Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 025

Friday, May 27 2005

• innocents dying
• Re: Sefira question - another 1
• Re: Swimming pool is a kosher mikveh
• Sefira question - another 1
• Re: Sefira question - another 1
• Pri Megodim on Lag B'Omer
• Re: Pri Megodim on Lag B'Omer
• Re: Pri Megodim on Lag B'Omer
• Re: Pri Megodim on Lag B'Omer
• When does the availes end on Lag B'Omer?
• Bar Yochai
• LAG B'OMER "Am Yisroel Chai"
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Al menas lo leqabeil peras
• time travel in Midrashim
• RE: time travel in Midrashim
• Re: time travel in Midrashim
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha: Are Men Superior to Women?
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha: Are Men Superior to Women?

The gemara in Taanit 5b states that Shmuel died before his time because
it was time for David to become King. The gemara asks if it is possible
for someone to die because of another even thiugh he is "innocent"
and the gemara answrs that this is indeed possible.

Can someone please explain more why an innocent person dies because
someone else has something coming to him which would be affected by his
living. Don't we have a rule that a person only dies for his own sins?

Thanks
-- 
Eli Turkel

In a message dated 5/26/2005 3:20:24pm EDT,  schickdavid@bezeqint.net writes:
> 2) To MK  and to all: I have a comment re "shnei shovuos v-shne yomim",
> it is NOT correct, for in loshon hakodesh you should say:
> "SHVUAYIM  V-YOMAYIM"   (no such word as "shne yomim" in loshon  hakodesh !!
> things that come in pairs have special words like "michnasayim,
> misparayim, even "shomayim" -
> see even-ezra  breshit  - ) so we should count the 16th day :  SHVUAYIM
> V-YOMAYIM.

I am no grammarian but it seems to me the answer to your question
is right there in your question: "THINGS THAT COME IN PAIRS" have the
"-ayim" plural. Things that do not come in pairs but can be two, seven,
a dozen or a hundred do not take the "-ayim" plural when there just
happen to be two of them. Thus, michnasayim, raglayim, einayim yes,
because pants, legs, eyes come in pairs. But when there are two years,
or two books, or two houses (things which don't come in pairs but can
come in any number) then its shanos, sefarim, batim.

Thus far, simple dikduk. But your post raises another question, viz:
why DO we find words like "shomayim, chayim, mayim" which NEVER seem
to have a singular form (unlike hand, eye, leg, which CAN be just one)
but ALWAYS seem to be in the double form. Is there a hint there in the
language itself that this world has a doppelganger world in another
dimension? "Chayim" because there is life in olam hazeh, life in olam
haba. "Shomayim" because there is a lower (physical) world and an upper
(non-physical) world. "Mayim" because there is water me'al larakia
(spiritual water in a spiritual world?) and water mitachas larakia.

What I have written is all in the nature of speculation rather than
knowledge and comes with no citations, so please either supply evidence
for me or tell me why I'm all wet, building castles in the air and should
get a life.

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

I forwarded RZS's question (depersonalised) to R' Aaron Abadi. Here's his  
reply:
> Regarding post #10004, on an e-mail list, the following was asked:

>> 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?

> Reply:
> Anything built attached to the ground like piping in your home, large  
> tanks for water, pumping systems etc... is not called Sheuvim  
> (non-kosher for Mikveh). Although the word She'Uvim might be translated  
> by many as "drawn water," the actual laws of She'uvim are not that way.  
> Look it up.
> AA

Lipman Phillip Minden

Dear SBA and all correspondees am"s!
1) "G 's answer is actually the question! (The same to SG, and IJ)
2) To MK and to all: I have a comment re "shnei shovuos v-shne yomim",
  it is NOT correct, for in loshon hakodesh you should say:
  "SHVUAYIM  V-YOMAYIM"   (no such word as "shne yomim" in loshon hakodesh!!
  things that come in pairs have special words like "michnasayim,
  misparayim, even "shomayim" -
  see even-ezra breshit  - ) so we should count the 16th day : SHVUAYIM
  V-YOMAYIM.

PSE respond
David Schick
schickdavid@bezeqint.net
schickdavid@hotmail.com

On 5/26/05, Schick David <schickdavid@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> 2) To MK and to all: I have a comment re "shnei shovuos v-shne yomim",
>   it is NOT correct, for in loshon hakodesh you should say:
>   "SHVUAYIM  V-YOMAYIM"   (no such word as "shne yomim" in loshon hakodesh!!
>   things that come in pairs have special words like "michnasayim,
>   misparayim, even "shomayim" -
>   see even-ezra breshit  - ) so we should count the 16th day : SHVUAYIM
>   V-YOMAYIM.

