Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 024

Thursday, May 26 2005

• Re: hashkafa and psak
• Kedusha/kedeisha
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Early Shabbos (was Swimming pool is a kosher mikveh?)
• Re: Pesach Sheni
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Sanhedrin Overturning Drashos
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: Sanhedrin Overturning a Previous Drash
• shelo asani isha - the fugue
• RE: hashkafa and psak
• Re: alarm clocks on shabbos
• Re: hashkafa and psak
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha: Are Men Superior to Women?

On Mon, 23 May 2005 Micha Berger:
> If one is saying R' Elyashiv is giving a pesaq in what you call "mandatory
> hashkafah" or what I called dinei kefirah, then -- like any other pesaq
> since the tannaim, there must be a nafqa mina lemaaseh. If we really
> and truly speaking of a pesaq that belief in an old universe is assur,
> then there are many many otherwise shomerei Torah umitzvos whose wine
> he is pasqening is stam yeinam, whose shechitah is no good, etc...

Possibly but we're getting off topic. I've mentioned the following points
several times in the past two weeks.

There is no common consensus amongst the gedoley yisroel and leading
poskim regarding the objectionable parts in RNS book and thus, even in
the worst case scenario, the only person who I might possibly consider
flirting with apikorsus would be one who follows R' Elyashiv (RE) in ALL
of his pesakim, halachic and hashkafic. For one to randomly diverge from
his Rebbi muvhak due to one's own hasha'ra would, in my mind, be highly
questionable. Micha Berger is not a talmid muvhak of RE and thus is not
necessarily beholden to his pesak however this doesn't make the issue
any less serious.

I remember in the mid to late seventies when Rav Shach (RS) made a huge
tumult over a ma'aamr that the Lubavitcher Rebbe (LR) had said (over
twenty years before...his askanim only found out about it then and
showed it to him). For those unfamiliar with the excitement, the LR,
expressing his admiration for his recently niftar father in law, made
the following statement regarding what he considered the tzadik hador. He
stated that the tzadik hador is (Yiddish) "atzmus u'mahus azoi vi ess iz
arayngishtelt in ah guf". RS took serious umbrage with this statement,
accused Lubavitchers of Avodah Zara, and "paskened" that their wine is
yayin nesech and in fact, his talmidim followed that pesak for a long time
(I don't know about today).

I was not and am not a talmid of RS and thus I continue to drink wine
poured by a Lubavitcher unless I know for sure that the person pouring
believes the above quote from the LR literally (I know at least one such
person here. Personally, I do not believe the LR meant the above-mentioned
statement literally but a full treatment of this subject is beyond the
scope of this e-mail) If I would drink a Lubavitcher's wine, I would
certainly drink Micha Berger's wine however, this doesn't detract from
the fact that both RS and RE pesakim have brought some serious issues
to the forefront that cannot offhand be imputed to elective hashkafa.

> I wasn't really asking if RSC would drink my wine. I phrased it that
> way to show the true enormity of what the claim of pesaq means. The
> splitting of the O community into two.

I would like to quote a page from David Berger's book The Rebbe, The
Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference (Littman Library of
Jewish Civilization 2001). In attempting to drive home his point (that
meshichist Jews, despite their commitment and dedication to Yiddishkeit
in general, should not be allowed to practice as rabbis), he briefly
proposes some tentative explanations for what he perceives as Orthodox
Jewry's betrayal of the 12th ikkar and then rejects all of them. The
first reason is referred to as "The Ideal of Unity and the Avoidance of
Communal Strife". Before I begin, I would like to personally disclaim
any acceptance or rejection of Dr. Berger's ideas in general however,
I categorically endorse the theme behind the following quote.

QUOTE
"Every practicing Jew has heard countless sermons about the imperative to
love one's neighbour...At the barest minimum, the annual Torah reading
about Korah's rebellion against Moses (Num 16-17) generates discourses
about the severe prohibition against fomenting disputes within the
community..."

"Nonetheless, the refutation of this argument is no less self-evident
than its initial attractiveness. A few weeks after the Torah reading
about Korah, very different sermons are preached about the zeal of
Pinchas (Num. 25)...No Orthodox Jew believes that everyone committed to
the Jewish community has a right to serve as an Orthodox rabbi because
of the value of unity. The appeal to this principle is relevant only
after one has concluded that Lubavitch messianism is essentially within
the boundaries of Orthodoxy. Since this is precisely what is at issue,
the argument begs the question." (pg. 134)
END QUOTE

I think the relevance of this quote to RMB preceding comment is
self-evident.

