Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 033

Friday, June 4 2004

• designating certain gedolim and seforim as 'hakodosh'
• Rav Chaim Kanievsky on upsheren / upsherin custom
• disputing previous generations
• Disputing Previous Generations
• Godol Me'Rav-Rabbi, Godol Me'rabbi-Rabbon, Godol me'rabbon -- sh'mo".
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: sheitels (or shaitlach)
• Re: sheitels
• RHS Water Teshuva
• Re: Water Issue - copepods
• relationship of the "Manoach story" Haftorah to P'Naso
• Re: Bameh Madlikin and Hassidic custom
• Re: VIDC
• Re: Rav Chaim Kanievsky on upsheren / upsherin custom
• orla
• Shaitel
• Re: sheitels (or shaitlach)
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: RHS Water Teshuva
• miracles
• Godol Me'Rav-Rabbi, Godol Me'rabbi-Rabbon, Godol me'rabbon -- sh'mo"
• [none]
• Re: sheitels

From: "[R Dov] Kay" <dovkay@hotmail.com>
> Why is it that some gedolim have merited the title "HaKadosh" after
> their names? The Shlah, Alshich and Ohr HaChayim spring to mind....
> It has long bothered me that the rishon R' Mordechai ben Hillel (the
> Mordechai) is not called "HaKadosh" even though he died al kiddush
> HaShem, IIRC.

This fine and important question was discussed a bit some time ago. I
raised it on Mail-Jewish, where you can see some discussion on it in
the archives under 'Appending Hakadosh to Names of certain Rabbis'
<http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v31/index.html#VDB> , as well as
on areivim, IIRC, where R. SM gave a fine response. Perhaps it is
still around on an old computer somewhere, but I don't have it here
right now. Maybe he someone (perhaps R. SM himself) can revisit or
regurgitate it.

Basically, among Ashkenazim it seems to be a Hassidic custom, not accepted
by non-Hassidim (at least those who know their traditions. Some others
have unfortunately lost their traditions and sometimes have a tendency
to imitate Hassidim). It is known that Hassidim greatly venerate the
Ari, Shalah, and Ohr Hachaim. It seems that some Sepharadim, esp. of
Kabbalisticly inclined backgrounds / eidos do it as well. The point is
that it is neither universally accepted, nor obligatory. Litvisher
gedolim, e.g. Rav Aharon Kotler, and others cited these gedolim
without adding hakodosh to their names. In fact one could argue that
is actually denigrates the overwhelming majority of Rabbis through the
history of Klal Yisroel, among whom were many great talmidei chachochim,
tzadikkim, kedoshim, etc., when only five or so are designated 'hakodosh'
- implication - the others were not 'kodosh' and/or that if a Rabbi was
not a famous Kabbalist (e.g. Rashi, Rambam, Rabbeinu Tam...) they were
not 'kedoshim'.

I also note the insistence of Hassidim in saying 'Zohar Hakodosh',
while the Talmud (Bavli e.g.) is not called 'hakodosh'.

The 'Hakodosh' appelation given to a martyr (someone that died al kiddush
Hashem) is a different matter than the one discussed above.

Mordechai

A new sefer recently came out, IIRC, the name is 'Derech Siach' and it is
Torah of Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlit"a, of Bnei Brak, one of the leaders
of the olam haTorah today. It is arranged al pi seder krias haTorah /
the weekly sidras (at least partially). It appears to be composed of
(again, at least partially) his recorded responses to questions put
to him. I don't have the sefer in front of me, but this is some of my
recollection of what it says on this topic.

In Kedoshim perek 19, where the Torah discusses the mitzvoh of orloh,
he is asked about the upsheren custom practiced by some. He responds
that they base it on the Tanchuma on orloh. However, he notes right
away, that that Tanchuma does not mention anything about hair-cutting
( ! ). He is also asked if one may cut the hair of a young boy before
three years and he says that one may and cites a gemara as backing.

It seems very clear that he does not hold of upsheren custom (as we
reported earlier from sefer 'Orchos Rabbeinu' about his father z"l). In
fact, the loshon (language) used there when discussing it clearly relates
to it as a custom that some others practice - not the minhog of him or
his community.

Mordechai

R Zvi Lampel wrote:
> On the contrary, R' Yochonon himself was the one who
> apparently introduced the idea that contradicting a Tanna is a
> problem. In the Gemara Yerushalmi on Paya 2:6....

