Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 021

Tuesday, May 24 2005

• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: Kedusha
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Sanhedrin Overturning a Previous Drash
• Pesach Sheni/Behab
• Re: What should a kohen do?
• placing stones at the grave
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: What should a kohen do?
• Re: Swimming pool is a kosher mikveh?
• Re: beli reishis beli sachlis
• Re: Rabbi Yehudah Davis ztvk"l and the Mountaindale Yeshiva
• Re: Reality of the Universe
• Re[2]: Swimming pool is a kosher mikveh?
• Re: Swimming pool is a kosher mikveh?
• Re: Swimming pool is a kosher mikveh?
• RE: Swimming pool is a kosher mikveh?
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: shelo asani ishah

I once posted R' Freundel's proof to Rashi's position (and the Tur's, and
that of most of the nosei keilim on the SA) that it's about men having
more mitzvos using the Xian Bible. As I wrote then, it was written for
a non-frum audience, who r"l would find external confirmation from Paul
more convincing than a statement from numerous rishonim.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n047.shtml#01>.

In that post, I also note the Taz's position, that the three berakhos are
thanking G-d for creating human diversity.

I ask people to please see that post if you want to discuss this one. It
looks like my last teaser is getting replies based on what I wrote for
the teaser, rather than reading the linked page in full.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       an act of kindness?

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> qedushah is separation /for/.

So what does it mean to say that God is kadosh?

David Riceman

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
<Yes, but where do you see that "the Rambam holds that saying tehilim
doesn't help"?>

The Rambam says:
    1. lahash doesn't work.
    2. divrei torah heal the soul but not the body.

If saying tehillim heals through a third unmentioned mechanism haser
ikkar min hasefer.
Incidentally, see PhM Pesahim 4:10, and see the end of the introduction
to PhM, ed. Kafih, p. 26, "v'eshtadel bchol zeh l'katzer halashon ad
kdei shelo yipol safeik lakorei v'gomer".

<Good question. I don't have a perfectly satisfactory answer for you
but I can definitely prove to you that doing something partially wrong
can help. My proof is from Eliezer eved Avraham who was minachesh and
despite the fact that it was improper, Hashem gave him hatzlachah.>

See peirush R. Avraham ben HaRambam on Breishis 24:12. He says explicitly
that this was not nahash, and he generally was meticulous about following
his father's opinions.

> In fact the heter according to the Shulhan Arukh seems to be predicated
on > the magical efficacy of lahash.

<How do you see this? The SA states openly that lichisha is eino moel klum
(halachah 6)>

This is a good question. The source for the heter of pikuah nefesh
is the Tosafos in Shvuos, who did believe in the efficacy of lahash.
The naive reading of the Shulhan Arukh is that he paskened two halachos
based on majority opinions even though their motivating reasons were
contradictory (I'm sure you're familiar with Arrow's theorem). This is
a known, though disturbing, phenomenon in the SA.

OTOH it's always nicer to have a consistent reading of the SA. I doubt,
however, that any reading you come up with will also fit the Rambam's
opinions.

> <me>The Bach doesn't distinguish between types of kofrim.  What he says 
> there
> (YD 179 s.v. "kathav ha Rambam") is that the Rambam used the phrase "bichlal
> hakofrim" to mean "similar to kofrim in one respect".

<That's what I meant.>

I will rephrase my objection. The Rambam uses the expression "b'chlal X"
many times. IIRC it invariably means "is a member of class X". The Bach,
because he didn't wish to disagree with the Rambam, was politely okeir
l'shono mipshuto. In fact, however, pshat in the Rambam is that people
who do this are kofrim, and pshat in the Bach is that he paskens against
the Rambam.

> What is the issur? If your tzibur is saying tehilim for people who are
> hospitalized or are seriously sick at home, there is no issur according
> to the SA or the Rama. If your shul says tehilim for people with colds,
> than you should make a macha'ah and stop the practice, that's all.

