Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 085

Tuesday, August 31 2004

• RE: Age of the Universe
• Re: Age of the Universe
• Re: Age of the Universe
• Age of the Universe
• Re: Age of the Universe
• Re: Pi
• Re; Psak for hashkafa
• Re: Psak for hashkofa
• Re: mussar
• Api Tlasa
• RE: Moderation and Halakhah
• RE: Moderation and Halakhah
• chiyuv to daven w/ a minyan
• RE: Public expression by Women

>> then bleib shverr. Fuhn a kashya shtarbt men nisht. Personally, I would
>> assume the fossil record incorrect - that is, incorrectly interpreted.

>Once or twice, maybe. But thousands of times -- all over the world --
>using dozens of different methods, all of which agree? I don't think so.

I do.

>Besides -- is *ignoring* problems with a dismissive "Fuhn a kashya shtarbt
>men nisht" the way we want to teach people to deal with Torah? These are
>real questions that need to delt with -- and by people who understand
>the science involved.

I do not see allegorizing the Torah as a way of dealing with it. It is
damaging the Torah to make it fit with science. If Torah is not revealed
truth, that makes sense. But Torah is revealed truth so it is megaleh
panim ba'Torah.

>(The worst way to deal with these issues is for a Rav with no
>understanding of the science or the scientific method to just dismiss
>things out of hand. Anyone with a basic science education sees right
>through that -- and it creates a bad impression of how Torah Jews deal
>with "difficult" issues. it;s bith a kiruv issue and a kiddush/chilul
>HaShem issue.)

No one is dismissing out of hand. You think when R' Akiva Eiger left 
something b'tzorich iyun he was dismissing them?!

>> But to allegorize the Torah is unacceptable, as we have stated here

>In your opinion. Others disagree. As stated here as well.

If you mean other Avodah subscribers, that is correct. If you mean more
substantive sources, it is not.

YGB 

From: Zoo Torah <zoorabbi@zootorah.com>
> 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....

Where can one find this essay by Rav Dessler?

SBA

RYGB wrote:
>If you cannot find a way to reconcile the pesukim with the fossil record,
>then bleib shverr. Fuhn a kashya shtarbt men nisht. 

True, you don't die from a kashye, but you don't die from an answer
either. And while you don't die from a kashya, you can certainly
suffer. "Fuhn a kashya shtarbt men nisht" is something to be used only
when there is no acceptable answer available - of course, I suppose we
are differing on the definition of "acceptable." But speaking as someone
who is regularly asked to answer difficult questions regarding conflicts
between Torah and science, if I were to toss out this phrase every time,
I wouldn't be doing a very good job. In fact, many of the people who turn
to me in deep distress over these topics have been caused this distress
precisely from rebbeim who have brushed them off with this phrase.

In any case, I have indeed found a way to reconcile the pesukim with
the fossil record, so there is no need to bleib shverr!

>Personally, I would assume the fossil record incorrect - that is,
>incorrectly interpreted.

There are people who are also able to believe that science is wrong
regarding the universe being more than a few thousand years old, or
regarding lice not spontaneously generating. But those of us who have
investigated it carefully are simply unable to draw this conclusion,
and are not able to find solace in this approach. (BTW, here it's not
just a matter of the fossil record, but also of things such as whether
plants came before the sun.)

>But to allegorize the Torah is unacceptable, as we have stated here
>time and again...

I don't know who RYGB is referring to with the word "we," but I searched
the archives and found a number of listmembers showing that it can indeed
be acceptable, giving clear sources in Rambam and Rav Saadia Gaon. And
this was regarding non-maase Bereishis material - kal v'chomer regarding
maase Bereishis, the most esoteric part of the Torah.

>... 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...

Actually, I discussed this with Rav Aryeh Carmell shlita (Rav Dessler's
talmid and the compiler of Michtav Me'Eliyahu) and he confirmed that this
is exactly Rav Dessler's meaning. For the benefit of the listmembers,
here's the citation:

"All that the Torah recounts of matters relating to the period before
the completion of creation is conveyed to us by Moshe from the mouth
of God in terms of concepts which we can grasp. Just as one attempts to
give a blind person some idea of that which he cannot see by making use
of analogies with the sense of touch and so forth, so does the Torah
present to us that which is essentially spiritual in a material guise,
with some points of similarity and analogy to the spiritual message,
so that we may be able to grasp it to the best of our ability .In the
simple meaning of the text - that which is conveyed to us in accordance
with our own conceptual capacity - we are to understand actual days
made up of hours and minutes. But in its real essence, that is to say,
in its inner meaning, the text has quite a different connotation. It
refers to the six sefiros, which are modes of revelation of the divine
conduct of the world. Only for our benefit does Scripture present them
to us in the form of six days."