However, in many places R. Yochanan does disagree with tanaim (possibly
there is a difference between Mishna and Beraita). The achranom always
answer that he must have had a tannaic source that we don't know. However,
to me that sounds forced. In addition according to recent daf yomi his
rebbe Chizkiah (according to one girsah) explicitly disagreed with a Tanna

Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 6/3/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

In this discussion I think that it may be important to distinguish
between three levels of tanaitic authority: Mishnah, Tosefta, and
beraita. Mishnah is obviously most authoritative since it was included
in the official compendium of received halakhot compiled by Rebi and his
associates. The Tosefta incorporates other usually more discursive and
detailed Tanaitic discussions that did not make it into Rebi's edition,
but were later compiled into an authoritative edition by R. Hiya and
R. Oshaya. Beraitot are halakhic statements from Tanaim that were
preserved orally but were never incorporated into an official compendium,
but were quoted ad hoc from memory by Amoraim when they seemed relevant.
This distinction is of course suggested by the Dor Revi'i's theory that
it was the act (or, better, process) of creating a canonical text of
the Mishnah that could be written down which foreclosed argument on the
Mishnah, not the inherent superiority of the authors of the Mishnah to
their successors. The drasha "asher yihiyeh bayamim ha-heim" makes the
superiority of an earlier generation irrelevant to the power of hora'ah
in succeeding generations. But a canonical text is a fait accompli that
can't be changed. Hence, the original ban on the creation of a canonical
text and reliance on "eit la'asot la-Sheim" to get around the ban.
That suggests that beraitot are not strictly binding as were Mishnayot,
but that they were accorded a very high level of deference which was
not strictly required as it was in the case of Mishnah or Tosefta.

It might be worthwhile, if it has not already been done, to check all the
occasions in the Talmud in which definitive refutations of an Amora's
opinion occurred based on a Tanaitic source and how often beraitot
were used as opposed to Mishnayot or Toseftot. My vague impression
from earlier discussions is that in some cases an Amora can avoid
disproof by challenging a beraita's (matinata) authenticity but can't
do so when contradicted by a Mishnah (matnitan) and presumably not by
a Tosefta. Clearly such defensive strategies are rare and only deployed
in extremis. The Gemara has no qualms about trying to refute Rav with
possible contradictions even though in the end Rav can always invoke
his Tanaitic status to avoid definitive refutation. It is better not
to have even a non-binding Tanaitic source quoted against you even if
you can ultimately salvage your position by questioning its provenance
(in the case of a beraita), or, in the case of Rav, by invoking your own
(semi-)Tanaitic status.

As to R. Yohanan's acceptance of the authoritativeness of the Mishnah,
I am less impressed by the Yerushalmi in Pe'ah, which is obviously
homiletic and hortatory in tone, than by the fact that he surely must
have been challenging Reish Lakish with Tanaitic sources, just as he was
being challenged by Reish Lakish. Unless you assume that the discussions
in the Gemara were all subsequent reconstructions in later generations
and that R. Yohanan and Reish Lakish were not themselves challenging
each other with Tanaitic sources, you can't make sense of the sugyot
unless they realized that it was not safe disagree with a Tana without
the cover over another Tana.

David Glasner

From: "Michael Frankel":
> "rabbi" (or ribbi according to rashbetz and levitas) is ... the
> Palestinian title for one with a palestinian s'mikhoh, whereas "rav"
> is its exact Babylonian equivalent for one with a Babylonian s'mikhoh...
> one only need cite the gaonic adage (known from r. shrirah's iggeres):
> "godol me'rav -- rabbi, godol me'rabbi -- rabbon, godol me'rabbon --
> sh'mo". ... [I]t is a fact that all tanno'im were Palestinian, and thus
> "rabbi"s (or "rabbon"s if you were the nosih). [A]nd it's a fact that all
> "rav"s were (bavli) amoro'im (with the half exceptions of a few oddities
> like "Rav"(abba arikhtoh)). So the statement that godol me'rav -- rabbi
> means only that tanno'im were greater than amoro'im.

I agree. Just a clarification: Those of the transition generation
following R' Yehuda HaNassi's --(read the apostrophe as you please)--
were also honored by the title Rebbi/Ribbi: Rebbi Oshaya, Rebbi Hiyya,
Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, etc., although they are classified by some as
"Amoraim of Eretz Yisroel."