> And if no one believes R' Elyashiv is really taking that step, then in
> what way is this a matter for pesaq? And then how can one write out the
> chiyuv to learn the position of numerous rishonim and acharonim? (Even
> if they're not to be embraced.)

Well, you know my opinion regarding the Rishonim. There are none that
claim that the universe is billions, or even millions of years old. The
sole Rishon that could possibly be brought as a support of this notion
is RYdmA as translated by RAK but once again, you know that I (and many
others) feel he mistranslated the maamar by portraying RYdmA words in
past tense when actually he was referring to the future.

As far as the acharonim, there are only a handful, none were from the
gedoley haAcharonim like the Michaber or the Rama, all existed post
evolutionary theory and as such, could either be seen as having been
influenced by the scientific dogma of the time, or were simply addressing
the issues without necessarily condoning the science (I believe this
applies to RSRH). As far as I'm concerned, they constitute a shita dechuya
and as such, I see no chiyuv to study their words regarding this subject.

Simcha Coffer 

From: T613K@aol.com
>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?

although I don't have a copy in front of me now, I believe that R Aryeh
Kaplan translates kedeisha as 'religious prositute'..

I never found a source for his translation..

Mordechai Cohen

In Avodah V15 #22, Micha wrote:
> I suggested that the difference is that lechishah would be thaumaturgy,
> *the desire to* [emphasis mine --MP] manipulate reality through
> metaphysical forces....So I ask for a definition of lechishah....

See above ;-): when you're mchavain libecha somewhere other than l'Avicha
shebaShamayim.

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

RMP <MPoppers@kayescholer.com> wrote (on his pager):
>> I suggested that the difference is that lechishah would be thaumaturgy,
>> *the desire to* [emphasis mine --MP] manipulate reality through
>> metaphysical forces....So I ask for a definition of lechishah....

> See above ;-): when you're mchavain libecha somewhere other than l'Avicha
> shebaShamayim.

Not what I said. I said a desire to manipulate reality through
metaphysical forces. A definition which would include many qabbalistically
derived practices. The gemara explicitly talks about "lachash" as a way
of compelling G-d, such as daring Him to fulfil a havtachah.

But the rest of the misunderstanding was because of things I wrote in
an earlier post that weren't in the one to which RMP replied.

I don't think the Rambam would have a problem with that definition,
nor would most Litvaks. However...

This definition would brand many O Jews who rely on segulos as well as
many who say tehillim, Mi sheBeirach or learn hilkhos LH reflexively
as koferim.

For example, how many people who bake a shlisl challah for the shabbos
after pesach are thinking: I'm doing this so that the key reminds me
of the mafteiach shel geshem/paranasah which HQBH doesn't give even to
a mal'ach to handle. I really depend on Him, and should really feel
that bitachon and daven accordingly. I fear most have some kind of
mechanistic attitude.

Or giving a husband pesichah so that his wife will have an easy
delivery. How often does it generate the impetus for tefillah and teshuvah
vs just being done because it works metaphysically, somehow?

I am seeking a definition that doesn't condemn what I fear is the majority
of O Jews as "koferim". I assume my proposed definition is incorrect if
it leads to such a conclusion. Otherwise, I would have noticed I preceded
my question with its answer.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 31st day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      results in harmony and balance?

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> I am seeking a definition that doesn't condemn what I fear is the majority
> of O Jews as "koferim".

I haven't answered this since I don't have an answer either. The problem,
however, is worse than that, since most (but by no means all) of O Jews I
know buy into modern science. As the Ramban understands it the efficacy
of l'hisha is an empirical fact, denied only by Aristotelians who are
blinded by theory. For a modern Jew how can l'hisha work?

In addition, I don't know of a developed theory of Judaism which can
justify the popular belief in transactional zechuyoth (i.e., that I can
trade my zechuyoth for your benefit). Sociologically I think what we see
is popular belief in meaningless ritual, already condemned by Yishayahu.
As far as I know it crosses the line into kefirah only when the ritual
uses Biblical texts, and only according to the Rambam. It does, however,
demonstrate that the modern flowering of Jewish literacy does not include
knowledge of ikkarei hadas [not roots of myrtles!].