In other words, according to Rav Dessler, pshat (at least as far as
maase Bereishis is concerned) is not a description of physical reality,
but rather something that is easy to grasp. Later he gives another
explanation as to the purpose of the "six day" account:

"Creation, by definition, is outside our world and outside our frame
of thought. Since creation does not take place in time we must ask why
the Torah describes it as taking six days. The answer is that the Torah
wishes to teach us a lesson in relative values. Everything has value
only in relation to its spiritual content. Vast physical masses and
vast expanses of space and time are of little significance if their
spiritual content is small. The whole physical universe exists as an
environment for the spiritual life of the human being; this is its
spiritual content. When interpreting non-temporal creation in temporal
terms the Torah deliberately contracts the time-scale compared with
that which presents itself to the scientist, in order to convey to us
the relative insignificance of the material creation compared with the
spiritual stature of man." (Michtav Me-Eliyahu vol. IV p. 113)

The point that I was trying to bring out is that according to Rav Dessler,
the days are not "billions of years," but rather spiritual forces, and are
not even a chronological sequence (but rather a spiritual hierarchy). This
neatly solves the disparity between the sequence in Bereishis and the
sequence that presents itself to those who have studied the history of
the universe. I have not seen any other approach that accomplishes this.

Kol tuv,
Nosson Slifkin

R. Micha Berger posted on Aug. 25, 2004: 
"I bedavka make the argument that the notion of a universe that is younger
than six millennia was MORE common amongst ba'alei mesorah before science
challenged any particular age over any other that it is now."

I'm confused. I agree to this statement, but it seems to be diametrically
opposed to R. Micha's posting on Aug 10, 2004:
"Until RZLampel shows the numerous ma'amarei Chazal he feels insist
that yeish mei'ayin was less than 6,000 years ago, I see little reason
to believe this is the Torah's position. As far as I can tell, it was
the shitah of a mi'ut -- until the 19th century, when many of us dug in
our heals."

Good kushya, no? Are we getting into another disagreement over ribui
u'mi-ute (:)?

My only conclusion can be that there is a shibush girsa, and that the
first statement above contained a typo. From all else R. Berger wrote,
he seems to maintain (erroneously, I plan to show) that most ba'alei
mesorah held that yeish mei-ayin was more than 6,000 years ago.

Adding further to my confusion, I thought that R. Berger, by claiming that
"the Ramban [and others]... have no problem giving the universe history
between yeish mei'ayin and the rest of 6 yemei bereishis," was attributing
to the Sage the idea that the period between Creation and "the rest of
the 6 yemei bereishis"--the period of "tohu va-vohu"--was a long one,
to accommodate the evolutionary theory (as per the Tifferess Yisroel,
inserting a history of dinosaurs, etc.) of a millennia-long earth history.

But to this, R. Berger replied: (23 Aug 2004),
"No, that's the Tif'eres Yisrael. The Ramban simply says it wasn't
formed into final shapes during the period between yeish mei'ayin and day
one. As I wrote, the assumption that this period was long is not mine,
but that of his talmid RYmA."

So it would seem that R. Berger maintains that the Ramban did not discuss
the length of the tohu va-vohu period, and that it was his talmid (and
TY) who added that it was millennia, based upon a literal rendition of
Aggadta. So in the original statement ("the Ramban [and others]... have
no problem giving the universe history between yeish mei'ayin and the
rest of 6 yemei bereishis"), R. Berger simply commented that there was
"a" period of time that existed between Yeish Me-ayin and "Let there
be Light." But if that's what he meant, what was the relevance to our
discussion about the age of the universe and/or earth/the length of the
six days of Creation/the evolutionist scenario of animals and humans
biologically descending from "lower forms of life"? Without meaning to
intimidate that the Ramban (in concert with his talmid and TY) that the
Ramban held this period to be millennia-long, what was the point?

But before answering that, another layer of confusion is added because
R. Berger then states in the very same post,

"Ramban inserts time between Bereishis 1:1 and yom rishon. He says the
process of formation took six literal days. But between beri'ah and the
yetzirah of yom echad could have been 15 billion years."