Also, add into this mix the seventh section of the Rambam's Addendum to
the introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah, where he writes that
the compiler of the Mishnah classified the 128 Sages mentioned in the
Mishnah into three categories. Whoever, in his opinion, was eminent to
the hightest degree, he called simply by his name: E.g., Hillel, Shammai,
Sh'maya, Avtalyon. ... To those below that level he prefixed the title
"Rabban." ... To those below this level he prefixed the title "R_bbi." He
also titled those at this level, "Abba." such as Abba Shaul. But sometimes
he bypasses any title without qualms, such as with Shimmon Ahi-Azariah
and Elazar Ish Bartosa." Rambam then lists 22 Tannaim who really are
named without titles out of respect of their great status.

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Once you have begun to cover more than you did before...you find 
> yourself easily embarrassed to be seen with skin
> [or hair] exposed that you are now accustomed to covering. 

Doesn't this clearly demonstrate that embarrassment is a learned
behavior?

[Email #2. -mi]

Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> wrote:
> I don't think it's so much that we have lost an innate sense of modesty
> as it is that we have been exposed to other cultures and influences
> (because of the media) and therefore our norms have been
> influenced.

Our sense of the norm HAS been influenced but I have yet to be convinced
that there is such a thing as innate modesty.

HM

>I'm sorry, which Rambam are we referring to again? In Lulav 8:1 he says
>that shel AZ lo yittol l'chatchila v'im nottal yatza. Is that the one?

Yes. You're right. I got a little carried away, he doesn't use the word
bedieved. But that doesn't matter. I don't see how on earth you could
possibly take a Rambam that says 'don't do it' and make it say 'only
if it doesn't cost you too much'. Had the Rambam wished to say that,
he would have. I know of no place where the Rambam says 'don't do it
unless it cost you too much'.

Akiva B.

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 11:08:07AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: You are right that what is covered, and how much is covered, is partly a
: culturally learned thing. But the etzem davar that people feel embarrassed
: to be naked seems to be innate...

'Twould seem to be that way from what we see in Bereishis. Adam and
Chavah got an instinctive bushah the moment they ate from the eitz
hada'as. We don't know if that bushah was only about an area that can
fit behind a fig leaf, or if they simply didn't have the technology to
do any better. However, once they acquired this bushah, HQBH gave them
kusnos or. A kusones, as I've learned from our discussion of bigedei
kehunah, is a garment cut roughly like a floor-length nightshirt (or
chaluq [Heb/Aram] or galabiyah [Arab]). So apparantly HQBH taught them
further notions of tzeni'us beyond the fig leaf.

So it would seem pashut to me that the basic need for clothing is innate
(since the eitz hada'as).

However, I don't see the relevence. Hair covering is a gezeiros hakasuv.
Since when do we pasqen, particularly on a deOraisa, based upon nice
peshatlach about the purpose of a din?

Personally, I don't think ervah is the cause of the din, as there is
insufficient justification for including only married women. Since I
see the requirement of covering ervah to be one of lifnei iver, I don't
see how identical twins would have different dinim just becuase one was
married. To the viewer, the view is the same.

I therefore accepted the argument given in earlier discussions that ervah
is a consequence of the fact that the hair in question is usually covered.

But that too is irrelevent in deciding ikkar hadin.

-mi

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

In Avodah V13 #32 dated 6/3/04 Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes:
>> But the etzem davar that people feel embarrassed
>> to be naked seems to be innate.  [--old TK]

> But how do you explain the lack
> of any embarrassment by small children who will walk around entirely
> naked in front of everyone? Don't they "learn" shame?

The younger the child, the less shame--because young children are
a-sexual. As puberty approaches, shame sets in regardless of training or
lack thereof. AFAIK this is true in all societies. When Adam and Chava
"realized" they were naked, that awareness and self-consciousness became
part of the innate knowledge of all their descendants.

  --Toby Katz
=============

Read RHS Water Teshuva here.
<http://tinyurl.com/2r6lj> [From the Hirhurim blog. -mi]
Is it possible that in previous generations they drank water from Boros
{Waterholes wells etc} and therefore the Halacha would be different as
opposed to NYC that receives its water from lakes?

Leon

In  Avodah V13 #32 bugs dated 6/3/04  acl100@juno.com writes:
> I understand that the copepods
> that have been observed are all dead, therefore they would be at the
> bottom of the container and would not swimming.