Should we also say "halayla haze pa'amayim" in the Mah Nishtana?

Whilst perusing the MB re haircuts on Lag B'Omer it was interesting to
see the Biur Halocho [493:3] cite the Pri Megodim:
"...yom echad meihem [ie - yemei hasefireh] yesh lehokel
...ubochru beyom Lag B'Omer, ve'ulay me'eizeh taam..."

No mention at all about Rashbi !

SBA

At 13:23 27-05-05 +1000, SBA stated the following:
>Whilst perusing the MB re haircuts on Lag B'Omer it was interesting
>to see the Biur Halocho [493:3] cite the Pri Megodim:
...
>No mention at all about Rashbi !

Have you checked the Pri Megadim?

~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:laser@ieee.org  

At 15:05 27-05-05 +1000, SBA stated the following:
>No. I accept the MB

Of course you trust him.  I was suggesting that perhaps the Pri Megadim 
goes into further detail, which would help alleviate your puzzlement.

~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:laser@ieee.org  

From: Ira L. Jacobson 
>> No mention at all about Rashbi !

> Have you checked the Pri Megadim?

No. I accept the MB

Someone just sent me the link <mms://stream.netro.ca/videoeden> You can
watch them dancing to music in Meron. However, I do not understand how
they can be listening to music on the night of Lag B'Omer. I know that
the availes of Shiva ends on the morning of the 7th day, not on the
night of the seventh day. I would have thought the same concept applied
to Lag B'Omer.

Y. Levine 

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 12:06:19PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote to Areivim
(not that I know why this thread ever was on Areivim:
: >My question is:
: >As this song is full of praise for the greatness of Rashby, is it
: >'derech eretz' or even halachically correct to halt our tefilos to the
: >RBSO - to sing the praises of a bosor vodom - be it even the great
: >Rashby? And noch in Shul?

: "Man penei ha'adon?  Da Rashbi."

"Man penei ha'Adon Havayah? Da Rashbi." - Zohar II 38a

The expression is probably a reference to Shemos 34:23, "Shelosh pe'amim
bashanah yeira'eh kol-zekhurekha as-penei haAson H' E-lokei Yisrael." IOW,
it sounds like the Zohar is casting Rashbi in the role of the bayis during
aliyas haregel. Not as heretical as the quote itself sounds.

And if the song praises Rashbi in that role, as opposed to the person
himself, what's the problem?

-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?

The 33rd day of the Omer is a minor holiday commemorating a break in the
plague. This day is observed as a day of rejoicing because on this day,
the students of Rabbi Akiva did not die. To tie in with this concept
of their not dying on the thirty-third day is the gematria for the word
"yichyeh" (yud, ches, yud, hay). The word "yichyeh" means "he will live."
The gematria for this word is 33.

The thought here is that despite all the adversity, anguish and woe --
despite the many nations' wish to destroy Israel -- Israel "yicheh."
Israel will live!

Richard Wolberg

In Avodah V15 #24, Micha responded:
> ...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....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....I fear most have some kind of mechanistic attitude....just
> being done because it works metaphysically, somehow...."

I don't see any question if you work with your definition the way I
understood it instead of the way you're apparently working with it.
Before I confuse all of us, I'll try again to explain my understanding:
when you say "desire to manipulate," I think "kavana to manipulate,"
and I don't believe that either those Jews who utilize "s'gulos" or
those gaboim who have expectant fathers handle hotzoas Saifer Torah or
any similar group of Jews have any intent to manipulate as much as they
have intent to follow b'derech avosaihem and pray that hQbH will accept
the unspoken prayers directed at Him which are given form via the actions
they are taking.

A guten Shabbes!  All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

R David Riceman wrote:
> 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?

This goes back to the Semitic Perspective. Everything is interconnected...

You're assuming that things only have one cause, and saying that something
happened because of a segulah or lechishah rules out that it's happening
because of teva or because of HP. I would instead say that every event
is like "the perfect storm", every one has combinations of factors that
come to a head at the same point.

If we accept the proposal, and I know most rishonim would not, then
belief in modern science or even Newton's deterministic physics does
not rule out the existence of other perfectly valid causes.

> 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)....

Me neither. I don't believe in them. Whether or not I ought to is a
different question, but lemaaseh they make no sense to me, and I can't
believe that someone can transfer their zechuyos. Being willing to do
the mitzvah even if they were transfered (as per the recent quote from
the CC), I can understand. As I see it, the rav willing to give up his
zechus for 4 minim for a chance to use a mehudar esrog would:
a- get sechar for 4 minim,
b- get sechar for the AYH of that statement, and
c- still give sechar to the one he got the esrog, since that person had
all the desire to do the mitzvah, albeit the sechar would be diminished
since the person was more interested in sechar than chesed and kavod
harav.