David Riceman 

Someone wrote <<< 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. >>>

R' Akiva Atwood added <<< Not just RYSE -- pretty much all the Eretz
Yisroel poskim seem to be against it. >>>

My guess has always been that this really has nothing to do with the
idea of beginning Shabbos early, but is more likely a side-effect of not
saying Birchos Krias Shema before tzeis. Isn't there a Gra or someone
who says that it is better to daven Maariv without a minyan after tzeis,
than with a minyan before tzeis? I got the impression that this is pretty
widely held in Eretz Yisrael.

Akiva Miller

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

Bekorbanot, halaila holechet achar hayom.  Pesach Rishon is also the
14th, not the 15th, but it's eaten on the night of the 15th.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

> 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?

Given the premises (a) G-d is always just and (b) it seems unjust for men
and women to have unequal rewards, one can reach two possible conclusions:
(1) men and women _do_ have equal rewards, or (2) your concept of what is
just must be incorrect. How are you sure that the latter is not the case?

EMT

I posted:
> 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"

My apology. It's Dr. Schreiber, not Schroeder. Now where in the world
would I have gotten the name Dr. Schroeder from?... :-)

P.S. So far, I haven't gotten any response to my question if the Gemora's
maskana poses a problem to this suggestion. Can someone please, please
help?

Zvi Lampel

"Elazar M. Teitz" <remt@juno.com> wrote:
>      Given the premises (a) G-d is always just and (b) it seems
> unjust for men and women to have unequal rewards, one can reach two
> possible conclusions: (1) men and women _do_ have equal rewards, or
> (2) your concept of what is just must be incorrect.  How are you
> sure that the latter is not the case?

I'm not sure of anything. This is one of my hallmarks. :) 

Conclusion (1) would seem untenable based on the Rambam's explanation
that we save a woman before a man bedcause he has more Mitzvos. And as
you said, more Mitzvos = More Kedusha. How can it then be concluded that
men and women _do_ have equal rewards?

Conclusion(2): my concept of what is just, may indeed by incorrect.
But that doesn't make it any more understandible to me. It makes it
less understandible. Justice it would seem means that equal effort
should result in equal reward. No? Is Devine justice to be understood
differently? If so how can it be understood in any rational way?

HM

I have not been following this thread, but someone just sent me this today:
>Here's an item of 
>interest: 
><http://www.jtslibrarytreasures.org/sidur/sidur.html>
>a siddur written for women in 15 century Rome.  Notice the brachot on page 14!

It is interesting. The scribe, however, was evidently an ignoramus,
as his order of the berachos does not follow the very specific order
given by the Gemara.

YGB

On Tue, 24 May 2005 Micha Berger wrote:
> 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.

Actually, the Maharal doesn't say that they are more spiritual. He says
that they fit into the scheme of olam haba more easily because of their
quite natures. Olam haba is associated with menuchah and thus, men who
have more aggressive and active natures require more mitzvos to sublimate
that nature in order to accustom themselves to life in olam haba. As far
as spirituality goes, the man is more spiritual than the woman according
to the Maharal. He says this in many places. In fact, IIRC, he says that
the spirituality the woman receives comes from the man. This is why Hashem
made it that a woman, by nature, is nimsheces achar ba'alah. He is the
flame and she is the candle. He is the ruchani and she is the chomer. He
is the nosein and she is the mikabel. All this points to a higher level of
spirituality in the man, not the woman. However, after all this posturing,
it still seems to me that the following statement by RMB

> 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.

is the most level-headed commentary on this Avodah thread thus far.

Simcha Coffer

On Tue, 24 May 2005 I wrote: 
> > On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 09:01:18AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
> >: I don't know why you categorize mimetic tradition as minhag. As long as the
> >: chachamim don't have a drasha opposing our collective tradition, the
> >: tradition adopts the property of halachah. It is only when the chachamim
> >: come up with a drasha to negate the accepted tradition that the mimetic
> >: tradition retroactively assumes the properties of minhag.

> > I don't. I'm saying REED does. It seems to me to quite clearly be the
> > essence of his position.

> I agree that your understanding of Rav Dessler seems to be correct but
> I do not think that this is the kavana of the ma'amar...

