Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 023

Wednesday, May 25 2005

• Re: alarm clocks on shabbos
• Re: Swimming pool is a kosher mikveh
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: Swimming pool is a kosher mikveh?
• RE: Swimming pool is a kosher mikveh?
• Re: Swimming pool is a kosher mikveh?
• Re: Kedusha
• Re: Kedusha
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: Pesach Sheni/Behab
• Re: What should a kohen do?
• Re: What should a kohen do?
• Reshimos of Lubavitch 5652/3
• Re: Pesach Sheni/Behab
• Re: What should a kohen do?
• SheLo Asani Isha: Are Men Superior to Women?
• SheLo Asani Isha

Let us not forget that the Prophet Yeshayahu had an alarm clock as
mentioned in 67:6. Kol sha'on mei'ir. :-). There is no mention of his
not using it on Shabbat.

Well, maybe this is true only if we assume that Y'shayahu was an
Ashkenazi.

Perhaps this important posting should have been on Areivim but, as the
subject was discussed only on Avodah, I had no choice.

b'rakhot,
David 

On Tue, 24 May 2005 16:53:50 Moshe Feldman wrote:
> 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.

These are some of the poskim who allow municipal water to be utilized
for a mikveh: Aruch HaShulchan, Y. D. 201:169; Imrei Yosher, 1:80;
Zakan Aharon, 2:55; Oznei Yehoshua, 1:3.

Shmuel Pultman

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> 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.

and in the piece you link to:
> I said inferior in some says and superior in others. Most rishonim
> hold the berachah is about thanking HQBH for more chiyuvim. Not for
> spiritual status."

More chiyuvim ARE potential for higher spiritual status. That's how it
works: kohen, levi, yisroel/ male, female/ goy.

> When you do explain the berakhah to a hostile party, two points ought
> be useful:
> 1- The rishonim had no motivation to write an apologetic in defense of the
> accusation of sexism. Sexism would not have been considered a negative --
> or even considered at all -- by their contemporaries.

Unlikely to be true. Ashkenazic women seem to have been quite sensitive
to their status during the period of rishonim, and one of the innovations
of the Church from its very beginning was to grant women higher status.
Jewish women in Christian countries could and did compare themselves
to their Christian counterparts, just as Jewish attitudes to women in
Muslim countries were influenced by Islamic norms. As you acknowledge
yourself at the end of the piece,

> Note his statement: the Law distinguishes between Jew and non-Jew,
> slave and freeman, man and woman, but his new religion doesn't.

> The Taz flips the whole thing around, not making it about
> mitzvos. According to him, it's about the need for diversity in
> creation. If you say she'asani Yisrael, you are implying that Yisrael has
> function in creation, and non-Jews do not. In this negative form you're
> at least acknowledging that G-d had a purpose in creating non-Jews. He
> continues WRT our question "WRT women, it is more critical to remember
> that there is a higher [quality] in the creation of women, but he does
> not need that quality.

Yes, the brocha agav urcha acknowledges that there is point in diversity,
but the purpose of the brocha is still, "Thank you god that I am jewish,"
just as it is "thank you god that I am male."

Regarding this:
> 2- If someone doesn't like the berakhah, the solution is to learn
> more about the berakhah, not reject it in ignorance. The non-O Jew's
> willingness to reject the berakhah shows a lack of faith in Jewish
> tradition and that there /is/ something there if you look for it.

