Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 083

Monday, August 30 2004

• RE: Big Bang
• Re: Age of the Universe
• Age of the Universe
• Re: Big Bang
• Psak for hashkofa (was: Psak for hashgofa)
• Re: Tosafot map of Israel
• RE: Public expression by women
• Re: Public Expression by women
• RE: Public expression by women
• Re: Rabanan kaddish
• Re: Psak for hashkofa
• Re: Pi
• RE: Reliability of Science
• Re: Age of the Universe
• Calendar year at creation (was: Age of the Universe)
• mussar
• Re: Public expression by women
• RE: Public expression by women

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:31:23AM -0700, Howard Wettstein wrote:
> Quantum Mechanics is often counterintuitive. There is nothing doing the
> banging. QM allows for creation ex nihilo, and in fact particles eappear and
> disappear all the time. "Empty vacuum" isn't all that empty.

> Here's the description from the web site of the PBS show, Nova
> <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/univ-nf.html>:
>> The universe began with a vast explosion that generated space and 
>> time, and created all the matter and energy in the universe. Exactly 
>> what triggered this sudden expansion remains a mystery. Astronomers 
>> believe it involved a runaway process called "inflation," in which a 
>> peculiar type of energy that existed in the vacuum of space was 
>> suddenly mobilized. The inflationary expansion ended only when this 
>> energy was transformed into more familiar forms of matter and energy.

The quote from PBS makes the point I was querying about: This doesn't
sound like yesh me'ayin. It sounds like yesh me'energy, i.e. yesh
me'yesh. The question is whether some current physical theory supports
the idea that the Big Bang means creation from absolutely nothing (in the
natural realm), no matter, no energy, nothing. The question is not whether
particles can appear and disappear but whether the big bang actually
means that there was ABSOLUTELY nothing, no matter, no energy, no other
sort of "stuff" no matter how unlike later configurations, but zero, zip.

Here's another thing that's confusing about this whole business. If it's
really the case that quantum theory or any physical theory supports a kind
of spontaneous appearance of matter, energy, or whatever, then God's role
is no more clear than it was before big bang theory. In other words,
creation ex nihilo (or spontaneous existence) just becomes another,
so to speak, fact about the natural world. Of course it would be very
interesting that this idea was suggested by the religios tradition. But
that's the extent of the excitement. Does this make sense?

Howard

Those people who accept the evidence that the universe is several
billion years old have suggested several ways of reconciling this with
the conventional Jewish calendar. On this list, it has been mentioned that
based on Ramban, the billions of years can be inserted after the first of
the six days, and acc. to Dr. Schroeder, the six days can equal fifteen
billion years. Another commonly heard approach is that of Prof. Aviezer,
that six days can be six time periods.

Unfortunately, as I think I may have mentioned already (I'm losing track!)
none of these proposed solutions actually work. The reason is that
even if the overall time span is solved, the events of the six days of
Bereishis still cannot be correlated with the history of the universe
that we know. For example, Bereishis lists all flying creatures as having
developed before all land animals, which the fossil record shows not to
be the case. Bereishis also lists the plants as having come about before
the luminaries, which was also not the case. Other difficulties become
apparent when examining the pesukim carefully. (Schroeder and Aviezer
have suggested solutions to some of these difficulties, but these simply
cannot be read into the pesukim.)

For this reason, it seems to me that the only viable approach is that of
Rav Dessler, who explains that the six days are six sefiros, representing
modes of "Divine power" used in creation, and do not refer to periods of
time at all or even necessarily to a chronological sequence. Bereishis
would therefore represent a spiritual hierarchy of creation, rather
than a description of a physical process. This is an approach from a
universally accepted talmid chacham (the mashgiach of Ponovezh!) which is
the only one to solve all the scientific difficulties without distorting
the pesukim in any way.

Kol tuv
Nosson Slifkin
www.zootorah.com

>> At the end we must appeal to the meta-rational, where religion had anyway
>> always resided.

> Unfortunately, this is exactly where I perceive the problem. Without
> getting too deeply into my personal conflicts, I have to say that I myself
> fall exactly into the class of people who feel very strongly convinced
> of the reality of 'spirituality' in the world, and in particular I see
> it in the obvious design of living organisms...