Only for people who are in serious danger of dying.  As I explained in a 
previous post, however, saying tehillim is basically an unregulated 
activity.

David Riceman

On Mon, 9 May 2005 hlampel@thejnet.com wrote: 
>> ... Dr. Gary J. Schrieber has 
>> written me to suggest Zevachim 61b (bottom) as a source ...[of]
>> an historic example of a Sanhedrin excercising its  power of
>> overturning a previous drash l'ma'aseh!

>> My only concern is how the rest of the sugya...interacts with
>> this. Can...anyone...of Avodah help?

rivkyc@sympatico.ca posted on: May 15, 2005:
> I'll take a shot at it. 

> The Gemara (Shabbos 63:) ... R' Eliezer ... claimed that he actually
> saw an extant tzitz in Rome that had Kodesh laShem written on one line
> .... R' Eliezer was a perfectly valid eid re'eeya however, Chazal were
> beholden to follow the kelaly hapesak and based on their drashos...

> I hope this was helpful. 

Sorry, Simcha, no cigar. My request was for help on the Gemora Zevachim.

Your suggestion is an interesting one along the lines of others cited
in Dynamics of Dispute indicating that, as Rambam states, a Sanhedrin
is able to overturn a previous one's drash-generated decision. However,
the Gemora you cite is not conclusive.

For one thing, I'm not certain the other Sages accepted R' Eliezer's
b'Rebbi Yosay's aidus. And perhaps, even if they accepted it, they
shared our healthy skepticism of "archeological-type" proofs. (Perhaps
this was a posul tztitz, or a sloppy Roman copy of a kosher one, or
whatever-who knows?).

Also, there is no indication that the issue was one of drash, rather
than pure mesorah, no indication that the Bes Din Gadol was involved in
either shitta, and since R' Eliezer (or Elazar) b'R. Yossay's witnessing
took place after the churban bayyis, the issue of how the words were
arranged on the tzitz evidently was not halacha l'ma'aseh in the sense
of the decision changing actual practice.

The beauty of Dr. Schroeder's proof is that it fulfills all the qualities
of the Rambam's principle:

It is expressly speaking about:
    A halacha generated by a drash
    By a Bes Din Gadol
    Reversed by a later Bes Din Gadol
    Based upon an alternate drash
    For a din that was halacha l'ma'aseh

Zvi Lampel

I was perusing the calendar yesterday and I noticed that Pesach Sheni
falls on the last fast of Behab. Now according to the recent discussion
here about tachnun on mincha befor Pesach Sheni, it would seem logical
that those who have the custom of eating shmura matza should do so during
the day. (This sounds familiar, are people indeed particular about this?)
So for people who keep the fasts of Behab, what do they do this year
about Pesach Sheni?

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
<israel@email.arizona.edu>
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical
   Engineering

I'm just going to start off here:
I said there were three chiyum, two bar mitzvos, and a yarzheit. I didn't
mean the chiyyuv was someone for whom a yarzheit was being observed that
day, but someone who was observing yarzheit for a parent. The person
observing yarzheit was my grandfather. I think the problem was I put an
"'s" after zaidee, but I meant he was observing yarzheit.

I don't think anything from Torah L'Daas is really relevant and adds
at all to the discussion, other than quoting the relevant halachos from
the SA and MB. However, it is a good resource to have archived :)

Now, in response to being mochel my kavod: I would have no problem being
mochel, be it through leaving, or through what RMF may (or may not) have
said. The problem in this case is what /was/ said while I was sitting
there, that "ein kan kohen". It seems to me that, after I call out that
I am a kohen and I'm ignored, this can be construed as being some sort
of pgam on my kehunah.

This, for me, is the biggest issue. This shul has members who have
'given up' their kehunah to marry a someone who would otherwise be assur
(gerushah, zona, giyures) l'chatchila (from a p'sak from R' Dovid Cohen
based on RMF). And the current Rabbi had accepted the same psak from RDC
with regards to my family (even though it was later retracted since the
original psak was made using incomplete information).

