Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 082

Thursday, September 22 2005

• RE: Torah & Evolution
• Re: girls
• Re: Can a Jewish man have as many wives as they want?
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• RAL response
• Re: schools, media, etc.
• Re: schools, media, etc.
• Shimshai
• RE: Avodah V15 #81
• RE: schools, media, etc.
• RE: Torah & Evolution
• how to proceed
• Re: how to proceed

On September 18, 2005, Micha responded as follows: 

I said:
> :Was it actually possible that R' Dessler
> : believed that the world was millions or even billions of years old?...

MB replied:
> Except that I didn't say that,... 

Well, that's certainly the impression I got from my dialogues with you. In
fact, even before we began to debate the issue, you were making statements
such as

"Perhaps my question is a ra'ayah to REED's position that the Ramban
holds that the 6 days of bereishis, while being 6 literal days are both
that time is far more complex than we're able to perceive. After all,
if the same duration can be 6 days and the subsequent 6 millenia, can't
they also be the previous 15 billion years?" (August 8, 2004)

To me this indicates that you feel that Rav Dessler's approach could be
consistent with billions of years. If I am wrong, I'd love to know. If
I am right, I'd like to know how you reconcile your understanding of R'
Dessler in Chelek Beis with the various sources I quoted in my letter
to R' Meir Shinaar.

I have more to say about the remainder of your response but you and I
have already been through it so I'll leave it for other people to respond.

Simcha Coffer

The purpose of this post is to suggest or demonstrate that despite psak
of the Mishneh Brurah 223:2, he might approve of (or at least not object
to) some people nowadays saying HaTov vHametiv on the birth of a daughter.

Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway) I am not any sort of rav or
posek, and no one should rely on this post for halacha. But I've heard
that our membership includes many influential rabbanim/poskim, and I
humbly offer this post for their consideration. Of course, all members
are urged to point out any errors or flaws that they find with anything
that I write.

(Please note that I'll be using the phrase "this bracha" to refer
generically to both HaTov vHametiv and Shehechiyanu, inasmuch as the
same rules apply to both.)

It seems to me that the point which has bothered some members, myself
included, is that it seems clear that the MB is making a very sweeping
statement, that NO ONE can say this bracha in this situation. It turns
out, however, that there is another situation where the MB paskens
similarly. I suggest that if we examine that second case, it will shed
much light on our first case.

Specifically: The Mechaber 223:3 teaches that the acquisition of a
sufficiently valuable item is valid reason to say this bracha. The MB
there explores many examples of this, and in the first half of 223:13,
he points out that we are guided by the simcha which the owner has,
not the objective value of the item. Thus, a purchase which is clearly
deserving of this bracha for a poor person could well be insignificant
to a wealthy person.

The second half of MB 223:13 (2nd half) brings an interesting question
about saying this bracha on the purchase of seforim, being that "mitzvos
lav liyhanos nitnu" - mitzvos were not given for enjoyment. (I guess
that he means that the sort of simcha which one gets from seforim is
not the same sort of simcha for which this bracha was established.) In
other words, despite the very "open-ended" nature of this halacha, which
can apply to all sorts of purchases, limited only by what brings simcha
to the purchaser, there is an "across-the-board" ban on applying this
halacha to seforim.

However, he cites several acharonim who write that if one had searched for
this particular sefer, and his happy when he acquires it, then he *does*
say this bracha, because the bracha has nothing to do with the *use*
of the object (i.e., the Mitzvas Talmud Torah to which the principle of
"mitzvos lav liyhanos nitnu" would apply), but rather it is due to the
simcha which he has upon acquiring it.

The conclusion of the MB is to not object to those who say this
bracha. But I must say that it is not clear to me which case the MB
refers to, since the reisha and seifa are different cases. Is the MB
saying that we should not object to someone who says this bracha on a
typical case of buying an expensive sefer? (I'd think that we *should*
object in such a case, because of the argument that mitzvos lav liyhanos
nitnu.) Or maybe the MB is saying not to object when someone says this
bracha on a sefer that he's been searching for? (I'd think that there
would be *no* objection at all in this case, since he says it on the
acquisition, not the learning.)

Sof sof, it is clear to me that at the very least, the MB does not
object to saying this bracha on the acquisition of a sefer that he's
been searching for. And the MB might even allow it l'chatchilah.

Now, let's return to the case of the parents who have a new daughter. What
did the MB 223:2 write? Here are his words:

"Even if he had several males, and desires that a daughter will be born
to him so that he will fulfill the mitzvah of Piryah vRivyah, even so,
if a daughter is born he does not say the bracha on it."

In other words, if the reason you're happy about having a daughter
is that you're yotzay the mitzva, you can't say this bracha, because
"mitzvos lav liyhanos nitnu"!