> However, adherence to Judaism involves a lot more than that. I don't
> like the idea that I am committed to observing halacha as a result of
> the combination of a general belief in G-d and the fact that I grew
> up Jewish; I was taught in yeshiva that there has to be a 'tziruf'
> between two sevaras given together to answer a kasha. How much more is
> this true in fundamental areas of belief. Of course, this approach does
> have some results in kiruv; I suppose that's what my friends who work
> in this area really meant. Still, what are we producing with this kiruv,
> and what are we missing out on?

Well, true but only partially so. The question of whether materialistic
or idealistic philosophies are "true" is the first step. Because this is
the big question of our times, what, with atheism, science and psychology
erasing every trace of DIvine from our world and inner life, it may seem
to be the only question. However, it is only the first order.

Once satisfactory answers to this question are internalized, we are ready
to deal with the second order. What is the best spiritual system? Here we
are on a more advantageous ground, both because of antiquity of Judaism
and its essential reasonableness and all the other things that make it
so easily defensible.

The real issue is getting those answers internalized. That requires
individual applications to ones own unique life circumstances. Failing
that, one keeps on oscillating, never to progress to resolve second
(and third and fourth and etc) order issues.

M. Levin

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 05:16:01PM -0400, Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
: The question we need to ask is how much such claims rest on extrapolations
: from a very small basis of observation and experimental evidence? How
: much do they rely on interpretations upon interpretations of hypothetical
: objects that have never been observed (the "multiverse"?).

The concept of multiverse is religious -- it's the invocation of an
unprovable inifinite. This is true whether it's discussion of the string
theory "landscape" in which all possible universes exist simultaneously,
or Hawking's suggestion that these other universes exist before and
after this one in time.

It's the scientist's preference to say the infinitude is of universes,
such that one that supports us has to exist among the choice than to
say there is an Infinite Intent selecting the parameters.

Things outside the universe or on the far side of a singularity, are
inherently unprovable. It's not science. Just the religion of a bunch
of scientists.

The issues of conflict between science and Torah involve far more
demonstable and demonstrated issues.

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 05:10:00PM -0700, Howard Wettstein wrote:
:> Here's the description from the web site of the PBS show, Nova
:> <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/univ-nf.html>:
: >> The universe began with a vast explosion that generated space and 
: >> time, and created all the matter and energy in the universe. Exactly 
: >> what triggered this sudden expansion remains a mystery. Astronomers 
: >> believe it involved a runaway process called "inflation," in which a 
: >> peculiar type of energy that existed in the vacuum of space was 
: >> suddenly mobilized. The inflationary expansion ended only when this 
: >> energy was transformed into more familiar forms of matter and energy.

: The quote from PBS makes the point I was querying about: This doesn't
: sound like yesh me'ayin. It sounds like yesh me'energy...

It describes two steps:
1- The big bang, which creates space-time and matter-energy. (Both pairs
are inseprable in relativity).
2- Inflation, during which the energy got low enough to coalesce into
the known forms of matter.

-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: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

R' Daniel Eidensohn wrote <<< The issue has come up a number of
times concerning whether there is such a thing as psak regarding the
alternative views on hashgofa found in the gemora. I just came across
the following psak of the Meiri that Jews are not totally controlled by
mazal. ... Meiri(Shabbos 156a):.... The gemora here says that in general
Jews are not controlled absolutely by mazal. Don't pay attention to the
alternative view that says ..... Comments and additional sources would
be greatly appreciated >>>

I'm not learned enough to offer any sources, but here's a comment or two:
What does the word "p'sak" mean in this context? We usually take "p'sak"
as referring to a decision that halacha requires or forbids something
or other. That could include whether or not we are required or forbidden
to believe in something or other.

Was the Meiri issuing a p'sak here, or was he merely giving his
explanation of the Gemara? When he said "Don't pay attention to", was
he actually declaring such beliefs to be kefira, or was he simply saying
which views made more sense to him personally?

Akiva Miller

[R Eli Turkel:]
> Can someone please explain the map of Israel/middle east in tosaphot on
> ruvin 15a. I have no idea what it means.