SO, is this something I should be worrying about? If it is, how does one
go about fixing it without embarrassing anyone? And finally, when I daven
in this shul, how would I go about avoiding such a situation without
making someone do something wrong? And what would people recommend to
do, in general? If no one asks me if I'm a kohen, and it's a relatively
small minyan, should I just leave so I won't have a problem? I'm looking
at this from a ben-adam-lechaveiro problem, I don't want to be rude to
people (something I probably do too often).

After all this, I have a question based on what RHM quoted above:
> And according to most Poskim, another
> interesting Kula that results from their current status is that if a Cohen
> inadvertently married a Chalutzah, we do not force him to get divorced
> (Even though we Paskin L"Chumra in a case of L'Chatchila).

Why would this only be by chalitzah? Or do you mean a grushah or a
chalutzah?

 -Russell

in response to a remark of dennis prager, can someone find how far back
this minhag goes, and what it was originally based on? i know it is
brought down in the beer hetev in orech chayim, but can someone trace
back its original sources?

Russell Levy <russlevy@gmail.com> wrote:
> HOWEVER, if the reason for doing mitzvos is to do what was commanded
> to us by HKBH, then being required to do more (for no more reward!)
> could be something good, it gives us more of an opportunity in our
> everyday lives to fulfill what we must.

Why bother?

This raises an interesting philosophical question (which was implied by my
original post). Is there any benefit to anyone, including God, in doing
Mitzvos when there is no consequence, whether physical or spiritual? And
even if there is benefit to God (...which in and of itself seems like a
theological conundrum) why should that concern us? Or to put it another
way. If there was no such thing as reward or punishment, why should we do
any Mitzvos at all? ...Because God wants us to? So what?! If God gives us
no benefit at all whether in Olam Hazeh or Olam Habah, Why bother? ...I
might as well eat a cheeseburger. There will be no consequences. It's
all the same. Moshe Rabbenu and I will end up with the same result. We
will share the same end in Olam HaBah. We might as well all be humanists
or deists.

HM

From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> What is so great about having more Mitzvos? If women have less Mitzvos
> required of them it is because they are created in a more perfect state
> than men are, in the eyes of God. It follows that women can achieve the
> same level of holiness or reward in Olam Habah as men do by doing less.

Huh? Where do you get this from? Would you say that a yisroel is created
in a "more perfect state of holiness" than a kohen (when we know that
the bechorim lost the avoda due to their sins)? Why does the bracha
for not being an eved not bother you, since the premise is the same,
and the eved too is exempt from mitzvos because he is presumed to have
obligations that interfere with their performance? Moving outside of
klal yisroel, would you say a ben noach is created in a more perfect
state than a yisroel, as he only "needs" 7 mitzvos to receive s'char?

> The implication of saying that men thank God for giving them more Mitzvos
> is that there is some intrinsic value in doing Mitzvos even though the
> resulting status for men and women is of equal value in the Eyes of God.

Women and men are both created b'tzelem elokim, and are equal in
that sense, but this doesn't mean that they are equal status, any more
than avodim are equal to their masters. The gemara sees fit to ask how
women can ever receive similar schar in olam habo, and answers that by
enabling their husbands and sons to learn they receive s'char talmud
torah (and this can even give them precedence over men) but there is a
state of dependency there. A woman can enable all she wants, but her
husbands and sons are the ones who decide whether to learn or not. Etc.
This doesn't even touch on mitzvos that women typically don't enable,
at least directly.

> This makes absolutely no sense. If men are thanking God for not making
> them women there must be some advantage to being men that makes being a
> woman inferior in some way. You can't be both superior and inferior at
> the same time.

Who do you save first, a kohen or a yisroel, a man or a woman?
Judaism grants men greater status than women.