After rereading Rav Dessler's (RD) ma'amar, I see that I may have
somewhat misrepresented his kavana. Actually, RMB seems to be correct
in his interpretation of RD. Also, I am wrong about using RD m'amar
to illustrate a previous Sanhedrin being overturned by a latter one. I
was writing from memory and should have read the ma'amar first. At the
same time, I still think my mehalech is valid although it diverges from
Rav Dessler's.

Simcha Coffer 

There is so much I would like to say about this "shelo asani isha"
thread. It has some of the qualities of that type of music known as a
fugue, in which a short theme of just a few notes is repeated over and
over, but with variations.

Loud and soft, one instrument or the whole orchestra, now you fall
asleep to the gentle notes, now you are suddenly wakened by the crash
of discordant cymbals....now, wait, where was I? Oh yes, long long ago,
in a galaxy far far away, in a long-running drama that would put George
Lucas to shame (what, only six parts to his drama? pathetic, we have
a drama with, um, 739 installments so far.....). this is terrible,
all my metaphors are getting mixed up....well what do you want from
me? Nashim da'atan kalos. Probably that's the reason men make a bracha
"shelo asani isha." They are so grateful that they can read every issue
of Avodah including all the Goldberg variations, and still pay attention.
(I use "Goldberg" here to suggest a generic Jewish name.)

So anyway, I have a lot to say but no time or patience to say it,
especially since I already said it, um, a whole bunch of times--alas,
on Areivim, which I did not know at the time was not archived or
googleable--so it was all, all, all, the sound of one hand clapping,
a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear it, a cry in the
vacuum of space where sound waves do not travel.....

But anyway even though I have no cheshek to write it all again ("el
ishech teshukasech" but not "el all your old writings from last year
teshukasech") I did find something just now while noodling around on my
computer, something of tangential relevance to this thread. It's something
I wrote in response to a posting on the blog known as "Mis-naged"--a
blog now defunct, I understand. What he wrote I do not remember and
did not preserve, but what I replied is reprinted here below, for your
delectation or otherwise:

====================================================
Feminism Did Not Liberate Women

It's nice of you to feel so sympathetic to the plight of the poor women
who are so oppressed by Judaism yet "lick the boots of their oppressors"
as you put it, but you really don't have a sense of perspective about
these issues at all.

Feminism did not liberate women, but enslaved them. They still have to
be the ones who get pregnant and have the babies, and nurse them, but
they also have to earn their own keep and can't rely on men for anything
anymore. In a religious society men have a sense of responsibility and
obligation, loyalty to their wives and morality and self-discipline. If,
in exchange, they get to say a bracha every morning that makes them
feel good, you know what buddy? Let them enjoy it. It takes nothing away
from me.

I read story after story in the popular press and hear the stories from
women I know too, and if my husband is thanking G-d every day that he
is not a woman, I am thanking G-d every day that I don't have to wonder
whether my husband will run off with another woman, whether he will
abandon me and my kids in a mid-life crisis, whether he will refuse to
share his income with me and insist that I work full time and pay my
own way, etc etc.

I work part time now but when my babies were little I stayed home and
took care of them, and loved doing it, and was grateful that my husband
made that possible and that he had not bought into the feminist argument
that a woman who
 is dependant on a man is a parasite.

I view marriage as a partnership and I view men and women as complementing
each other. I bitterly resent the notion that men and women are
interchangeable or to be more precise, that women can and should be men.
The feminist movement created a generation of useless, self-centered,
immature and irresponsible men who want sex with no responsibilities,
who still cannot get pregnant but now feel no obligation to the partners
who make it possible for them to be fathers.

There are ENORMOUS benefits to women in a traditional society, not the
least of which is that religious men make the best husbands. In many
cases, they make the ONLY husbands, since irreligious men run away from
the commitment and responsibility of marriage.

The feminist movement did not speak to the needs and longings of real
women, average, normal women, but only to the desires of a spoiled
educated affluent elite who were chronic whiners and malcontents because
life was not perfect.

Were there injustices in the old days? Yes, to all kinds of people.
Did the feminist movement fix them? What it did was to substitute a
whole new set of injustices for the old ones. Men who simply cannot be
relied on. A legal system that does not protect women from philandering
husbands, etc.