I assume you mean Erchin 15a. 
The confusion is probably due to the deficiencies in the geographical
knowledge of a number of rishonim (The rishonim were unaware of the
Gulf of Suez) who understood from the psukim that bnei yisrael made a
half circle during krias yam suf. (Including chizkuni and ibn ezra in
addition to tosfos in erchin.) Though it is difficult to find cholkim on
this among rishonim, tosfos already ask on this approach from a midrash.
Rav Yaakov Emden said that these rishonim were mistaken and bnei yisrael
really crossed the yam suf in the way we normally think. (see his
comments in the Vilna Shas there) (As for use of geographic knowledge in
understanding events in the torah, there is of course the famous Ramban
al ha-torah on "kivrat eretz lavo efrata".)

A thoughtful discussion of the issues involved can be found in the
Hebrew journal for tanach, Megadim, in volumes 23 and 25 (an article
and responses by Ahron Borenstein and Rav Yaakov Meidan).

hope this helps,
y. l.

RMB
> 1- Is the current stance on these three issues religiously inferior to
> the old?

I would argue that the current stance is not fundamentally different
than the old - both deal with reality, just different realities. It is
the application of a literal version of the old stance to today that is
untrue to the old stance.

> 2- Assuming they are inferior, are these consequences of our environment
> unchangable; did we undergo a true qitun hadoros? Or, is the battle not
> yet over and we should be making a concerted effort to build a different
> attitude toward halakhah and Yahadus?

I would argue that those who oppose the change actually have
a fundamentally different attitude towards halakhah and Yahadus -
because they don't recognize the different metziut - and they are the
true radicals and reformers..

> Framing the issue this way, my objection in the past to those seeking
> change has been to the assumptions that:
> 1- Since it's not an issue of issur or chiyuv, stance is irrelevent.

IMHO, a misunderstanding - stance is not irrelevant - but we have to
be very careful in what models we choose in determining our stance.
The categories of issur and chiyuv have far more stringent boundaries
than the issues of stance.

> 2- The question of whether we can combat societal change wasn't even
> asked. Her needs were a given, therefore it's a lack of kavbod haberiyos
> not to allow her to meet them.

It isn't that the question of combating societal change wasn't even asked.
It is that societal change occurs, and combating it is extremely difficult
if not impossible (that is part of the thrust of R C Soloveitchik's
article, Rupture and Reconstruction - and one that is least subject to
controversy - that societal changes occurs in the most insular societies,
even though they may not be aware of it.

Today, the life of a woman, whether MO in Great Neck, kollel wife in
Lakewood, or chasidic in Williamsburg, is dramatically different than
the life of Jewish women 300 years ago, and even from 50 years ago.

How it is different differs among those communities, and how the different
communities perceive and deal with these changes is different - but
the fact of change is given. As halacha is fundamentally realistic,
dealing with the metziut as it actually is, rather than what we would
like it, making the primary issue combating societal change rather than
dealing with the metziut is profoundly anti halachic. It doesn't mean
that there aren't specific areas where a battle can be fought - but the
notion that the emphasis should be on combating the change rather than
on dealing with the profound changes that have occured is an admission
of the failure of halacha - an admission that we refuse to make.

Your condemnation of women's expression is actually quite close to
a Yeshaya Lebowitz position - that true avodat hashem means that it
should be independent of any issue of self interest and personal growth
and fulfilment. However, if you believe that halacha is not merely just
blindly following rules - even though the rules need to be followed -
then one is obligated to try to accomodate current realities - the real
debate should be on how that accomodation should occur, not whether it
should occur.

Meir Shinnar

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< Speaking of the typical woman asking the
question, she is not a political feminist. She is someone who, because she
entered the workplace or even just because she lives in a society where
she can enter the workplace, is a different person than her grandmother
was. Her religious needs are not being met by the traditional Jewish
woman's roles, and therefore is seeking fulfilment as a Jew by exploring
new ones. >>>

On the one hand, I totally agree with this sentiment, and merely want
to comment on the choice of words. Some will say that I am being too
nitpicky in this, but I think that my comment might cut directly to the
core of these issues.