> So I remain with the Kasha. Why do men make the Bracha, SheLo Asani
> Isha?

The brocha was written before people were raised on apologetics for a
caste system.

Simcha Coffer writes:
"Simple. The pasuk says, "harba arbeh itzvoneich vi'heroneich, bi'ezev
teildi banim, vi'el ishaich tishukasaich v'hu yimshol bach" Those
are three very good reasons why I thank Hashem that he didn't make
me a woman. In fact, they're so good that woman have to admit that on
the surface, these reasons are very persuasive and thus they declare
"sheasani kirzono"."

Well, that's all well and good, but not what the gemara says. Women do
not admit the reason you seem to have in mind when you make the bracha
- they admit that they are obligated in fewer mitzvot. I find it very
odd that so many men are so quick to deny that Judaism does see women
as having lower status than men, directly analogous to a yisroel vs levi
vs kohen.

Incidentally, I find much of the discussion on women and talmud torah
to miss the point as well, as all the womens' learning programs in the
world don't change the fact that women do not receive the same s'char
for learning as men do (and that since they are not metzuve, they indeed
must prioritize mens' learning over their own). This is a point that is
studiously avoided in such discussions, as though simply allowing women
to partake in mitzvos they are not commanded in levels the playing field,
when clearly those who are not metzuve are not in the same position as
those who are.

Adereth 

On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 11:29:53AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: The implication of saying that men thank God for giving them more
: Mitzvos is that there is some intrinsic value in doing Mitzvos even
: though the resulting status for men and women is of equal value in the
: Eyes of God. This makes absolutely no sense. If men are thanking God for
: not making them women there must be some advantage to being men that
: makes being a woman inferior in some way. You can't be both superior
: and inferior at the same time.

Why not? You could be superior in one way, inferior in another, and
therefore equal overall.

-mi

Russell Levy <russlevy@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, in response to being mochel my kavod: I would have no problem being
> mochel, be it through leaving, or through what RMF may (or may not) have
> said. The problem in this case is what /was/ said while I was sitting
> there, that "ein kan kohen". It seems to me that, after I call out that
> I am a kohen and I'm ignored, this can be construed as being some sort
> of pgam on my kehunah.

The truth is that you are correct. You should not have been ignored.
I thought that my post made that clear. A Cohen cannot be Mochel his
Kavod when it comes to his Aliyah. All he may do is leave the Beis
HaKenesses. Perhaps the explanation (if one is to be Dan L'Kaf Zechus)
is that the Gabbai didn't hear you.. or that by the time he heard you
it was too late, for some reason. But if he heard you he should have
correected his error and called you up to the Torah.

> have a question based on what RHM quoted above:

>> And according to most Poskim, another
>> interesting Kula that results from their current status is that if a Cohen
>> inadvertently married a Chalutzah, we do not force him to get divorced
>> (Even though we Paskin L"Chumra in a case of L'Chatchila).

> Why would this only be by chalitzah? Or do you mean a grushah or a
> chalutzah?

As you noted, I based my post was based on TLD. In the above excerpt I
was pretty much quoting Rabbi Blum. I'm not sure why he didn't include
a Gerusha as well as a Chalutza. Perhaps the Halacha is different for
a G'rusha or perhaps it is a more likely scenario that a Cohen will
inadvertantly marry a Chalutza without realizing he has done... so than
a G'rusha.

HM

> See http://kashrut.org/forum/viewpost.asp?mid=10004 
> Anyone care to comment?

The author seems to assume that municipal water flows directly from the
reservoir to the tap, through pipes which are fixed to the ground.

But I don't believe that's the case. Water goes through treatment
plants; I don't know exactly what goes on in there, but it stands to
reason that the process involves water being held in tanks. Also, the
water is pumped along the way; isn't a pump a keli, and pumped water by
definition she'uvim?

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 10:23:16AM -0400, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
:> If we can't picture the real thing, then don't picture anything.