Too tired now to write what needs to be said, but you really do not
understand women, and I can tell you that immersing yourself in the
chip-on-the-shoulder chronic whining of feminist literature will give you
no insight whatsoever into the hearts and minds of normal, ordinary women.

=====================

BTW I note that another constant thread in my own writings is that I'm
always tired. I wonder if turning off this mesmerizing screen and going
to sleep would help.....? No I mean real sleep, not just dozing while
reading the shelo asani isha thread until the next click tells me there's
another letter in my inbox and wakes me up....

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

> Well, you know my opinion regarding the Rishonim. There are none that
> claim that the universe is billions, or even millions of years old. The
> sole Rishon that could possibly be brought as a support of this notion
> is RYdmA as translated by RAK but once again, you know that I (and many
> others) feel he mistranslated the maamar by portraying RYdmA words in
> past tense when actually he was referring to the future.

> As far as the acharonim, there are only a handful, none were from the
> gedoley haAcharonim like the Michaber or the Rama, all existed post
> evolutionary theory and as such, could either be seen as having been
> influenced by the scientific dogma of the time, or were simply addressing
> the issues without necessarily condoning the science (I believe this
> applies to RSRH). As far as I'm concerned, they constitute a shita dechuya
> and as such, I see no chiyuv to study their words regarding this subject.

Accepting your approach, do you know of a theory as to why HKB"H created a
world that appears to be so much older than it actually is?

KT
Joel Rich

In Avodah V15 #23 dated 5/25/2005 R' David Bannett writes:
> 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.

And Dovid Hamelech got up at midnight to compose Tehillim with the help
of a lyre or some such intrument placed near the window to catch the
midnight breezes. On Shabbos, too? Who knows? (Writing is a separate
question, since it is perfectly possible to compose poems and songs
mentally, and then memorize them to write down later.)

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

On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 01:03:34AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
:               Micha Berger is not a talmid muvhak of RE and thus is not
: necessarily beholden to his pesak however this doesn't make the issue
: any less serious.

.... since it cuts off his talmidim from drinking my wine, eating meat
from my kehilla's shochetim, etc...

....
: Well, you know my opinion regarding the Rishonim. There are none that
: claim that the universe is billions, or even millions of years old...

And I also know that RYGB to REED
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol14/v14n065.shtml#09> points to a very
different conclusion. And there are problems with your blithely dismissing
acharonim as being influenced by scientific theory. And you ignore the
Maharal, and feel you understand REED better than his meivi la'or. And
you know that I feel there is only one rishon who seems to insist on only
6 days from yeish mei'ayin to Adam, and even he is explained otherwise
by REED. So why bring this up yet again?

Is R' Elyashiv actually pasqening that it's kefirah? Should I assume
his talmidim must treat me as a tinoq shenishba (at best)?

Or is it not really pesaq in halakhah? In which case, what's the maqor
for ruling out positions of aggadita?

What you call "getting off topic" is the only topic I feel we have
any chance of discussing productively.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 32nd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Hod: What type of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 really results in dominating others?

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
>> Here's an item of interest:
>> <http://www.jtslibrarytreasures.org/sidur/sidur.html>
>> a siddur written for women in 15 century Rome.  Notice the brachot on  
>> page 14!

> It is interesting. The scribe, however, was evidently an ignoramus, as  
> his order of the berachos does not follow the very specific order given  
> by the Gemara.

Maybe I didn't get the joke, and make a fool of myself, but are you  
serious? There is a broad variety of customs concerning the number, order  
and wording of the broches, their place in the siddur and if they are said  
at home or in shul. And such a strong word as "ignoramus"...

Lipman Phillip Minden

At 03:51 AM 5/26/2005, Minden wrote:
>Maybe I didn't get the joke, and make a fool of myself, but are you
>serious? There is a broad variety of customs concerning the number, order
>and wording of the broches, their place in the siddur and if they are said
>at home or in shul. And such a strong word as "ignoramus"...

Their order is explicit in the Gemara. The changes in wording from nusach 
to nusach are minimal. As to the number, I do not recall off-hand if the 
Gemara gives any leeway on that matter. I do not think so.

YGB 

"Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org> wrote:
> It is interesting. The scribe, however, was evidently an ignoramus,
> as his order of the berachos does not follow the very specific
> order given by the Gemara.