Specifically, let's note the phrase <<< Her religious needs are not
being met >>>. Who can know what their religious needs are? Desires and
urges, sure. But *needs*? No one can know our needs but HaShem, and He
has spelled them out for us.

One view, shared by many of our generation, seems to be that these
perceived needs are frivolous and not needed at all, and that people who
have such percieved needs are suspect. "Traditional roles" are called
that for good reasons.

Another view, also shared by many, is that we do (or may) have religious
needs beyond that which we've recieved from our forebears. One of the
functions of Minhag is to allow us to meet those needs; roles have
developed over time, and continue to do so.

Akiva Miller

RHS
> But as society continues to evolve and
> women continue to "come out of the closet" so to speak, there is nothing
> wrong and everything right about a desire to "know" and the ability to
> do something about it. As you noted about RYBS's opinion on the matter,
> one must respect the notion that if they were to have college level
> secular education, they needed the equivalent torah education. As you
> say, there has to be at least partial correspondence between the two
> worlds we live in.

The question remains, what is unique about torah study, and why not
apply the principle more broadly? The role of women of being public is
quite different than it was in the past - and most are used to being in
the public sphere in all aspects of their lives - have literally come
out of the closet - outside the Jewish sphere, where they are still
relegated to a private sphere. The question is the appropriate modality
- and here questions can be raised about particular forms, such as WPG,
but the question is the general issue of the development of appropriate
modalities that do reflect this modern public aspect of women.

Furthermore, you characterize RYBS's position as an "Eis Laasos" -
rather than that this is the lecatchila response to the current social
situation - and further evidence is needed for this characterization.

>> (if the public nature, talit and tefilin are also (or can also) be
>> done in private - would ou then object??)

> Yes, I would ...as did RYBS in the case of a Talis for a woman who
> asked him to Paskin if she could.

Actually, in the case at hand, he objected based on the demonstrated
wrong motivation - not a general psak...

> Again I must ask, why turn to male modalities? Why not take what has
> been accepted practice as a means of increasing Avodas HaShem?

Because the primary issue is the one of increasing avodas hashem by a
means that recognizes the fundamentally different social role of women -
and all the traditional female roles that you describe are inherently
private. That is not to say that one shouldn't do them - but they don't
answer the question. One could develop de novo modalities - but it is
far easier to use traditional, well developed Jewish models of public
avodas hashem - and those are male modalities...

> Once again I do not suggest that the motivations are at all overtly
> radically feminist. In most cases I believe the desires expressed by
> most of my MO sisters to be completely sincere. But as I stated in an
> earlier post, the fact that it is an almost exclusively MO enterprise
> to seek such venues raises the suspicion in my mind that at least at
> a subliminal level the motivations are not sourced entirely in a
> Torah Hashkafa.

First, MO women are far more likely to be actively involved in the public
sphere - and therefore feel the problem more acutely.

Second, the fact that this is almost exclusively an MO enterprise could
be interpreted to reflect on the lack of appropriate spiritual response
to modernity in the other communities..

Meir Shinnar

The copying of kaddish d'rabbanan from Sefaradi to Ashkenazi siddur isn't
that simple because of the many word differences aside from b'rachamav
and tovim.

For example, in the "rabbanan paragraph, y'hei lana ul'hon rather than
l'hon ul'chon, oraita kadishta. There are many other "optional" changes
(some have them some don't) that are not in the ashkenazi version. Again,
for example, v'khol man is omitted,. some don't have shlama raba, some
no chayaei and m'zonei and all end that list with rachamei min kodam
marei sh'maya.

In the last two paragraphs it is probable that they kept their own
form and did not add the ten word list in y'hei shlama raba and the kol
'amo Yisrael in both paragraphs.