Was this possible 15-billion years a period full of a history of
dinosaurs, etc.? Or was it a period of formless matter (as Ramban actually
says--"hee-u-llee")? If the latter, again, what relevance is it to the
claims of evolutionists and geologists that fossil records show that life
existed and evolved on this planet for billions of years? That is why I
assumed he meant the former, (especially since this view is maintained by
Rabbi Kahn in his shiur on tape on parshas B'har) and this is why I wrote,

RMB evidently attributes to the Ramban the idea that after Hashem created 
: the world (Gen 1:1), it experienced a long, unknown history ... (into which 
: RMB would defend inserting aeons, within which lived dinosaurs, etc., 
: to accommodate the belief that they lived millennia ago). He asserts that 
: the Ramban held that Hashem, after those aeons, then destroyed or ruined 
: that creation, resulting in the "tohu vavohu" of Gen. 1:2, from which 
: G-d got on to forming "our" world (which contains fossil remains from 
: that old world).

To this I countered that the Ramban explicitly states that the days
of b'raishis were 24-hour days, "k'p'shuto shel mikreh," thereby
contradicting his talmid's alleged position.

On top of this, it suddenly occurs to me that in his statement, "He
[Ramban] says the process of formation took six literal days. But between
beri'ah and the yetzirah of yom echad could have been 15 billion years,"
RMB's phrase "of yom echad" is being used to modify "yetzirah' alone! And
when he spoke of the time between yeish mei-ayin and "yom echad," he meant
up until the beginning of the first day. He is proposing (along with RnTK)
that The Beriah took place outside of "yom rishon"! There was a beriah
that resulted in "tohu va-vohu," which state (possibly) remained for 15
billion years, and then Hashem said "Let there be Light," and thereupon
began the first day of yetzira. It was only from this point on that the
24-hour Day One began. As RnTK put it (26 Aug, 2004):

What was a "day" at the beginning of Bereishis? It could have been 15
billion years....

To all this I reply TOUT AU CONTRAIRE! Our mesorah does not allow for
this. It's a clear Gemora on that oft-cited page 12a in Haggiga:

Ten things were created ON THE FIRST DAY: Heaven and Earth, TOHU VA-VOHU,
Ruach and Mayyim, Light and Darkness, THE LENGTH OF THE DAY AND THE
LENGTH OF THE NIGHT. (RASHI: i.e., 24 HOURS COMBINED).

It's as clear as day! The mesorah teaches us that tohu va-vohu were part
of the first day (which I thought everyone always thought), which was
24 hours long (as an unbiased reader would naturally understand it).

Ramban, who defines the six days of the beriah (not only "yetsirah')
as 24 -- hour days, certainly understood the Torah this way. At the
moment of Creation, he explains, the Heaven and Earth appeared in their
ephemeral "tohu va-vohu" state and, within 24 hours, G-d declared "Yehi
Ohr," and it happened.

(Even if one would insist that during the "tohu va-vohu" phase there
was no way to mark time, and therefore there was no time--a concept the
Ramban does not seem to support--the "tohu va-vohu" phase consisted of
no truly physical things; not galaxies, not vegetation, not amoeba, not
insects, fish or animals or humans. There is absolutely no relevance to
evolutionists' of an aeons-long period over which all these things were
"developing.")

The "one-day-equals-a-thousand-years" concept Ramban explicitly explains
(in diametric contradiction to the way some want to use his talmid's
remarks--who was mekabbel his teaching from whom?) as referring to each
of the 7 days of Creation indicating what will transpire in each future
millennia. (If indeed his talmid applied it to the past, you might say
that Ramban saw his talmid as having it backwards!) Ramban explicitly
explains that this is the "y'sod y'mos olom" that kabbalah teaches, after
having emphasized that "maaseh Braishis is a very deep secret, not [fully]
understand through the p'sukim [alone], and can only be fully understood
through the kabballa from the mouth of Moses [who was not "enlightened"
by current "scientific" fantasies] from the mouth of HaG'vurah."

B'chlall, I would keep away from Kabballah--especially literal renditions
of it.

Zvi Lampel

On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:53:01AM -0400, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: R. Micha Berger posted on Aug. 25, 2004: 
: "I bedavka make the argument that the notion of a universe that is younger
: than six millennia was MORE common amongst ba'alei mesorah before science
: challenged any particular age over any other that it is now."