An alternate solution is to consider that Judaism is imperfect or
incomplete until the geula, and that one of the punishments of golus is
a sense of alienation from our own religion. It seems likely that the
or a main underlying reason that women are obligated in fewer mitzvos
than men is that they were presumed not to have the time and freedom to
perform mitzvos asey shehaz'man grama. Most of the chiyuvim are learned
from droshos; there are often alternate droshos. It is entirely possible
that when Moshiach comes, v'omdu zorim v'ro'u tzonchem, that women too
will be freer to perform more mitzvos. Perhaps we are seeing aschalta
d'geula in the technological advances that preceded women's liberation
from household drudgery, though considering that many women still find
it hard to daven shmone esray twice daily while occupied with small
children (which it is preferable if not obligatory for them to do),
I think it is still too early to say that the time has come for women
to be m'chuyev in mitzvos asey she'haz'man grama. Still, one wonders if
this difference was meant to be for all time, and whether the increasing
disparity between women's self-perception and the role the torah assigns
is meant to be part of the general confusion and punishment of golus.
For all that we look for eternal meaning in mitzvos, there is rigidity
due to the lack of a sanhedrin, and I think part of the self-perception
of every jew *should* be that there are, after all, not only things we
must accept and can't change, but also much that perhaps is NOT as it
should be. I've seen speculation among followers of Rav Kook that some
social changes, such as doing away with slavery and the like, that were
meant to come from Jews in time of geula, came from Christians, who
derived their ethics from the torah, because our sins left us unworthy
of geula that would have allowed for making these changes. Regardless,
the fact that much of what we are bound by doesn't seem to fit our current
sensibilities is part and parcel of the experience of golus, and I don't
think that necessarily means that our consciousness of things that are
discordant with modern values must change - it means that we are stuck
not knowing just what was meant to be permanent and what not.

[Email #2. -mi]

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
in response to <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n047.shtml#01>:
> The Taz flips the whole thing around, not making it about
> mitzvos. According to him, it's about the need for diversity in
> creation. If you say she'asani Yisrael, you are implying that Yisrael has
> function in creation, and non-Jews do not. In this negative form you're
> at least acknowledging that G-d had a purpose in creating non-Jews. He
> continues WRT our question "WRT women, it is more critical to remember
> that there is a higher [quality] in the creation of women, but he does
> not need that quality." (Or is it "He doesn't need [everyone to have]
> that quality"?)

I've just looked at the Taz, OC 46:4. The Taz clearly says that there
is *some* benefit in the creation of goyim, and even more obviously
benefit in the creation of women, "for she also does some mitzvos,"
and that the brocha acknowledges that agav urcha while its main point
is to thank God for not being of reduced status.
("Ma'ale" would be accurately translated in this context as "a good
quality" rather than "higher [quality].")

The concept is the same as the gemara in the end of Kedushin: Ee efsher
l'olam b'lo basom u'blo burski etc. v'oiy lo l'mi she'umnoso burski.
Ee efshar l'olam b'lo z'chorim u'blo n'keyvos. Ashrey mi she'bonov
z'chorim, v'oy lo l'mi she'bonov n'keyvos.

Adereth 

Moshe Feldman wrote:
> 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.

Or honouring one's parents and their tradition. They also have a very
chumredic stance on music, for instance. (In short: Forbidden all year
round, including whistling and singing.)

Lipman

> 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.

Not just RYSE -- pretty much all the Eretz Yisroel poskim seem to be
against it.

Akiva

From: Moshe Feldman <moshe.feldman@gmail.com>
> 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.

He's a sefardi; he follows the mechaber in OC 233:1, "v'hu she'ya'ase
l'olam k'chad minayhu." (R Abadi has other idiosyncratic chumras, but
this is not an example of one.)

I don't find silk-screening sifrei torah, based on the sources, a
far-out p'sak (even though it is radically new and understandably
makes people uncomfortable). I found this interesting:
<http://kashrut.org/forum/viewpost.asp?mid=5439&;highlight=bleich>

Adereth

RTK writes:
>How would you explain the meaning of the root of the word "kedeisha,"
>as in what Yehuda thought Tamar was when he met her on the road?