The MB isn't saying to skip this bracha when a daughter is born because
the AMOUNT of simcha was INSUFFICIENT, but because it is the WRONG KIND
of simcha.

If you're still with me, then I think we can go one step further: Several
posters on Areivim have suggested that they look forward to the birth of
a daughter, because they expect that in future years she will be helpful
around the house in ways that are unrealistic to expect from sons. Isn't
this an EXACT parallel to the ecomonic benefit which previous centuries
expected from sons?

Some suggested that this bracha is said for sons because of the Torah
learning which those sons will do. Nope; that would be "mitzvos lav
liyhanos nitnu" - This bracha has nothing to do with the mitzvos which we
expect from the child, and everything to do with more tangible benefits
which we expect from the child.

And if so, those parents today who look forward to giving birth to a
babysitter-to-be have as much right to say this bracha as did other
parents in yesteryear who looked forward to their precious little
apprentice-to-be.

Or so I suspect.

Akiva Miller

From: Moshe Feldman <moshe.feldman@gmail.com>
> [Rn Rena] Freedenberg free@actcom.co.il sent the following link on 
> Areivim <http://www.polygamy.com/Jewish/The-Orthodox-Jewish.htm>
> I don't see how this is relevant today. Isn't there a takkanah of the 
> Rabbanut HaRashit to forbid polygamy even among Sefaradim in Israel? 

The issue of polygamy is a hot-button in our Western-influenced society,
and let's not ignore this.

Even in Judaism, a man can only marry a 2nd wife if he can actually
support financially (and what about spiritually, as a friend and spouse
etc.) the 2nd family.

As a curiousity, I would mention a tale I heard at a lecture in Jerusalem
where this topic came up. At an international conference an African
senior judge (female) appeared as a representative of her country.
One of the issues that came up was the fact that her own husband --
had multiple wives.

When asked about this by Western feminists (who were obviously appalled)
she replied: It takes more than one wife to support a husband.... <g>.

Apparently, she was able to have a public leadership role thanks to the
partnership she had with other wives.

Personally, I wouldn't go for it <g> and neither would any of the list
members, firstly b/c we weren't raised to accept this.

OTOH, an interesting case came before the Beit Din approx. 10 years ago.
In a Yemenite family, the wife became ill (she was totally confined to
bed) and needed full time care. Her husband had to work for a living,
and couldn't afford to pay for live in full-time help.

They (the wife and husband!!!) decided that the husband would marry a 2nd
wife who would be responsible to care for the 1st wife and the household.
They found a woman who was willing, and the 2 women became fast friends.
The Beit Din approved this marriage.

This is one of the things I love about Judaism -- there are rules and
laws, but you can always see the beauty of this world and it's connection
to the Torah. Histakel BaTorah U'Vara Alma.

Shoshana L. Boublil

Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:37:42 -0400 R. David Riceman wrote:
> According to the Rambam the main initial effort of
> Talmud Torah is to know the naive meaning of Tanach ... Advanced Talmud
> Torah is understanding the sources in Tanach and in logic of the above
> (H. TT 1:11-12 and HYhT 4:13).

> The Rambam is generally careful to distinguish between students
> (talmidei hachamim) and sages (hachamim), and I suggest that he would
> consider someone who had not mastered kol haTorah kulah a student, and
> someone who had mastered it a sage....

I'm not clear on what you mean. Are you proposing that in Rambam's usage,
a "talmid chacham"=student=knowing only "naive meaning of Tanach (as
defined by Rambam)=someone who had not mastered kol haTorah kulah; whereas
a Chacham=a sage=someone who is "advanced" in Talmud Torah=understanding
the sources in Tanach and in logic of above?

Zvi Lampel

From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
> I'm not clear on what you mean. Are you proposing that in Rambam's usage,
> a "talmid chacham"=student=knowing only "naive meaning of Tanach (as
> defined by Rambam)=someone who had not mastered kol haTorah kulah; whereas
> a Chacham=a sage=someone who is "advanced" in Talmud Torah=understanding
> the sources in Tanach and in logic of above?
> 
As far as I know the Rambam never uses "talmid hacham" (I'm CD impaired,
but IIRC R Sheilat has a note on this somewhere). In the singular he
uses "talmid hachamim" and he uses "hacham". The latter means a sage
and excludes students. The former he uses ambiguously, sometimes to
include someone who is either a student or a sage and sometimes to refer
to someone who is a student but not a sage.

I am proposing that there are some cases where the distinction is
important, and that, since the Rambam permits paying to study but not
being paid to teach, our case is one of those.

Incidentally he uses neither term in the din in H. Matnoth Aniyyim,
but the parallelism with teaching a daughter middoth certainly implies
a student rather than a mature scholar.

