a gezeiras hakasuv from sotah that prohibits married women from
covering her hair. The fact that the hair is not normally seen gives
it an air of ervah. Ervah is not the cause of the issur, but the
effect.

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 12:09:26AM -0400, Samuel Pianko Groner wrote:
: Although not in the context of a psak halakhah, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein
: makes a comment that would seem to be highly relevant in a discussion of
: this question in his essay, "Centrist Orthodoxy: A Spiritual Accounting"
: reprinted in Rav Lichtenstein's new book, By His Light, on p. 249.

We discussed this in vol3n403 or so (and onward) when this cheshbon
hanefesh was sent out in 3 parts to YHE's DEVELOP email list.

-mi

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:21:26AM -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: I think that RAM misunderstands the citation from RGS. He cites rav
: Broyde's article, where he documents that there are authorities who find
: a leniency for married women to have their hair totally uncovered.

Except that RMJB himself wrote to this email list that there exists
only a limud zechus for married women who do not cover her hair, and
no actualy heter.

:-)BBii
-mi

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 10:36:25AM -0400, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: "He who has no son, has no share in the world to come" (Zohar Pinhas 215)

: How am I supposed to deal with a line like that?  Even aside from the 
: personal pain, what does this kind of thing do to the concept of free
: will vs. determinism? ...

Since HQBH is not dan onesim, it obviously only includes those who
CHOOSE not to have a child.

:-)BBii
-mi

From: Micha Berger
<<C's motto is all about adapting halachah to the times. And they also
came up with this notion of reading ulterior motives than the ones
stated into the gemara.

Halachah grows to cover new situations. Not transvalues earlier statements
to create an illusion of continuity where non really exists.

And that has greater impact on halachic development than when the gemara
was redacted. Once one is allowed to transvalue earlier statements,
once amora'im allegedly did so to eliminate precedent from the halachic
precedent and amoraic statements that one may not do so transvalued into
allowing one to eliminate precedent, halachah has no continuity.

How is this new approach any more kosher than C's? >>

I noticed last night that Prof. S.Z. Havlin quotes R Elchanan Wasserman
(Kovetz Shiurim) who says that R. Chaim Soloveitchik said that Amoraim
actually can argue with Tannaim but generally did not as a matter of
respect; once in a while, they actually explicitly argue with Tannaim.

Consequently, the position that when Amoraim make an ukimtah they
are actually respectfully arguing with Tannaim has nothing to do with
undermining precedent. It merely means that in the Talmudic culture,
this was the way to respectfully argue with prior authorities.

In contrast, rishonim agreed that no one could argue with the Talmud.
Consequently, the C method --of undoing a thousand + years of the halachic
process--is inauthentic.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

>: "He who has no son, has no share in the world to come" (Zohar Pinhas 215)

>: How am I supposed to deal with a line like that?  Even aside from the 
>: personal pain, what does this kind of thing do to the concept of free
>: will vs. determinism? ...

> Since HQBH is not dan onesim, it obviously only includes 
> those who CHOOSE not to have a child.

I don't understand your answer. If the statement were that "he who has
no *Child* has no share..." then I could understand what you are saying.
But how could one choose not to have a son specifically by choosing
not to have a child? It sounds as if the statement has something to do
specifically with a man fathering a son.

And I agree with the first poster that this does sound a bit terrible
to those doing everything in their power to have a child.

---Rena

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


[ 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         ]