This seems like the first Conservative Siddur. Even though the siddur was
written for women and would explain the missing Bracha of SheLo Asani
Isha, the Lashon of SheAsani Isha V'Lo Ish (in addition to SheAsani
Kirtzono) is quite startling to see.

I wonder if a Bentcher written by this scribe would omit "V'Al Brischa
SheChasamtanu B'vsareinu.

Of course this proves absolutely nothing except that there were people
who were willing to adulterate Siddurim when copying them for one reason
or another.

OTOH, It would be interesting research to find out exactly what the
circumstnces were, who the scribe was, who was it written for exactly?,
how knowledgeable the scribe was, and how Ehrlich he was. I wonder if
there were any other Siddurim like that. Is it possible that there is
some obscure alternative text like this that is legitimate?

HM

 From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> That wasn't my point. My point was that Binah Yiseirah disproves your
> claim that men are superior.

My claim was that men have superior status in Judaism. That doesn't
imply that women can't have some inborn talent that men don't share.

> 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).

In that respect. One can't cherrypick ma'amarei chazal; this ignores
that chazal made as many, if not more, pejorative comments about women's
negative inborn traits.

You began with the premise that men and women are guaranteed opportunity
for equivalent s'char. I don't think there is any source for this claim.
Generally, more opportunity for mitzvos = more opportunity to receive
s'char, but it's up to God to dispense s'char.

Let's stipulate that women have equal opportunity to receive s'char as
men do; it doesn't follow that "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." That flies in the face of l'fum
tza'ara agra. People are rewarded in the next world for choosing well,
not for inborn traits. (In this world, there is some assumption of status
for one's inborn traits, or for z'chus avos - but for the next world,
abba lo m'zake bra.) If women are inherently "closer to Godly perfection"
and land up in the same spiritual spot even with fewer mitzvos, then
why would they deserve equal reward to men? It seems as, if not more,
logical to posit that women are created at a lower state, or in the
same spiritual state, and the mitzvos they do come at greater cost,
or have greater impact on them.

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

The gemara in sota 21a explicitly assumes that the z'chus of eyno metzuve
v'ose in talmud torah is not enough to save women temporarily from the
effects of mai sota, and that women surpass the state of being eyno
metzuve v'ose by enabling men. This still doesn't necessarily mean that
women's s'char is equal to men's; but it is often assumed that there can
in effect be yissochar/zevulan relationship between husband and wife,
and/or perhaps even gadol ha'm'ase yoser min ha'ose, and that women
receive at least equal s'char to the men they enable. The issue then
would be that women are dependent on men for the level of s'char they
receive in this (and presumably other) mitzvas they enable.

The example the gemara brings is of women waiting for men while they
learn; if the husband in fact elects to go play pool, the woman's s'char
is affected. Even if the woman can receive full s'char for all mitzvos
she is not obligated in and enables, she is still dependent on men to
follow through.

> 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.

They are not really "justifying" so much as articulating chazal's
consistent premise. What *other* way is there to read the mishna?

> 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?

Is it just to grant women more s'char for lesser mitzvos?  
Is it just to reward men equally despite their performing more
mitzvos? Would you reward everyone who works for you equally, regardless
of what work they do?

The real issue you point to isn't Divine Justice after the fact, but
Justice in this world, where people are not granted equal access to
mitzvos (so to speak).

> 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.

All things being equal, of course they do. But just as a yisroel would
be best off spending the time the kohen spends doing avoda fulfilling
the many mitzvos he is metzuve in, so too women are best off fulfilling
mitzvos they are able to fulfill. There is still abundant opportunity
for women to do or participate in mitzvos and receive s'char.

> 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."

Would it be better if women had no opportunity for these mitzvos? Mitzvos
*are* the route to connect with and serve God in this world. What benefit
to women would there be to removing all possibility for women to perform
these mitzvos?

> 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 would assume that a)the differential in number of mitzvos and z'chusim
is different; b) there is an element of dependence on men to fulfill
essential mitzvos such as talmud torah as a metzuve; and perhaps c) the
tanoim who are quoted are speaking after the beis hamikdosh was destroyed.

> 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?

Well, I am a woman. 