>I can think of two ways of explaining it:
>1) as a euphemism where "holy" woman is a refined word meant to indicate
>just the opposite or
>2) that certain women were "set aside" or sanctified in the understanding
>of their religions, for use in certain religious ceremonies.
>The second meaning, which I'm pretty sure is the more accurate of the two,
>suggests that something can be considered holy in another religion even
>though it is not REALLY holy and the same Hebrew word will be used for
>both genuine holiness and the ersatz product worshipped in an A'Z sect.

It is interesting that a similar situation exists with the word "chessed";
the Torah in Vayikra 20:17 calls having relations with one's sister
"chessed", and therefore deserving of caret!

RSRH there gives an explanation very similar to the one RTK offers
regarding kedushah: chessed is dedication to another. This usually refers
to proper and positive dedication, but may refer to sinful dedication.

Saul Mashbaum

On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 10:10:14PM +0200, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
: It is interesting that a similar situation exists with the word "chessed";
: the Torah in Vayikra 20:17 calls having relations with one's sister
: "chessed", and therefore deserving of caret!

If I may again invoke the introduction to Shaarei Yosher...

Chessed is breaking the barrier between myself an another. Extending
my concept of I so that I can share with others. (Ve'ahavta lerei'akha
kamokha.)

There are times when breaking that barrier is evil. That is why we
call Hashem the "Gomeil chasadim *tovim*". The parents of teenagers
are forced to learn the chessed shebigevurah, when the greater gift is
showing restraint.

Incest is an extreme evil case of violating the interpersonal boundry.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 30th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  result in holding back from others?

From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> But it isn't that I "get" this from somewhere. It is a logical
> construct. If women do not need Mitzvos as much as men do to get the
> same Schar, it follows that women are created in a fashion closer to
> Godly perfection them men are.

That's the rub. Where do you get the idea that all things being equal they
get the same s'char? Following your logical construct, we arrive at the
conclusion that a kohen gadol is the least perfect being in the world;)

> Men, therefore, require more Mitzvos to get there. Ths is not an idea
> I originated but have heard many times in explanation of why women have
> less Mitzvos than men do."

I'm sure you've heard it many times; I was bemoaning the prevalence of
distorting apologetics.

> I realize that there are other reasons. Their particular roles as mothers
> exempt them from Mitzvos Aseh SheHazman Grama. But in order to give them
> equal standing in the eyes of God, they must perforce be created on a
> higher level, requiring less to do to get there.

The fact that the gemara says that women have bina yeseira implies that
they have equal standing to men in Judaism?

> Of course not. Cohanim...DO... have a higher status than a Yisroel or a
> Levi. They were specifically given that status by God. But, nowhere in
> the Torah does God sauy that men are superior to women. Nowhere does it
> say that a man was chosen by God to serve Him in a superior way over a
> woman. Men and women serve God equally, each in their own way defined
> by their gender. A man is not superior to a woman because he has more
> Mitzvos. They are in a certain sense in different worlds and each has
> their own way to serve God which are considered equal in His eyes.

And does it say THAT in the torah too? Or are you guessing that the
conclusion that you prefer is the correct one. It also doesn't say
explicitly in the torah that women are not obligated in all mitzvos.
Look for example at the Taz that Micha cited and see if he agrees with
me or with you about women's status vis a vis men.

> Of course not. A Ben Noach does not receive the same Schar as a
> Yisroel. Also they do not automatically have a Chelek in Olam HaBah
> as does a Yisroel. They have to earn it. For a Yisroel, it's his/hers
> to lose.

The gemara in sanhedrin 105a is mashma not like that - the mishna goes
according to R. Yehoshua who holds that b'nei noach by default do have
a chelek in olam habo (hence the need to specify that bilaam doesn't).

> I see. Your answer is that women are simply inferior in status to
> men... as slaves are inferior in status to masters. I couldn't disagree
> more.

You have to base your disagreement on something other than conviction.
Do you have any source in chazal or rishonim that says that women are
overall "more perfect" than men, let alone that says that they are
guaranteed some equivalence in s'char?