: I'm confused....
: My only conclusion can be that there is a shibush girsa, and that the
: first statement above contained a typo. From all else R. Berger wrote,
: he seems to maintain (erroneously, I plan to show) that most ba'alei
: mesorah held that yeish mei-ayin was more than 6,000 years ago.

Correct. I either meant "older" or "LESS".

...
: So it would seem that R. Berger maintains that the Ramban did not discuss
: the length of the tohu va-vohu period, and that it was his talmid (and
: TY) who added that it was millennia, based upon a literal rendition of
: Aggadta....

Again, correct.

: But before answering that, another layer of confusion is added because
: R. Berger then states in the very same post,
: "Ramban inserts time between Bereishis 1:1 and yom rishon. He says the
: process of formation took six literal days. But between beri'ah and the
: yetzirah of yom echad could have been 15 billion years."

: Was this possible 15-billion years a period full of a history of
: dinosaurs, etc.? Or was it a period of formless matter (as Ramban actually
: says--"hee-u-llee")? ...

It was a period, as the Ramban said, where hyle (chomer) existed, but
our current morphs (tzuros) did not. He does not say that no tzuros
existed, although that would be the simplest read. He says that the current
tzuros are described on 1:2 onward.

But recall that I am not a believer in the accuracy of cosmology,
geological history, and evolution. I'm following the Maharal. My point
is to disprove both the literal read AND the historicity of scientific
claims. Not to show that the Ramban was speaking in scientific terms.

...
: To this I countered that the Ramban explicitly states that the days
: of b'raishis were 24-hour days, "k'p'shuto shel mikreh," thereby
: contradicting his talmid's alleged position.

Again, this is between yeish mei'ayin and day one. Not the length of
the days of yetzirah.

...
: On top of this, it suddenly occurs to me that in his statement, "He
: [Ramban] says the process of formation took six literal days. But between
: beri'ah and the yetzirah of yom echad could have been 15 billion years,"
: RMB's phrase "of yom echad" is being used to modify "yetzirah' alone!...

That's not me -- that's the Ramban. Yeish mei'ayin is pasuq 1:1, and the
yeish was hyle (translation from Greek to Hebrew: chumer beli tzurah). The
6 days describe yetzirah -- the giving of tzurah.

...
: To all this I reply TOUT AU CONTRAIRE! Our mesorah does not allow for
: this. It's a clear Gemora on that oft-cited page 12a in Haggiga:
: Ten things were created ON THE FIRST DAY: Heaven and Earth, TOHU VA-VOHU,
: Ruach and Mayyim, Light and Darkness, THE LENGTH OF THE DAY AND THE
: LENGTH OF THE NIGHT. (RASHI: i.e., 24 HOURS COMBINED).

Where does the Ramban give anything on that list a later date? Do you
see hyle/chomer on that list? Or doee the Ramban assert a longer day?

For that matter, in R' Schroeder's camp, the 6 days is literal AS WELL as
being 15 billion years. No problem either. The only thing he allegorizes
is the start of astronomy -- but claims that Rashi already did that. He
makes it about when the sun, moon and stars first became visible, not
when they were first created.

So, contra RHM's claim that "Gerald Schroeder's approach does not have
any Rishonic precedents", it does. The relativistic issue of 6 days
dilating into 15 billion wasn't addressed, but why would it have to?

It comes down to which opf the conflicting aggaditos is to be labeled
ahistorical. RZL, after insisting that the midrashim describing
generations before Adam or the existance of many millenia before him are
allegory, you can't insist a different medrash is an open-and-shut proof.

: Ramban, who defines the six days of the beriah (not only "yetsirah')
: as 24...

Meaningless. He speaks of a post-hyle activity. Giving tzuras to
existing chomer. That is yetzirah, look at the shoresh. At most,
my terminology and the Ramban's don't coincide. But the ideas have
to.

...
: (Even if one would insist that during the "tohu va-vohu" phase there
: was no way to mark time, and therefore there was no time--a concept the
: Ramban does not seem to support...

As I said, the Ramban says NOTHING about time, about the duration of
pre-tzurah existance. Or even that it was tohu, lacking all tzurah,
rather than lacking the tzuros we know and love.

One needs to prove that he is choleiq with his talmid. In this silence,
I assume the talmid expanded on the rebbe.

...
: The "one-day-equals-a-thousand-years" concept Ramban explicitly explains
: (in diametric contradiction to the way some want to use his talmid's
: remarks--who was mekabbel his teaching from whom?) as referring to each
: of the 7 days of Creation indicating what will transpire in each future
: millennia...