Does that mean that filtering the water is not necessary? It seems you
could fill a glass, pitcher, or pot with water, and then just wait a few
minutes for the dead bugs to fall to the bottom. Use only the top water,
discard the bottom water.

Top water, can use tap water
Bottom water, better use bottled water

Would that work?  

 -Toby Katz
=============

MPoppers@kayescholer.com
> I had a "crazy" thought Shabbos morning ...
>            The "Manoach story" section seems to be the designated
> Haftorah because of the n'zirus connection, but I was wondering if it
> [also] was connected because Manoach suspected his wife and subjected
> her to the b'diqah process mentioned ahead of parshas nazir in the Torah
...

Where do we find that Manoach ever suspected his wife??

BTW the CS [in the 5-vol RYN Stern edition] has some beautiful drush on
this topic [where he also explains the reason Chana did consider becoming
a suspected sotah [ayin Brochos 31b] - but Mrs Manoach did not.

Take a look there at the 1st piece on the Haftorah in that CS -
vetimtzah nachas...Guaranteed.

SBA

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:53:17AM -0400, David Cohen wrote:
: In Yeshivat Har Etzion, which generally follows the nusach known as
: "nusach sefarad" (the nusach of the Chasidim), Ba-meh Madlikin is said
: after Kabbalat Shabbat. Ke-gavna is then said after the rosh yeshiva's
: talk, before Barekhu.

In a sichah that made it to the YHE-Sichot email list, RYAmital explained
why. It's been a while, so I only recall the punch line:

Without the zehirus to halakhah of BaMeh Madliqin, how can there be a
Razah deShabbos?
And without a sense of Razah deShabbos, how much can one gain from BaMeh
Madliqin?

-mi

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

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:30:45PM -0400, RYGB replied to a post of
mine:
:> Chozeir veni'ur works not in a case of bitul, but in what I called "kol
:> deparish" and RML subsequented quoted RYBS as calling a "heter hanhagah".
...

: Huh?

: Chozer v'nei'or relates specifically to bittul b'rov, and not to kol 
: d'parish. What am I missing here?

You're missing my ability to say something stupid. I could blame it on
running a fever most of the week (finally broke, BH), but as regulars
here know, I can do it quite well without such assistance.

Then at 07:46:35PM -0400, he wrote:
:> As I understand it and it may not be how others may, there are some cases
:> when the issur is not botel as such and remains but we have a heter to
:> disregard it. Sort of a gavra heter, not cheftsa heter.

: Even more problems (gotta love dem Briskers!) - how is this anything
: more than sheer divrei nevi'us? ...

AIUI....

Bittul is a din in ta'aroves. Both what would have been issur (if taken
alone) and heter are known to be present, but the mixture as a whole
has a din heter.

Kol deparish is a din in birur. We don't know the metzi'us, and we need to
pasqen about that unknown metzi'us. Whether we work from possibility based
on the quantities involved or based on theoretical odds distinguishes
de'ika leqaman from deleisa leqaman. But both are dealing with something
of unknown state, not known to contain both states.

>                                         ... how is this anything more
> than sheer divrei nevi'us? From whence does such "papal dispensation"
> emanate?

The heter to disregard the possibility of issur is the usual kol deparish.
The Briskers are simply providing lomedus to that which is known mutar,
no new dispensation or even an old one. (Dispensation would mean that one
is oveir the lav, but gets a get-out-of-onesh-free card.) Simply giving
a chiluq between rov and rov. I therefore don't follow RYGB's objection.

Whether acharei rabim lehatos is more like the bittul or birrur may
well tie back to our perennial halachic plurality discussion. If both
are emes, then it's kind of like bittul's situation of ta'aroves. If
it's a safeiq which is emes, then perhaps it's more like kol deparish.
If neither are the supernal Torah, but merely models approximating it
to the best possible in olam hazeh (the Maharal's shitah) or that the
rule *defines* which is din (Ramban, Ritva), then it's unlike both.

But regardless whether it bears *similarity* to either, arachei rabim
is a different din. Thus answering the original VIDC.

-mi

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

Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
> A new sefer recently came out, IIRC, the name is 'Derech Siach' and it is
> Torah of Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlit"a, of Bnei Brak, one of the leaders
> of the olam haTorah today. It is arranged al pi seder krias haTorah /
> the weekly sidras (at least partially). It appears to be composed of
> (again, at least partially) his recorded responses to questions put
> to him. 