> This Gemarah offers no proof to your premise. It speaks of the specific
> Mitzvah of Limud HaTorah and offers that women can receive equal
> Schar through their enabling of men to learn. In no way does that show
> superiority of one sex over the other. All it shows is how each gender
> fulfils their Tachlis in their own way.

That everyone fulfills their tachlis in their own way doesn't imply
that everyone gets equal s'char. The point is that the gemara needs
to demonstrate that they *do* get this s'char, it isn't relying on the
presumption that "women are more perfect and therefore don't need s'char
talmud torah." (The gemara doesn't say that they get equal s'char.)

> Similarly a man can want to learn all he wants but if a woman doesn't
> enable him, he can't.

Not at all - look around you, he needs a father in law for example:)
Or inherited wealth. Or be willing to live in poverty. Or not to marry,
like ben azzai. It is very much in the man's control, whereas the woman
is per the gemara utterly dependent on the man. Good thing that chochmas
noshim etc.:-)

> I am not aware of this. Is the Halacha that if one can only save the
> life of one person, a man's life takes precedence over a woman's life? If
> that's true I am even more perplexed.

Yes that's the halacha, it's the mishna in horiyos 3:7, ha'oish kodem
l'isha l'hachyos. If you look at Bartenura, he gives as the reason "she'hu
m'kudosh mi'meno, she'ho'ish chayov b'mitzvos v'hoisha eyna chayeves
b'mitzvas asey she'haz'man grama". He is paraphrasing the Rambam's pirush.

> In other words, as you indicated above, your answer is that men are
> better than women. I see. If that's the case then it explains the Bracha.
> I do not agree. Men are not better than women.

Better in what sense? In the sense that they have more opportunity to do
mitzvos and receive s'char. I am not sure it is up to you or me to agree
or disagree. If you are talking about liking it, I don't like it either.

Adereth

> Is the Halacha that if one can only save the life of one person, a
> man's life takes precedence over a woman's life? If that's true I am
> even more perplexed.

It's a mishna (Horayos 13a). 

Furthermore, the Rambam, in Peirash Hamishnah, explains, "As you know,
men are obligated in all mitzvos, and women in some, as explained in
Kiddushin, and he is 'm'kudash mimena' and therefore has precedence
to be kept alive." Thus, the Rambam holds that (a) men have greater
k'dusha than women, and (b) more mitzva obligation = more k'dusha.

EMT

Zvi Lampel <hlampel@thejnet.com> wrote:
> Regarding RHM's question about what the advantage is in (men vs. women
> [or leviyyim or kohanim vs. yisraelim]) having more mitzva-obilgations
> than others...

> "The mitzvos are the acts which give the doer the quality of Kedushah:
> 'That you shall remember and /do all My mitzvos and [thereby] be kedoshim/
> to your G-d' (B'midbar 15:40). The brachah before the mitzvos states:
> Baruch Attah ... Who /has made us holy through His mitzvos/.'

and:
> "Rebbi Chanaya ben Akashya says: Hashem wanted to bestow merit on Israel;
> He therefore increased for them Torah and mitzvos" (Makos 23b)."

This actually speaks more to the Kedusha thread. I basically said the
same thing in my intial comments on the subject. As for this thread,
becoming holy through Mitzvah observance applies to ...BOTH... men and
women. Each becomes holy through their own modality. This does not answer
my Kasha ar all.

HM

On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 10:28:37AM -0700, a. adereth wrote:
: More chiyuvim ARE potential for higher spiritual status. That's how it
: works: kohen, levi, yisroel/ male, female/ goy.

The last time we were around this bend (v10n46 - n50), RHMLevin introduced
himself to the chevrah with a post that included the following:
> With that in mind, please examine Derashos HaMaharal (printed at the
> end of Be'er HaGolah, pp.27-28 in the popular London edition) and R'
> Samson Raphael Hirsch to Leviticus 23:43, end. Each makes the point that
> women are spiritually superior to men in some way.