Not only is RYmA's source gemara different than borei olamos umachrivam,
it's also different than R' Yehudah's 7 millenia.

:                                                ..., Ramban explicitly
: explains that this is the "y'sod y'mos olom" that kabbalah teaches, after
: having emphasized that "maaseh Braishis is a very deep secret, not [fully]
: understand through the p'sukim [alone], and can only be fully understood
: through the kabballa from the mouth of Moses [who was not "enlightened"
: by current "scientific" fantasies] from the mouth of HaG'vurah."

You realize that without your words in brackets, the Ramban is agreeing
with the Maharal: that the concept is incomprehensible, and therefore
the pesuqim can't be understood as literal history?



On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 05:54:38PM +0200, Ari Kahn wrote:
: There are a number of problems with [RAK's] approach. R' Yitzchak, whose
: system multiplies one day by 1,000 years, does not say we are in the 6th
: cycle, rather that we are in "Din", which would seem to be the second
: cycle....

Or the 2nd to last, ie the sixth. Unfortunately, it has been too many
years since RAK's shi'ur on the subject, so I can't properly remember
or defend what he said. I am guessing.

However, since he taught "ineveinig", using a xerox of a manuscript,
it's hard to picture that RAK glossed over anything.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 08:51:35PM -0400, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
: 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....

I did not understand it that way at all. I took the approximation as
being a valid way to get from diameter to area or circumferance, but
not the reverse.

IOW, it only works in measuring eiruvin, rooms for mezuzah or sukkos
that must have a perimeter of 16 amos, or an area of 16 sq amos, or
include a 4x4 amah square.

The gemara never uses it, AFAIK, to go from circumferance to length.

And this is significant because diameter is the known. It's circumferance
and area that I'm believe are the harder to measure, and therefore have
to have a limit of precision.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

I think that RDE raises an important issue, but I would disagree.

He bring the Meiri as saying that a certain position is wrong, and
similarly the rambam - and argues that a definitive statement that a
position is wrong - is the same thing as a psak.

However, there is the well known rambam in perush hamishnayot (I think
that it appears at least three times) that on any issues of hashkafa,
if there are no practical consequences - we don't decide. That doesn't
mean that the rambam or the mishna can't decide that one of the positions
is right and the other wrong - but such decisions have no halachic weight.

Therefore, even in the rambam, who very clearly paskens some aspects of
hilchot machshavot, there is a clear differentiation between the position
that a hashkafa is wrong - and there are many disagreements in rishonim
who believe that positions of other rishonim is wrong - and translating
that to a psak. Only if the hashkafa has practical consequences does
the statement that the position is wrong elevated to a notion of a psak.

Meir Shinnar

On the subject of pesaq and hashkafah, RGS has an article published in
the current issue of "Modern Judaism". A review of R' M Shapiro's book
about the ikkarim. The review is titled "Crossroads: Where Theology
Meets Halacha -- A Review Essay."

The ToC is at <http://www3.oup.co.uk/modjud/hdb/Volume_24/Issue_03>, the
article, which requires a subscription or pay-per-read is at
<http://www3.oup.co.uk/modjud/hdb/Volume_24/Issue_03/pdf/kjh020.pdf>.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
micha@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - anyonyous Dr, while a Nazi prisoner

Rn Simi Peters wrote:
> 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.)

I think the Ramchal is mussar (lower case "m") in that he defines yahadus in
tiqun hamidos terms. But obviously not Tenu'as haMussar with a capital "M".

Given my proposed definition, most of Rav Hutner's work is not mussar. His
writings do not center around the need for tiqun hamidos and the means to
accomplish it. Here's a quote from
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol13/v13n019.shtml#10>, my summary of the
"Mussar Kallah II", a qiruv event in Houston:
> I recall only one anecdote from [R' Wender, rav of the YI of Houston and
> Chaim Berlin alumn's] speech. R' Hutner, also from Slabodka, founded his
> yeshiva, Chaim Berlin, on a totally different foundation. Rather than Mussar,
> Chaim Berlin is founded upon a Maharal-derived approach. Very philosophical
> and inspiring, but not the life-shaping experience of Mussar.

> Some students took a survey of American leadership from Slabodka (and
> there were many!), and eventually got to R' Hutner to ask him why he made
> this decision. R' Hutner said that he didn't feel the American yeshiva
> student didn't have what it took to do mussar and follow through with it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

As to the nature of Lasha Hara, the PC appraoch is that of the CC which
for practical purposes virtually eliminates the entire concept of Api
Tlasa. But let us examine the sources.