: To paraphrase a mishna in Avos, we can't paint the full picture of hQbH
: using human concepts, but we also cannot remove ourselves from the attempt
: to describe Him (and certainly shouldn't criticize the attempts of our
: fellow Jews).

First, it wasn't until RMP pointed it out that I realized how judgemental
and condescending my post came across. My apologies, that wasn't the
intent.

Here's why I think the difference is important.

There was a time when many people thought that their contemporaries
could not picture a G-d who did not have a body. If such a person exists
after we accepted the Rambam's ikkarim, would you condone his taking
the anthropomorphications in Tanakh literally?

The idea isn't different in principle. Whether one pictures HQBH as
being a huge human being or an infinitely large and infinitely old being,
one is giving Him a form. An infinitely large being doesn't necessarily
have human shape, but even "infinite in all directions" is a shape,
of sorts. The difference is one of degree, not kind.

I therefore think there is a chiyuv not to place HQBH within space or
time. Even infinite space or infinite time. And if we can't picture what
any of it means, it's time to say "I don't understand G-d." Isn't this
what the Rambam writes about time in the context of resolving HQBH's
knowledge and bechirah chafshi?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       an act of kindness?

On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:34:04PM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
:           .... The beis medrash was quiet, with learning conducted
: in conversational tones, in high contrast to the loud pitch heard in
: most....                                                           Rav
: Davis practiced a strong love for his talmidim coupled with "hard-core
: mussar."...

I find this an interesting contrast and one that leaves me befuddled
about RYD's derekh and needing some clarification.

I associate "hard core mussar" with passion. RYSalanter writes at length
about the importance of learning out loud and in a sing-song. (In fact,
does anyone know if he was the inventor of the idea?) It's through this
that one's learning makes emotional impact.

Does RYD not have this concept, limit it to mussar learning, or something
else?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       an act of kindness?

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 04:35:13PM -0700, Daniel Israel wrote:
:> Contrast this to Rn Gila Atwood's (a member way back) signature line:
:>> We are pixels in Gd's imagination.

:> I do not believe the Rambam would agree with this sentiment. RZL's
:> understanding of the Rambam allows for this kind of idea.

: I still think you're chasing a squirrel around a tree. My imagination is
: real. It's really my imagination....

But an imagined person isn't as real as you are, even if you really
imagine him in your real imagination.

On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:37:38AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: Two things. First, form a qualitative perspective, one could rightfully
: say that the cranker has more existence than the light because the light
: depends on the cranker, although from an ontological perspective, this
: would not hold true. Perhaps the Rambam was simply giving qualitative
: reasons why Hashem's metzius is more Emes than ours, not necessarily
: that he exists more than us.
...
: Which one of these the Rambam actually means is not absolutely clear
: from Yesodei haTorah.

The Rambam is pretty clear in the Moreh I ch 69, though.

To explain why I'm still chasing this squirrel...

There are a number of different ways of modeling ma'aseh bereishis.

The more philosophical rishonim consistently portray yeish mei'ayin as
the beginning of "stuff", which is then formed, the way an artisan would
but with Divine Intellect, kachomer beyad hayotzer.

The position we're attributing to the Rambam is more likely to be found
amongst those who burnt his books than the Rambam himself. I am troubled
by this blurring of what was a real and very deep machloqes.

RCV is a mequbal, that's why he's more focused on the world as ne'etzal,
in the full sense of being less "there" than Hashem is.

The Besh"t focuses on the lashon dibur used for ma'aseh bereishis. We
are something Hashem says. Not that "yehi or" caused light to come into
being. But that light itself is the very speech of "yehi or".

The Baal haTanya goes much further, that Hashem is the Ayin, and the
yeish only exists as an illusion (an illusion called tzimtzum). IOW,
we have an illusion that we exist as separate entities from Hashem,
and through that illusion there's a "we" to have the illusion. We who
have bechirah chafshi also carry on this illusion called existence for
other things. IOW, the word "existence" means "the illusion of being
something other than Hashem." Ein od milvado, literally -- all is Him.