> More fundamentally, one must keep the following in mind: In the Torah's
> description of the creation of the genders, we see that the female
> underwent more tikkun at the hands of the Ribbono shel Olam than did
> the male. I have to believe that this has profound implications in the
> spiritual dimension...

The reason why there are meqoros that could prove either direction,
even by the same people, is that which is greater depends on upon which
axis one is judging.

You assume one-dimensionality when in fact people are judged in many
different dimensions.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 30th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  result in holding back from others?

Zev Sero wrote:
> Daniel Israel <israel@email.arizona.edu>
>> 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.

> On the contrary, it seems to me that it should be eaten davka on the
> night of the 15th, between tzeit-hakochavim and midnight, just like the
> korban which it commemorates.

Okay, I grant you that that makes the most sense.  But Pesach Sheni is 
on the 14th, and I have always heard the minhag described as eating 
matzah on Pesach Sheni, not on the night after.  Does anyone actually 
have the minhag of matzah on leil 15 Iyar?

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

Akiva Miller wrote:
>I've never understood this argument. Is there a halacha somewhere 
>that a kohen who is not meyuchas is not a kohen?

This was a matter of debate in the big controversy over whether we can
bring korbanos nowadays. See Ir Ha-Kodesh Ve-ha-Mikdash, vol. 5 ch. 3
http://www.seforimonline.org/seforim/ir_hakodesh_vehamikdash_5.pdf

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

"kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
> R' Harry Maryles wrote <<< B'Zman HaZeh Cohanim are supect. That is,
> they are not Meyuchasim. They have no pedigree. ... today's Cohanim are
> in effect Safek Cohanim. This affects Halacha L'Maysa and our behavior
> towards them in certain instances. >>>

> I've never understood this argument. Is there a halacha somewhere that
> a kohen who is not meyuchas is not a kohen?
> If R' Katz is only a safek kohen because he has no pedigree, then isn't
> he also a safek Jew because he has no pedigree?

A Cohen has far more problems to overcome than a Jew. "Who is Jew" is
relatively simple to determine, It is either someone born of a Jewsih
mother or a Ger K'Halacha. (Although this too may someday require Yichus
tracking as has been discussed right here on Areivim.)

A Cohen is harder to trace for a multitude of reasons having to do
with whther a father was ever really a Cohen. Many people with the
name Cohen, for example are not really Cohanim. That name was simply
taken as a matter of convenience or forced upon them or some other
reason. Although Many Cohanim did indeed take the name Cohen precisely
so they would be identified as such. I know one such person whose name
is Cohen but knows that he is definitely not a Cohen. There is also
the problem of Chalalim. All these people are still Jews... but whether
they are Cohanim or not is harder to know for sure. IIUC most Cohanim
are ...probably... Cohanim, but we can't be as sure about that as we
can about whether they are Jews or not.

HM

I have just saved from 'Sheimos' 23 [photocopied] typed pages of a
diary-type work headed "Likutim MiReshimosay d'shnas 5652 and 5653
Lubavich". It was found amongst the possesions of an elderly baal-habayis
here, who was interested in such things and a bit of a hoarder, by
the son. I haven't yet worked out who wrote it or other information.
The typing seems to be from an old-fashioned [maybe pre-war] typewriter
and even the photocopying is not recent.

I have scanned pages 1,2 and 23 and can forward it to anyone interested.
Also if you know of someone who is a mumche in Chabad material, maybe
pass it on.

OTOH, it may well be something which has long ago been published.

SBA
sba@sba2.com

>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 before 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?

This was discussed at length in shul - no "inside" sources, though,
besides for the luach on the wall, which mentions that "ancient" Ashkenaz
is to say tachanun all day.

Apparently RSYE paskens to say Behab and tachanun.