> 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!].

First, interesting pun. There may be a kavanah in there for next sukkos.

Second, of course there is a popular belief in meaningless ritual. That's
why there's a need for an organization and forum out to promote AYH in
that ritual, fusing aish to das. You're preaching to the choir.


As for my difference of opinion with RMP, I realize that it's just that
I'm not as proficient in dan lekaf zechus as he is. RMP writes:
> I don't believe that either those Jews who utilize "s'gulos" or
> those gaboim who have expectant fathers handle hotzoas Saifer Torah or
> any similar group of Jews have any intent to manipulate as much as they
> have intent to follow b'derech avosaihem and pray that hQbH will accept
> the unspoken prayers directed at Him which are given form via the actions
> they are taking.

Whereas I assumed they were thinking "taking out the Torah helps the
delivery" <full stop>. No thought of G-d, just a causal connection. Which is
why I called it mechanistic.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 33rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total
Fax: (270) 514-1507               submission to truth, and what results?

R Russell Levy wrote:
> As I explained earlier, you are using the assumption that reward is the
> reason for doing mitzvos. I just don't see your kasha. The better way to do
> mitzvos is ahavas hashem, not yiras hashem. There's the famous story of the
> Chofetz Chaim who was happier to do a mitzvah without any reward than he
> would be if he had a reward. So your question stands, why bother? I don't
> know, but I /do/ know we should bother....

Likach notzarta. Man was created for a purpose.

You could choose your own purpose and make your decisions based on that
criterion. But for a life to have meaning, asei retzono kirtzonkha.

BTW, the next word in that quote "kedei", as though this choice enables
HQBH kavayachol to make my will like it's His, is zeiyere teef.

:-)BBii!
-mi

Does anyone remember a Midrash involving time travel?

Or perhaps a Midrash that contains a dream sequence involving people in
the dreamer's life (a la Wizard of Oz)?

Thanks,
Shoshana L. Boublil

> Does anyone remember a Midrash involving time travel?

When Moshe was being taught the Torah by G-d, he was transported to the
Beit Medrash of R' Akiva centuries into the future.

Avi Burstein

i"m not sure if this is what you mean but what comes to my mind is Gittin
57: how David Hamelech saw the Churban of the two Batei Mikdash and wrote
"al naarot Bavel " and then "Zechor Hashem levnei Edom menucha

On 5/26/05, 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.

I was also surprised to see some berachot on the next pages which I
have never heard of before (with shem umalchut): asher bahar bedivrei
hakodesh and asher bahar bedivrei hachamim.

I checked a point that we discussed here a few months ago: he writes
"modeh ani lefanecha" not "modah" in Elohai neshamah

"a. adereth" <adereth2003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.

But we aren't talking about innate talent. We are talking anout the
value of Mitzvos vis-a-vis the Bracha of SheLo Asani Isha. The Bracha
thanks God in the negative, not.... for making him a man... but for NOT
making him a woman. The Rambam says that men thank God for this grace
because in his stauts of a man he has more miyzvod to do granting him
a higher staus in the eyes of God. So... God chose to create me as a
man for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with any existing merit
(since I had none pre-birth) thus giving me a higher status... and God
chose to create you a woman (again without any demerit pre-birth on your
part)... giving you a lower status. You consider this just?

>> 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.

Are you saying that Chazal's perjorative statements about women (such
as "Nashim Daatam Kalos" contributes to that Bracha?

> 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.

It was simply my sense of fairplay which I contend must be aprt and
parcel of Devine justice. You must define justice as being fairnded.
Otherwise it can't be just.

> 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.

No one agrgues that it's up to God to dispense s'char. But the
very concept of justice demands that that equal behavior be equally
rewarded. But the precept of "Gadol HaMetzuveh..." contradicts that.
The only explanation can be that women have a "head start". This enables
Paturing them from Mitzvas Aseh SHZG. If you don't say something like
that, you end up with an unfair, and therefore unjust system. But any
system created by God must by definition be just. Hence what choice do
you have but to find a way of equalizing their worth by combining the
inherent higher spirituality with their exemption from MA-SHZG.

> That flies in the face of l'fum tza'ara agra. 

That phrase is just a general expression of the idea that the greater the
effort, the greater the reward. This applies to both men and women. It
does not however speak to the baseline level of spirituality of men
and women.

> People are rewarded in the next world for choosing well,
> not for inborn traits. 