An interesting modern modificaton now developing in Israel (because of
mixed minyanim) is the adding of the 'amo Yisrael and in kaddish itself
the omission of the vav of of v'shirata which very often becomes birkhata
shirata tushbchata V'nech... as in the Sefaradi version.

kvh"t,
David

Kenneth G Miller wrote:
>R' Daniel Eidensohn wrote <<< The issue has come up a number of
>times concerning whether there is such a thing as psak regarding the
>alternative views on hashgofa found in the gemora. I just came across
>the following psak of the Meiri that Jews are not totally controlled by
>mazal. ... Meiri(Shabbos 156a):.... The gemora here says that in general
>Jews are not controlled absolutely by mazal. Don't pay attention to the
>alternative view that says ..... Comments and additional sources would
>be greatly appreciated >>>
...
>Was the Meiri issuing a p'sak here, or was he merely giving his
>explanation of the Gemara? When he said "Don't pay attention to", was
>he actually declaring such beliefs to be kefira, or was he simply saying
>which views made more sense to him personally?

The Meiri is saying that there is only one correct understanding of
the role of mazal - "ain mazal l'Yisroel". The other position which is
accepted as legitimate by such authorities as the Ran - is declared to
be wrong and the result of personal experience clouding the judgment of
some of our sages. The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim goes through different
understanding of hashgocha protis and says there is one correct way
of understanding it. He also asserts that despite various apparently
contrary statements in Tanach - man has free-will. He asserts that
astrology is false - despite the appearance of alternative positions in
the gemora. He also rejects yesurim shel Ahava - despite it being stated
openly in the gemora.

Psak is deciding which view is the correct position and labeling
alternatives as wrong or problematic. Whether the consequence is that
belief in the alternative views constitutes heresy or causes loss in
Olam HaBah is an entirely separate issue. The common point of the Meiri
and the Rambam is the willingness to declare that certain apparently
legitimate views found in the Talmud as well as Tanacha are wrong. Not
eilu v'eliu but simply wrong. Thus they are asserting there is only one
correct position and that it is quite obvious to the unbiased mind. He
is doing more than saying that this is what the gemora is saying - he is
saying that the gemora has to be understood this way because any other
view violates obvious rational principles.

POSEKIM, a Hebrew term for scholars whose intellectual efforts were
concentrated on determining the halakhah in practice (for whom the word
"decisors" is sometimes used) in contrast to those commentators who
applied themselves to study for its own sake, and in order to facilitate
the understanding of the subject under discussion and who are called
mefarshim (expositors or commentators). This distinction was already
recognized by early authorities who stressed, for instance, that halakhah
should not be derived from Rashi's commentary on the Talmud--since Rashi
did not introduce into his commentary various ancillary considerations
without which no practical decision can be arrived at, except perhaps
for those few instances where Rashi explicitly states that the halakhah
is in accordance with his exposition. In the early period, especially in
Germany, the term posekim was identical with the teachers and leaders
of the generation in every locality. It included the heads of the
yeshivot, avot battei din, rabbis and talmudic scholars generally, on
condition that their statements were made "by way of pesak," on actual
cases which arose. The ruling of the posek was binding only upon those
subject to his authority, since he laid down the halakhah in accordance
with local tradition and for the people who accepted his authority. A
ruling was never successfully imposed upon communities outside the area
of the jurisdiction of the posek. The authority of the posek during this
period depended on his being a competent talmudic scholar, possessing a
comprehensive knowledge in every field on his subject, and on the fact
that he continued the tradition of his locality and of his teachers
transmitted to him while he studied under them. In the course of time
this situation gradually changed, as a result of the dissemination of the
codes, which afforded easy access to sources necessary for deciding the
halakhah. From the second half of the 16th century with the beginning of
the spread of the Shulhan Arukh, the character of the works by the posekim
changed fundamentally. Henceforth the outstanding posekim hardly engaged
at all in theoretical exposition, and to the extent that they did do so
their commentaries were generally forgotten and ignored. The posek during
this period won general recognition by virtue of the extensive practical
experience he accumulated and by gaining the approbation of contemporary
scholars, by devoting the whole of his intellectual and physical energy
to this goal, and by virtue of "divine aid," the charisma with which he
was endowed.
[Editorial Staff Encyclopaedia Judaica]

Daniel Eidensohn

R' Jonathan Ostroff wrote <<< MISHNA: If a beam ... has a circumference
of 3 tefachim it has a diameter of 1 tefach. ... Thus Chazal were aware
that Pi is more than 3, and the only issue is whether the approximation
3 can be used. >>>

I address the following to those views who say that the approximation
3 can be used:

I understand that if I have a situation which requires an object which
is at least 1 tefach in width, it is sufficient to use a circular
item whose circumference is exactly 3 tefachim, because even though
we can say "its diameter is between 0.95 tefachim and 0.96 tefachim",
it is also legitimate to say "its diameter is approximately 1 tefach",
and that is good enough.