Reportedly Minhag Yerushaloyim is no Behab and no tachanun, which is
what our vasikin minyan did, and nobody complained.
For the record, R DA Morgenstern shlita (talmid muvhok of RSYE) was there
(he did hagbo), as well as R N Greineman (son of) who leined. So we either
say shtika k'hodo'o or else they were following along "minhag hamokom".

According to Minhag Yerushaloyim it would follow that you can then eat
matza, if you so wish, though eating matza (with maror) the following
evening makes more sense, as has been pointed out.

The luach ends off saying that some people "catch up" the missing Behab
the following day, or on Thursday.

 - Danny
(doniels@gmail.com)

I asked <<< If R' Katz is only a safek kohen because he has no pedigree,
then isn't he also a safek Jew because he has no pedigree? >>>

R' Russell Levy responded <<< R' Dovid Cohen says in the name of R' Moshe
Feinstein that if someone loses their chezkas kehunah, they are not a
kohen anymore. For example, two generations of non-frum family would
make the subsequent generations not kohanim, since the edus cannot be
accepted. >>>

According to that logic, two generations of non-frum family would make the
subsequent generations not *Jewish*, since the edus cannot be accepted.

Or at the very least, since there is no one left in the family who is
a kosher eid who can testify to their Jewishness, then meyuchas Jews
are unable to consider them as Jewish (even if they themselves must go
lechumrah as a sort of "shavya anafshei chaticha d'issura").

Surely there is a flaw in my logic somewhere. Where is it?

Akiva Miller

"a. adereth" <adereth2003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The fact that the gemara says that women have bina yeseira implies that
> they have equal standing to men in Judaism?

That wasn't my point. My point was that Binah Yiseirah disproves your
claim that men are superior.

...
> Do you have any source in chazal or rishonim that says that women 
> are overall "more perfect" than men.

I'm sorry to say I cannot cite the sources. But as I said the Gemarah
explicitly states that women have Binah Yiseira and that Chachmas Nashim
Bansah Basisah (making them superior in that respect).

> That everyone fulfills their tachlis in their own way doesn't imply
> that everyone gets equal s'char....
>                (The gemara doesn't say that they get equal s'char.)

The Gemarah doesn't say they whether the Schar is equal or not. It is
silent on the issue.

To say that women do not get equal Schar with men that does not sit well
with me. It cannot be that God created in humanity two creations both
of which are Torah adherent, God fearing and when they fulfill their
mandate to the fullest extent possible they will not be given equal Schar
in Olam HaBah. Such a theory means that the ultimate Divine justice is
unequal and unfair.

> the mishna in horiyos 3:7, ha'oish kodem
> l'isha l'hachyos. If you look at Bartenura, he gives as the reason "she'hu
> m'kudosh mi'meno, she'ho'ish chayov b'mitzvos v'hoisha eyna chayeves
> b'mitzvas asey she'haz'man grama". He is paraphrasing the Rambam's 
> pirush.

Rav Teitz mentioned this Mishna as well in his response as well:
> Furthermore, the Rambam, in Peirash Hamishnah, explains, "As you know,
> men are obligated in all mitzvos, and women in some, as explained in
> Kiddushin, and he is 'm'kudash mimena' and therefore has precedence
> to be kept alive." Thus, the Rambam holds that (a) men have greater
> k'dusha than women, and (b) more mitzva obligation = more k'dusha.

An interesting aside that I noted in an earlier post and related to the
thread on Kedusha is that the Rambam seems to clearly define Kedusha as
Mitzva obligation.

But, getting back to the matter at hand... I now seem to recall coming
across this Mishna in DafYomi and not liking it then either.

The Rambam and the Bartenura seem to justify the concept that one's
obligation to do more Mitzvos gives one greater status than one exempt
from doing them.