I saw it when I was in Israel. There are many such books which come
out from time to time but one has to be careful not to place too much
credence in them. This book, as is the case with many others like it,
was not written by the subject (in this case, Rav Chaim Kanievsky) but
is simply a compilation of what various people heard... or thought they
heard from him. I have heard of cases where there were errors stating
just the opposite of what the subject of the given book had really said
or believed.

HM

RYGB in VIDC:
> every doubt about orla in chu"l is muttar which is why halacha kdivrei
> hamiekil.

me:
> not every doubt in orla in chu"l is mutar.  taaroves is assur.  (ie i
> have one orla apple and one non orla apple.  i cannot tell which one is the
> non-orla one.  min haTorah both are assur. obviously if i eat only one
> apple, there is a doubt if i ate orla, yet it is forbidden.) conclusion=
> safek orla in chu"l is a very limited rule and is not the hesber why halacha
> kdivrei hameikil (which is a different limited rule.)

RYGB:
> taaroves is vadai and not a proof for safek.

me
>Actually, the classic case of safek orla in chu"l is muttar(SA YD 294:9)
>is to buy produce that was picked from a field that has in it vadai orla.
>So though you are correct that taaruves is with vadai orla; yet , safek

RYGB in a long quote from [himself as published by] ArtScroll:
> the classic case of safek orla in chu"l is muttar(SA YD 294:9)
>is to buy produce that was MOST PROBABLY picked from a field that has
> in it vadai orla.

But doesn't this prove my point? The case of safek orla in chu"l which is
mutar has a 50% or greater chance of being orla, according to all pshatim.
According to the normal rules of safek this should be assur (and is
assur in Eretz Yisrael). Taaroves of 1:1 also has a 50% chance of being
orla and is assur min haTorah. So we see that the rule safek orla in
chu"l is limited, does not apply to taaroves and (my conclusion) there
is no eveidence to assume this is the hesber as to why halacha kdivrei
hameikil. To merely say taaroves is vadai and not safek is semantics.
They are both the same type of question as to kashrus of fruit, yet the
Torah provides two alternative methods of deciding the din.

Shlomo Goldstein

Enclosed is a lengthy discussion Lhalacha on the issue, in addition to the 
facts, please point to: <www/avodah/faxes/wigRCYDW.pdf>

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

[The file is 880k or so. Try to grab it now, as it may not remain on
the site for more than a week or two. -mi]

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 11:08:07AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
>: You are right that what is covered, and how much is covered, is partly a
>: culturally learned thing. But the etzem davar that people feel embarrassed
>: to be naked seems to be innate...

Perhaps but How do you explain the fact that very young children do
not understand it at all?

My own intuituon based somewhat on my education tells me that "shame"
is internalized at such an early age that it becomnes part of one's
unconcious motivation and therefore SEEMS to be innate.

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> However, I don't see the relevence. Hair covering is a gezeiros hakasuv.
> Since when do we pasqen, particularly on a deOraisa, based upon nice
> peshatlach about the purpose of a din?

I agree. But it better helps to undestand matters of Tznius relating
to Erva that are NOT D'oraisa such as skirt lengths... how far below
the knee, etc.

> Personally, I don't think ervah is the cause of the din, as there is
> insufficient justification for including only married women. Since I
> see the requirement of covering ervah to be one of lifnei iver, I don't
> see how identical twins would have different dinim just becuase one was
> married. To the viewer, the view is the same.

Exactly.

HM

The question of cultural depenancy of shame has been extrensively
studies both in public health and anthropology. I have done some work
on this in the context of Jewish Genetic Illnesses. For the former,
under the rubric stigmatization, see stigma.org, and especially
<http://www.stigmaconference.nih.gov>, which has a lot of academic stuff
on the issue.

The current view, right or wrong, is that shame is culturally
determined. That does not mean that it is not "real" or desirable but
it does mean that it can be modulated and taught.

M. Levin

On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 16:31 -0400, o wrote:
> Read RHS Water Teshuva here.
> <http://tinyurl.com/2r6lj> [From the Hirhurim blog. -mi]
> Is it possible that in previous generations they drank water from Boros
> {Waterholes wells etc} and therefore the Halacha would be different as
> opposed to NYC that receives its water from lakes?