Generally speaking, of course that's true. But I maintain that as a matter
of fairness and therefore Devine Justice there has to be an equalizing
factor somehow.

> (In this world, there is some assumption of status
> for one's inborn traits, or for z'chus avos 

Thereby disproving your above point to a certain degree.

> - but for the next world, abba lo m'zake bra.)

But the Z'chusim of a child can help a parent in Olam Habah.

> 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 logic is as follows: If you start ahead of the starting line you
are not going to need as much effort to cross the line
simultaneously.

>> 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?

No. But I am human. God has different standards which are Devinely Just
and are not necessarily results oriented.

> 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).

That's part of my problem but it includes Olam Habah as well.
Ultimately man gets his just deserts. whether he gets them here, in
Olam Habah, or a combination of the two. But the key word in that
last sentence is the word "just".

>> 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. 

Why? Devine Justice demands that Cohanim be rewrded for fulfilling
their purposes equally to Yisroealim being rewarded for fulfilling
their puposes.

> 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.

Exactly my point. If "they" do their Mitzvos and "we" do ours, our
rewards should end up "equal".

>> 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 don't think you have answered the question. (a) There is no indication
that there is a threshold number of Mitzvos that precipites the Bracha.(b)
this has nothing to do why there is no comparable Bracha for Cohanim,
and (c) A Cohen's stauts is not diminished by his current inability to
do the Avodah. It is just a technicality... there is no BM.

>> 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. 

Well. That has shocked me! I thought you were a man. When I rad your
post and came across this line I totally stopped in my tracks and had to
compose myself. (You even sounded a bit male chauvenist by way of your
zealous and agressive debate on this thread.) Your name and signature
gave no indication of your gender. "A. Adereth" could be a name of
either gender. I am humbled by your intelligence, Torah knowledge,
and skill at communictaing your thoughts. You have really challenged me.

Never-the-less, even tough I now have a one woman's input, I wonder how
any of the other women feel about what's been said on this thread. I
would love to hear additional input. I realize that RTK responded but I
think her response was more of a discussion about the impact of feminism
on the world in general and Jewish women in particular.

> 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.

No argument here, but that doesnt really address the issue. Partake all
you want. The issue is one of: how to reconcile that Bracha with Devine
Justice. I have yet to hear an explanation of how one can say that a
man being better than a woman is Devinely Just.

> However well-intentioned, your argument carries
> with it an unintended lack of appreciation for mitzvos.

Not at all. It is because I value Mitzvos that I have the problem. To
say that men are enabled to do more Mitzvos than women seems inherently
unjust.

> 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.)

Again, this seems an unjust resolution making women second class citizens
in the eyes of God.

> S'char is up to God to dispense and I'm sure he does so fairly.

That's precisely my understanding which is why I don't understand
that Bracha.

> 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.

It is not about what pleases you or me. It is about finding truth. 

I am still searching.

HM

R' Harry Maryles asked
> my concept of what is just, may indeed be 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?

Perhaps the effort which women put into their fewer mitzvos equals the
effort which men put into their more mitzvos?

Or, more likely, effort is not the only quantity in the equation. If
you factor in the extra pain which women endure, that can justify the
equal reward even if for less effort.

Of course, the man's employment is no picnic either. They each have
more effort and more pain than the other, just in different areas. I am
content to live with my peckele, and would not trade with anyone else
in the world. I trust HaShem to balance it all out in the long run.

Akiva Miller

a. adereth wrote:
>  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.

IOW, as I wrote, people have many kinds of valu, and therefore being
greater on one axis has nothing to do with being greater on another.

I think I hit upon a formulation both you and RHM might agree upon! (Dare
I hope?)

I would like to turn the whole issue 90deg...

Let's say I have one ices left in the freezer, and I give it to my son
Re'uvein just because he happened to ask for it. Shim'on comes into the
house, all upset that he didn't get an ices too. When I explain that we're
out of ices, the response might be "But Re'uvein got!" Shim'on now wants
Re'uvein to lose or forfeit his ices because "It's not fair!" Why? Does
Shim'on have a better snack because Re'uvein misses out?

The problem is that we judge fairness in terms of everyone getting the
same thing for the same work. But is that middas hadin?

I would think that middas hadin means that my reward is commesurate with
my action -- and that someone's potential for punishment is equal to
his potential for reward. This conversation is comparing across people,
I would instead call for comparing vertically.



It's possible that a woman plays a lower-stakes game than does a
man. Fewer chiyuvim means both fewer qiyumim, but also fewer opportunities
for violations.