Here's the problem: We know that God is Just. But this seems to make God
unjust. Being exempt SHOULD mean that women who ...DO... the Mitzvos even
when they are not Metzuvah, should produce the same Schar. We know that
that is not true: Gadol HaMetzuvah, etc. How can we reconcile a just
God with this concept of unequal status... and unequal reward for 50 %
of the popualation? ...especially since they are included in the covenant
made between God and Israel?

This is not the same as Cohanim who were chosen by God for a special
purpose. Cohnaim do not necessarily get gretaer reward for their
service. And, one certainly can't be an Eino Metzuveh V'Oseh for the
Cohanic duties. There ain't no such animal. It makes the Bracha of Shelo
Asani Isha understandible but underscores God's seeming injustice.

Another thing: There is no corresponding Bracha for Cohanim of SheLo
Asani Levi or SheLo Asani Zor, or the like. Why not? Logic would dictate
that they should have such a Bracha.

I wonder how the women on this list feel about this discussion. Do the
women on this list accept that their status is inferior to men and that
...THAT... is the reason for the Bracha of SheLo Asani Isha?

HM

On Tue, 24 May 2005 mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
> rivkyc@sympatico.ca Posted on: May 22, 2005:
> >> Simple. The pasuk says, "harba arbeh itzvoneich..."

> Comment: I would suggest that the point of the curse to man "in the sweat
> of your brow you shall eat bread" and to woman "in pain you shall bear
> children" is the same. In both cases the labor and the main occupation
> is cursed. Man works for a livelihood and woman brings up children. The
> earth and womb are to suffer the effects of man's disobedience.

> Viewed this way, the above explanation may be questioned.

And may be answered as follows:

Firstly, the man doesn't really sweat any more than the woman. Both
are working hard at their respective jobs, the man in the field, and
the woman at home making the home and raising the children. In fact, in
today's society, the woman may very well be at work supporting a husband
in kollel or lihavdil law school. The difference materialises when both
embark on the primary purpose of marriage. The man's contribution is
relatively effortless, whilst the woman's is plagued by 9 months of
weight gain, mood swings, nausea, bloated legs, difficulty performing
her regular tasks etc. and in some cases even worse. To top it all off,
she has to endure the excruciating "pleasure" of child birth. I haven't
heard too many women express enthusiasm at the prospect of childbirth
and thus I thank Hashem that he didn't make me my wife!

In my original post, I made reference to "three reasons" associated with
this pasuk.

The pasuk continues, "vi'el eeshaich tishukasaich". Chazal say, "A woman
[before marriage] is a shapeless lump (i.e. unfinished), and concludes a
pledge (i.e. dedicates her heart and mind) only with him who transforms
her [into] a [useful] vessel" (Sanhedrin 22:) which means (I'm not going
with Rashi's peshat...see Ramban on Chumash) that both on a physical
(making her "useful" through the activation of her childbearing capacity)
and psychological (it is in the nature of a woman to realize her identity
through her husband) level, her "tishuka" is turned towards her husband.
(The Ramban on Chumash has even stronger words regarding this issue).
Theoretically this does not have to necessarily be a problem however it
puts her in a very vulnerable position. Consequently, Chazal are always
enjoining men to be extra careful with the honour of their wives because
of the delicate psychological/emotional dynamic that exists between man
and woman. (Anyone who is married knows what I am talking about). Men
thank Hashem that they are not as psychologically vulnerable or dependant
on the opposite sex as the opposite sex is on them.

And finally, the pasuk concludes "vi'hu yimshol bach". In the relationship
between man and woman, (notwithstanding the feminist movement) man
(typically) assumes the dominant role. Chazal say, "eesha kisheyra ossa
ritzon ba'ala". This doesn't mean that a man is more important than a
woman however, on a functional level, his role is more prominent. Hashem
assigned to him the role of leadership and thus men thank Hashem that
they were not put in the role of the woman.

I see all of the above as so perfectly obvious that I can't see all the
brouhaha associated with finding reasons for men thanking Hashem that
they were not born women.

Simcha Coffer

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


[ 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         ]