The Gemmara in Arachin discusses Lashon Hara at great length. The Gemmarah
on Daf 16A states in the name of Rabbah that anything which is stated
in front of three people (Api Tlasa), is not in violation of Lashan
Hara. Rashi explains that if an individaul tells three people about an
event surrounding oneself then he realizes that it will be repeated
many times over and the thing will become known. The Rashbam in Bava
Basra (39A) concurs and states that once three people know about it,
the story can be repeated.

The Rambam in Hilchos Deyos 7:5 clearly Paskins: If the thing is divulged
to 3 people, then any repetition by any or all of those three is not
in the Geder of Lashon Hara. The Kesef Mishna adds that one should be
careful not to reveal more than was revealed to the three.

The CC argues and Assurs ANY repetition siding with the Rishonim who
dispute the Rambam. He feels that any further spreading of the information
will be in the category of "reveal more than was revealed to the three"
and harm the subject of the information.

But even the Chaftez Chaim admits that if negative information is
universally known, it is NOT Lashon Hora and there is no longer any
prohibition in repeating it unless it is for the express purpose of
disparagment and nothing else.

HM

> The assumption here is that the "negative information" is true.
> If a newspaper reports X about Y:
> Either X is true (Loshon Hora) or False (Rechilus)
 
Didn't you mean that:
Either X is true [lashon hara] or false [motzei shem ra]?
 
 --Rena

> Didn't you mean that:
> Either X is true [lashon hara] or false [motzei shem ra]?

Of course. Thanks for correcting me.

Akiva

Something I've been wondering in regards to the WTG discussions.

Is there a chiyuv for a man to daven w/ a minyan or is it just "better".
i.e. one can't do certain things w/o a minyan, but is that a chiyuv on
the individual?

sources would be appreciated.

thanks,
shaya

R Harry Maryles wrote:
> But the fact is that in the vast majority of cases, it is the MO woman who
> seems to be the one bothered by this disparity. There are plenty of women
> in the workplace who are Charedi, supporting their husbands... living
> the Kollel lifestyle who have absolutely no desire to form WTGs or read a
> Kesubah under the Chupah or participate in any male religious modality. I
> maintain (and have said in the past) that it is a cultural mindset in
> typically liberal MO communities in which these types of desires seem
> to take hold.

As MO has lower walls between "their values" and ours, it would make sense
that an MO woman's self-image would be more changed by the new circumstances.
The chareidiyah is far more likely to see herself as "basically" about home
and family, but with a necessary compromise. To her, working is a sacrifice
made lesheim her husband's talmud Torah, not a new self-image. There is a
compartmentalization that MO would discourage.

The MO woman isn't out to adopt a feminist stance, she is living in a feminist
world, and to some extent a feminist lifestyle. It's imposed by environment,
and usually not the product of active pursued. (If some do adopt an active
pursuit, it's usually a consequence, not a cause.)

R Harry Maryles wrote in a 2nd email:
> Yet men get greater Schar. Why? Because there is more Schar for those who
> do the Mitzvah as a Chiuv than those who do so w/o Chiuv and only as a
> Reshus. Those who do it as a Reshus do it because they want to... though
> L'shma... ultimately for self motivated reasons. Those who do it because
> of a Chiuv do it because they have to even if they do not want to... God
> motivated reasons, therefore, there is more Schar.

Actually, in the past I suggested a different relationship.

Men need the mitzvah more in order to acheive sheleimus and deveiqus. The
greater sechar is a consequence of the fact that it's a greater factor in
their tafqid. This isn't necessarily a statement about having different
tafqidim, but could be one about which kinds of neshamos HQBH places in
which kinds of bodies.

Rather than the additional sechar being a consequence of the chiyuv,
I would say the chiyuv and the additional sechar are both consequences
of the greater need.

And in a third email:
> 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?

As I see it: change in social role causes change in self image, which
causes change in religious needs. Now the question is whether that
should be addressed by a change in religious norms, or by braking that
causal chain.

Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> 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?

As I wrote above, I think the typical view is that it's a sacrifice. The
working itself is non-ideal, but as part of the greater picture of
having more men learn, it is viewed as a lechatchilah. Thus, it is
both a lechatchilah AND yet when viewed in-and-of itself, not the ideal
woman's role.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

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


[ 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         ]