1) Wells are many times filled from underground rivers or lakes, i.e.
not just collected rain water.

2) They also drank from river water directly

to prove it look at Makat Dam, Shemot 7:20-21 (Jerusalem Bible
Transalation)

"And Moshe and Aharon did so, as the Lord Commanded; and he lifted up the
rod, and smote the waters that were in the River, in the sight of Par'o,
and in sight of his servants; and all the water that was in the River
was turned to blood. And the fish that was in the River died; and the
River stank, and the Mizrayim could not drink the water of the River;
and the there was blood throughout all the land of Mizrayim."

Recent daf yomi mentions the mating of some dis-similar anaimals and
concludes that it is a miracle,

If this a constant occurence how can it be a miracle?
i.e. the geamara postulates laws of nature and when nature doesn't behave
that way it is deemed a continuosly miracle (that such mating does not
occur is not relevant to this discussion)

shabbat shalom,
Eli Turkel

Michael Frankel wrote:
> [I]t is a fact that all tanno'im were Palestinian
> and thus "rabbi"s (or "rabbon"s if you were the nosih. [A]nd it's a fact
> that all "rav"s were (bavli) amoro'im (with the half exceptions of a few
> oddities like "Rav"(abba arikhtoh)). So the statement that godol me'rav --
> rabbi means only that tanno'im were greater than amoro'im.

I previously posted that I agree, noting that the title "R-bbi" was used
in the transition generation as well. But on second thought, we can't say
that "r-bbi means only that tanno'im were greater than amoro'm," i.e.,
that the title "r-bbi" was only used for Tannaim, because the title is
also used for some in Eretz Yisrael who were definitely Amoraim: R-bbi
Elazar ben P'dos, R_bbi Avahu, R_bbi Shimon ben Lakish, R_bbi Abba,
R_bbi Zeyra, R_bbi Yirmiah, etc, while some were titled "Rav": such as
(or perhaps only?) Rav Dimi.

In looking at the artscroll on recent daf yomi I noticed that the English
and Hebrew versions on Chullin IV seem to be considerably different.
I thought at one point the Hebrew was a translation of the English.

In the recent gemara (126b) on the half mouse - half dirt they both
mention the Tifferet Yisrael quoting Link that this exists. In the English
they mention that modern scholarship (ie Shnayer Leiman) has shown that
Link was misunderstood. This last part is omitted in the Hebrew version.
OTOH the Hebrew gives a reference to RSRH not mentioned in the English!

BTW I was very disturbed by the Meorot hadaf on this subject. They bring
the Rambam on the Mishnah that many people have testified about such a
creature (BTW The Hebrew artscroll brings a Greek book) but they neglect
to mention that the Rambam adds -"tamuah hi"

Talking with several people it is not clear if the Rambam is casting
doubt on the witnesses (as Yehuda Levi thinks) or is simply remarking
that he doesn't understand the biology of such a creature. In any case
for the Meorot hadaf to quote half the Rambam seemed tamuah to me.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> The younger the child, the less shame--because young children are
> a-sexual. As puberty approaches, shame sets in regardless of training or
> lack thereof. AFAIK this is true in all societies. When Adam and Chava
> "realized" they were naked, that awareness and self-consciousness became
> part of the innate knowledge of all their descendants.

RMB said basically the same thing. I hear that, but when you say, "As
puberty approaches, shame sets in regardless of training or lack thereof"
...I have to wonder what that really means. What exactly happens that
makes shame "set in"?

The libido goes through various stages of development during childhood and
when one reaches puberty one attains the adult form of it commonly called,
the sex drive. Why should the onset of the adult sex drive inherently
include shame about exposure of nakedness? Isn't it possible to say that
the shame response is learned during childhood... early in the parenting
process, along with other socializing experiences from one's environment?

How do you explain some of the primitive cultures around the world who
have no sense of shame about exposing nakedness? I think it is plausible
to say that what people think is inherent, is really a learned response
that has been internalized relatively early in one's life to the point
that one is no longer aware of the source of the feeling. This, in the
parlance of psychology, is called unconscious motivation. The resulting
experience then makes it seem innate. But... is it?

Please understand that this makes absolutely no difference in Halacha. The
laws of Erva remain the same. And our sense of shame may or may not
play a part in the Halachic process. But I think it is useful to try
and understand the way in which the human mind works.

HM

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


[ 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         ]