Now, my question is that if we can use a cylinder whose diameter is
between 0.95 tefachim and 0.96 tefachim, would we also be able to use a
differently-shaped object, whose width was known to be somewhere between
0.95 tefachim and 0.96 tefachim?

If we cannot use such an object, then I am interested in why the logic
applies only to round objects, and not to other shapes. If we can indeed
use such an object, then I suggest that we might be drawing the wrong
conclusion: It's not that Chazal accepted approximations of pi, but that
they accepted approximations of the *shiurim*.

Akiva Miller

> We are trying to explain how scientists (using well-established and even
> superb theories based on good experimental results) thought the world to
> be static and eternal (up to 50 years ago), when its now considered to be
> a dynamic world, a mere 15b years old.

Scientific theory is a DYNAMIC process -- you are treating it as a series
of static theories.

IN all of your examples, existing theories were challenged by new
experimental data which forced a change -- but that change happened
over decades.

Akiva

--
"If you want to build a ship, then don't drum up men to gather wood, give
orders, and divide the work. Rather, teach them to yearn for the far and
endless sea." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

At 12:15 AM 8/29/2004, you wrote:
>Unfortunately, as I think I may have mentioned already (I'm losing track!)
>none of these proposed solutions actually work. The reason is that
>even if the overall time span is solved, the events of the six days of
>Bereishis still cannot be correlated with the history of the universe
>that we know....

If you cannot find a way to reconcile the pesukim with the fossil record,
then bleib shverr. Fuhn a kashya shtarbt men nisht. Personally, I would
assume the fossil record incorrect - that is, incorrectly interpreted.

But to allegorize the Torah is unacceptable, as we have stated here
time and again, and anyone who looks up REED inside (vol. 2. p. 151)
will certainly see that it was not his intent to do so. He states only
that *besides* the pshat there is also the remez or the sod...

YGB

At 03:43 PM 8/26/2004 -0400, [Micha] wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 03:13:57PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>: No, in our calendar, Adam was created on 1 Tishri 0002, not 0001.  The
>: world was created on 25 Elul 0001. 0001 only lasted 5 days; there was
>: no 24 Elul 0001, or any earlier date.

>In our calendar, Adam was created (immediately before?) bein
>hashemashos, the overlap between 30 Elul 1 and 1 Tishrei 2. Tishrei yr 2
>overlap. Thus, for people who aren't comfortable doing math with zeros,
>there is a need to have a year one for discussion of the first moment of
>true time.

Hmmm....I always thought that the calendar was supposed to represent the
years since the creation of Adam. Thus, on Rosh Hoshana of the year 5765
man would be 5,765 years old. By this reckoning (perhaps false!) Adam was
created on 1 Tishrei of the year 0. Dates prior to this during the "week"
(don't want to mix threads here) of creation would be sort of year -1.

mendel

Thank you for your comments. I think I had too early (and for quite some
time an exclusive) exposure to Rav Dessler as the voice of mussar, and
while I learned a lot from Michtav Me'Eliyahu, I found, as I got older,
that I felt a certain alienation from that voice. My statement was too
sweeping, anyway; Rav Hutner (does that count as mussar or machshava?)
and Rav Wolbe have indeed been formative influences, and revisiting the
Ramchal as an adult has been enlightening (though that doesn't count as
mussar, surely, at least historically.)

The most powerful piece of mussar I ever read came from a book called
"The Nazi Doctors" by Robert Jay Lifton. (It's a book well worth reading
for many reasons, but that's not why I am citing it here.) The author
of the statement--which changed my life--was a French Roman Catholic
woman prisoner doctor in Auschwitz who defied the Nazis by continuing
to treat patients as best she could under the constant threat of death.
Someone asked her how she dared, knowing that if caught she would die a
horrible death. Her answer was: "None of us will leave this place alive.
All that is left to us is to be as human as possible while we are here."
(That may be a verbatim quote--the words burned themselves into my brain.)
To me, it was the best description of the human condition I had ever
read, and utterly mechayev, though as a Jew, I would formulate it
somewhat differently.