As discussed, if women enable men to perform mitzvos they are exempt from,
they can participate in mitzvos from which they are exempt as a metzuve
v'ose. But for this to happen, women must appreciate that they aren't
exempt from some mitzvos simply because they are spiritually superior
and have no need of them. Rather, they need to feel sufficiently desirous
of these mitzvos to do what they can to partake in them fully.

The big issue IMO isn't the question of s'char in the next world,
that troubles you so much; it's the differential in this world. In this
world, mitzvos are our primary route to connect to God. When women are
exempt from certain mitzvos, or they only have opportunity to fulfill
them directly as eyno metzuve, they lack spiritual opportunity that men
have *in this world*. Even when mitzvos are fulfilled through others,
the woman lacks the opportunity to personally fulfill them as a metzuve.
The reality is that if I choose to eg learn something, I can't take for
granted that I should do so at the expense of mitzvos that I am metzuve
in, or do so at the expense of others who are metzuve. You, Rabbi Maryles,
can engage in the same activity confident that you are behaving as God
asks (and if you are married, and your wife waits while you do this,
you are mezake her too). However well-intentioned, your argument carries
with it an unintended lack of appreciation for mitzvos.

The brocha of shelo asani isha is made in appreciation of the z'chus of
mitzvos. The brocha of she'asani kirtzono is tziduk hadin. (I am sure
that God rewards tziduk hadin.)

S'char is up to God to dispense and I'm sure he does so fairly.
I can't say that it pleases me terribly to hear that I'm a spiritually
superior creature with less need of mitzvos than you have; the first is
demonstrably untrue and the second strikes me as highly unlikely.

[Email #2. -mi]

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
> 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 in Chumash actually agrees with Rashi's interpretation of
this memre in sanhedrin. He further assumes that eyna koreses bris ela
l'mi she'osoa keyli applies to men as well as women. See the Ramban on
"Va'ye'ehav gam es Rochel mi'Leah" (Breishis 29:30) Your interpretation
of the Ramban can't be what he has in mind (and isn't faithful to what
he writes on "v'el isheych t'shukasech," as below).

"(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."

The Ramban is speaking of women being willing to undergo childbirth
and entering marriage despite knowing that it will place them in an
subservient position *because* of this t'shuka that drives them to
make decisions not in their objective interests - the opposite of
your formulation here. It's not that once married, women are more
psychologically vulnerable, but that the decision to enter marriage
puts the woman practically in a more vulnerable position, both with
respect to childbirth, and because marriage by definition compromises
her independence ("v'hu yachzik bo k'shifcha, v'eyn haminhag l'h'yos
ho'eved mishtokek l'knos adon l'atzmo...v'hu y'tzave oleho kol r'tzono").
The Ramban takes for granted that men are in a position of power in
marriage (as the halacha in fact assumes) and that therefore there must be
some strong underlying drive in women that compels them to marry despite
this. The Ramban doesn't say that men are less emotionally vulnerable
or psychologically dependent on their wives than the converse (and I
tend to doubt this is the case, or that chazal thought it was the case,
as evidenced e.g. by the gemara in sanhedrin's many statements on the
impact of a wife's death on her husband, just before the memre you quote
above). The Ramban is just speaking about what compels women to enter
a relationship with unequal burden on them.

I think the mandate for men to treat their wives with greater kovod etc
also derives from men's practical advantages over women in marriage.

> 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.

First, whether or not underlying psychological differences are present,
this isn't only a matter of psychology - it's a matter of halacha For
example, when it comes to hilchos kibud av, a married woman is exempt
from kibud av because she is required to prioritize her husband over
her parents, where no such prioritization is required of the man.

Second, the man's prominence doesn't really have anything to do with the
mitzvos or the bracha, except to the extent that what you are calling
"prominence" and "leadership roles" are mitzvos.

"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."

The brocha is still about obligation and perhaps freedom to fulfill
mitzvos. The sources you bring only point loosely to a rationale for
women's exemption from some mitzvos, i.e. their obligations to men.
The brocha is still on the fact of exemption from mitzvos.

Whether the halacha recognizes underlying teva in the way you posit
is speculation. I submit that most of the psychologizing about men's
and women's respective natures that we've seen in this thread (whether
it's women's purported greater spiritual superiority or their purported
greater emotional vulnerability) owes more to Victorian sensibilities
than to Chazal.

Adereth

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


[ 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         ]