But note that all these variants depend on mesores haqabalah, and would
be an odd thing to find in the Rambam.

-mi

PS: A "heretic" might add that the Rambam was far more Aristotilian than
Platonic, and the rishonim who were more mequbalim were far more similar
in throught to Plato. The idea that the Ideals in heaven are more real
than we are is fundamental Plato.

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       an act of kindness?

ZS> Water goes through treatment
ZS> plants; I don't know exactly what goes on in there, but it stands to
ZS> reason that the process involves water being held in tanks. Also, the
ZS> water is pumped along the way; isn't a pump a keli, and pumped water by
ZS> definition she'uvim?

But all those tanks and pumps are also fixed to the ground and are
not keilim.

Nethanel Vilensky

[Warning, we're teatering on the edge of personal invective here. RDS
raises a point that needs addressing, as it speaks to the mainstream-ness
of the source, but let's keep things away from that edge. -mi]

>See http://kashrut.org/forum/viewpost.asp?mid=10004 

>Anyone care to comment?

Keep in mind that this is from the same rabbi who allows Sifrei Torah
to be created by silk screen.

- Danny

On 5/24/05, Schoemann, Danny (Danny)** CTR ** <schoemann@lucent.com> wrote:
> Keep in mind that this is from the same rabbi who allows Sifrei Torah
> to be created by silk screen.

I know, which is why I'm asking whether anyone has any comment as to
his reasoning or has heard any accepted posek who agrees with him.

BTW, he does have some chumros on his website, such as being against
accepting Shabbos early because during the week we daven mincha after
plag.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

>BTW, he does have some chumros on his website, such as being against
>accepting Shabbos early because during the week we daven mincha after
>plag.

Which would seem to fly in the face of the Gemoro of "d'avid k'mar
ovid". Not to mention Rashi and Tos. in the first omud in Shas.

Then again, I have trouble finding an early Shabbes minyan, as RYSE is
against it, and our neighbourhood follows his psak as a rule. I never
actually asked why he is against it.

- Danny

On 5/23/05, Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why bother?

> This raises an interesting philosophical question (which was implied by my
> original post). If there was no such thing as reward or punishment, why
> should we do
> any Mitzvos at all? ...Because God wants us to? So what?! If God gives us
> no benefit at all whether in Olam Hazeh or Olam Habah, Why bother?

As I explained earlier, you are using the assumption that reward is the=20
reason for doing mitzvos. I just don't see your kasha. The better way to do=
=20
mitzvos is ahavas hashem, not yiras hashem. There's the famous story of the=
=20
Chofetz Chaim who was happier to do a mitzvah without any reward than he=20
would be if he had a reward. So your question stands, why bother? I don't=
=20
know, but I /do/ know we should bother. I'm sure there are many sources tha=
t=20
discuss this -- anyone able to quickly quote some?

--Russell

On Mon, 23 May 2005, Simcha Coffer wrote:
> Simple. The pasuk says, "harba arbeh itzvoneich vi'heroneich, bi'ezev
> teildi banim, vi'el ishaich tishukasaich v'hu yimshol bach" Those
> are three very good reasons why I thank Hashem that he didn't make
> me a woman. In fact, they're so good that woman have to admit that on
> the surface, these reasons are very persuasive and thus they declare
> "sheasani kirzono".

Two (related) problems: First, Adam also got a pretty nice curse (which
I suppose doesn't apply to women, and all of our working women today
are going "lefnim me-shurat hadin"). Secondly, le-atid la-vo when the
curses are presumably annulled, will the bracha change?

Why are we so afraid to even consider the possibility that men are in
some spiritual sense 'superior', analogous to the superiority of Jews
over Goyim or Kohanim over Yisrael?

Ephraim

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


[ 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         ]