Or it's possible that because "nashim, daatan qalos" (lighter, easier
to move), each action has *greater* impact on the self, thereby causing
greater sechar (or r"l onesh), and therefore the stakes of the whole
game are the same.

Which might be the same idea as RAM's line (taken from the queue before
formal approval):
> Perhaps the effort which women put into their fewer mitzvos equals the
> effort which men put into their more mitzvos?


The same happens to be true for benei Yisrael vs benei Noach as well. Having
more mitzvos isn't an unmitigated berakhah. It's more opportunities -- which
means a greater chance to go either way.



As for "Kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq..." I wonder about the difference in
real terms. A Jew who lacks emunah isn't a Yisrael in the sense meant by this
mishnah. Which is how the mishnah becomes the Rambam's launching pad for
discussing the ikkarim. OTOH, a non-Jew who has emunah has earned the olam
haba he wasn't born with. So what's the difference between having olam haba to
lose, or not having it but being able to earn it -- if the criterion for this
keeping his olam haba is identical to the criterion for that one earning his?
Ideas?



The CI (as the famous story goes) would stand when a neighbor with Downs would
enter the beis medrash. This ma'aseh was his way of teaching that there is a
concept of having fewer mitzvos because there's less need for them. OTOH,
there's the concept that having fewer mitzvos puts you lower down on the
ladder. One would not assume the extra chiyuvim encumbent on benei Yisrael is
because we're /less/ than the non-Jew. Counting mitzvos isn't all that
informative.

For that matter, someone can have a life with more opportunities,
another with less. Two people of the same "class". Is it fair that a qinos
shenishba has fewer opportunities to do things as lofty as I do? I get to
put on tefillin most mornings, he wasn't given that opportunity to know
what tefillin really are, or even to be pushed to try it. Is one greater
than the other? Or does it depend on what each makes of the opportunities?

Counting mitzvos therefore tells you nothing.

Along these lines: The role of life is the opportunity to do mitzvos (which in
turn is the tool for ...). That's from the Ramchal, both MY and DH. Therefore,
it could well be that men, having more mitzvos, get more priority in
lifesaving as well as priority in getting resources to get things done.



In the quote "Ee efshar le'olam belo zecharim ubelo neqievos ... "v'oi lo lemi
shebanav neqeivos", not that the "Oy!" is the father's, not the daughers'. 
(It also yeilds on odd grammatical structure on the last two words. "Banav" is
being used for the genderless "children" even though we're talking about a
group  of "benosav" only.)



Last, about the opening question: R' Yehudah knows why the berakhos
were established. He was the one who was there to tweak R' Meir's (a
contemporary) proposal. (The original had "shoteh" instead of "eved",
which is why the CI story came to mind.) One needn't guess. It's about
the number of mitzvos. Not necessarily about the implications of that
number -- which we don't really know.

OTOH, look at the berakhah women say instead. (Although it's a late
berakhah, without the clout of a tanna or amora behind it. Many
kehilos, including most of Sepharad and Teiman, say it without sheim
umalkhus.) What does that fact that only women say "she'asani kirtzono"
say about men? We're less like His Ratzon!

R' Aharon Soloveitchik says this idea, and explains why women are the
"crown of creation", created last in the progression.

There are two modes of acquisition in RAS's thought: kibbush, taking it;
and chazaqah, using and developing it.

Hashem imposed more mitzvos upon men to limit their natural predisposition
towards excessive and abusive kibbush. If not tempered, this abundance
of male energy can be destructive. Women don't need such restrictions,
as they have a healthier balance between kibbush and yishuv. As per
the brachah (blessing) that they recite: "She'asani kirtzono -- Who
has made me according to His will." Women's innate qualities as the
last created creature (Rabbi Soloveichik words this as "the crown of
Creation"), are already aimed at the fulfillment of G-d's ultimate desire
for mankind. What is that desire? In yemos hamashiach, there will be no
pursuit of kibbush, rather everyone will pursue the gift of chazakah. So
women's Divine endowment and her mandate to be true to that endowment is
consonant with humanity's spiritual and moral goals in yemos hamashiach.

IMHO, this is one reason why the me'ein olam hava is envisioned as a
malkhah rather than a melekh.

OTOH, taking from RYBS's thought man's disposition toward qibbush
makes him more of a partner working toward that end. Thus he is given
mitzvos. He is the one who coins halakhah in covenental partnership
with the RSA. Man's qibbush is the power to advance, including advancing
HQBH's plan forward so that we are able to reach yom H' hagadol vehanorah.

Each has their maalos. Revel in them!

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 33rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total
Fax: (270) 514-1507               submission to truth, and what results?

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


[ 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         ]