The woman survived the war, by the way, and continued to practice
medicine.

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters

In a message dated 08/29/2004 9:19:28 PM EDT, Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu writes:
> Furthermore, you characterize RYBS's position as an "Eis Laasos" -
> rather than that this is the lecatchila response to the current social
> situation - and further evidence is needed for this characterization.

This is an issue we see over and over again. We need to be consistent
in our approach to these issues. For example, women working to support
kollel husbands -is this eis laasos or a lechatchila response to current
social situations?

KT
Joel  Rich

"Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> wrote:
> RHS

I assume you meant me, RHM, but I don't mind being confused with RHS.

:)

> The question remains, what is unique about torah study, 

First of all, Torah study is unique in the sense that it is not a public
act. Secondly there is also overlap in what women are actually required to
study since Matan Torah, what is optional, and what was considered taboo
(but technically not Assur) until the Eis Laasos caused by the reformation
and enlightenment which in turn spawned the BY movement. Women have
always needed to know Torah in areas pertaining to woman (e.g. family
purity), and to know all of the Lavin and Mitzvos Aseh SheEin HaZman
Gramma. The Gemarrah made teaching women Torah taboo equating it to
something called Tiflus.

So, Torah study is qualitatively different than other modalities. In the
case of WTGs and just about anything else I can think of that are modled
on male behavior the performance is more public. Just because a WTG is
done amongst women only, for women, and by women even without any male
presence, deosn't really make it less public, does it?

> and why not
> apply the principle more broadly? 

My only objection is in the area of ritual performance. I encourage
full participation of women in all other areas as I have already
stated. R. Esther Jungreis is going to be giving the invocation at
the onset of Tuesday's session of the Republican National convention.
Although I have some minor differences with her general approach,
I applaud the fact that she is being given this public honor.

> (In)the Jewish sphere, (women) are still
> relegated to a private sphere. 

I disagree. Only in some circles is that true. And in those circles
that's the way those women like it, IIUC. I have no problem what-so-ever
with women addresing mixed audiences on any subject in any venue and
encourage them to do so. Nor do I have any problem with women taking
leadership roles in areas of education and the like and encourage women
there as well.

> The question is the appropriate modality
> - and here questions can be raised about particular forms, such as WPG,
> but the question is the general issue of the development of appropriate
> modalities that do reflect this modern public aspect of women.

I do not understand this need at all. I cannot understand it in men.
I cannot understand it in women. Why the need to develop new rituals.
Don't we have enough? Can't we just concentrate on trying to perfect those
required of us. And why must religious rituals reflect the the status of
the workplace? There is hardly any parrallel between the two. If the next
CEO of Intel were to be a woman, would she feel a comparable need to Daven
in a WTG or wear Teffilin? In any case such innovation falls far short of
the equivalent triumph of becoming a CEO. The only thing comparable would
be to become the Rabbi of... say... Lincoln Square Synogouge. That ain't
happining. So why bother with half a loaf anyway? Ultimately it will still
be unstisfying to those seeking egalitarianism in every sphere of life.

>>> (if the public nature, talit and tefilin are also (or can also) be
>>> done in private - would ou then object??)

>> Yes, I would ...as did RYBS in the case of a Talis for a woman who
>> asked him to Paskin if she could.

> Actually, in the case at hand, he objected based on the demonstrated
> wrong motivation - not a general psak...

That's true but that anecdote seems to indicate that this woman was
symbolic of other women with similar desires and implies that RYBS
believed that in most cases adoption of male modalites is done for
the wrong reasons. And that's the real problem... desires ...Desires
on how one WANTS to serve God... not on the responsibilties of HOW to
serve God.

> the primary issue is the one of increasing avodas hashem by a
> means that recognizes the fundamentally different social role of women -

Why conflate the two issues? The fundamentally different social role of
women does not need to parrallel her religious role. If I were a doctor
working in a hospital would my religious role somehow have to parrelell
that? Should a doctor find new religious modalities that reflect his
social status?

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         ]