David Riceman

> As we promised, we are posting a link to the continued correspondence
> between HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein and HaRav Avraham Shapira regarding
> the halakhic ramifications of hitnatkut and seiruv pekuda.
> http://www.etzion.org.il/hitnatkut/hitnatkut.htm

Does anyone have this in any form besides .rtf ?
My chutz linux openoffice gives me junk.

Micha has often called for a holistic analysis of the word toevah that
accounts for both its use for certain sexual sins, and for keeping
dishonest weights and measures.

From: T613K@aol.com
> In Areivim Digest V15 #321 dated 9/18/2005  RHM writes:

>>>There is not a single Centrist that says any Toevah in the  Torah is
> not a Toevah.  <

> When the Torah says something is "toevah" it means we should feel a  visceral 
> disgust.  Many Orthodox Jews no longer feel that disgust and quite  the 
> contrary, look upon sexual prohibitions as chukim rather than mishpatim, no
> more natural and understandable than the prohibition of shatnez.

The Netziv says an interesting bit about Toeivah in Ki Tetze - he links it
to avodah zarah. He explains the connection between dishonest weights
and the obligation to wipe out Amalek (which immediately follows) as
both being about being kotzer ruach, having a touch of avodah zarah.

Having dishonest weights/measures is characterized as a toevah.
The biggest victims of the crime will be the poor/weak to whom a small
overcharge is a big loss. The only one who will know that the merchant
is doing this is Hashem - so doing so a) preys on the weak, and b)
evinces lack of Yirat Shamayim. So too, Amalek is explicitly described
as preying on the weak, and lacking Yirat Shamayim - which is itself
the hallmark of avodah zarah.

Toevah is thus linked to avodah zarah, which fits very well with an
analysis of "that which offends God and religious sensibilities"

See, e.g., Jewish Encyclopedia article at 
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/pages/JL1LL8LQ.jpg

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 06:33:21PM -0400, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: Micha has often called for a holistic analysis of the word toevah that
: accounts for both its use for certain sexual sins, and for keeping
: dishonest weights and measures.

More specifically, I refered people to the Bemachashavah Techilah column
of MmD for Ki Seitzei <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/kiSeitzei.pdf>.
My maskanah there was:
> At this point, our definitions of to'eivah converge. Yes, it is a term
> denoting the unacceptable elements of another culture. With respect
> to the Jewish People, our accepting Hashem as our G-d defines the
> culture. Something which is to'eivah therefore defies His purpose in
> two ways. First, as Rav Hirsch writes on our pasuk, the one who embraces
> to'eivah denies His being the primary source of our values. It violates
> His declaration of it being to'eivah, and thereby our mission to be His
> people. Second, the relationship is reciprocal. Hashem's declaration is
> purposive; it is a warning to avoid that which would harm our ability
> to accomplish our goals as a people.

The second point resembles, but is still quite different than, what RJB
repeats from the Netziv:
: The Netziv says an interesting bit about Toeivah in Ki Tetze - he links it
: to avodah zarah...

The relevent elements that this paragraph tries to unify are discussed in
the rest of the column.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

I wonder if anyone here can offer suggestions as to how/why Shimshai the
scribe (Ezra 4:8ff) "became" Haman's son in Esther Rabbah, petihta 5 (and
Midrash Abba Gurion 6) and quoted therefrom in "Rashi" at Ezra 4:8. [I
put Rashi in quotes there bec it is fairly well established that the
commentary in Ezra attributed to Rashi is not his. But even were that
not so, one may suggest that that part of the perush was tacked on to
the rest of the perush in the pasuk. That Rashi did not "learn"(/have
in front of him?) that Esther Rabbah is evident from his comments --
lacking any familial relationship between Shimshai and Haman -- at Est
9:10 as well as in Meg 16a, in both of which places such a reference would
be expected. (I write this even though I am aware that Ratner in his ed
of Seder Olam ch. 29, n. 20 cites R. Bahya as well as R. S. Alkabetz
citing Rashi to just those places where it seems they had a version
of Rashi with the Shimshai relationship spelled out. It is possible,
but not yet convincingly proven, that Rashi had a different version of
Seder Olam than we have.)]

I can understand why a scribe from Ezra's time would be *associated* with
Haman (even if this is not spelled out in Tanakh); I don't see the "need"
or the justification for making him a son -- especially since we have
a whole list of sons in Est 9 named explicitly and Shimshai is not even
close to those names. I have always assumed there is, and often can find,
a certain logic to midrashic name derivations or associations. Basically,
I am asking here for such a logic.

Ketivah va-hatimah tovah to all,
Yisrael Dubitsky

>> To put in terminology that is part of more current
>> discussions - REED rejects the view that evolution is a purely natural
>> phenomenon, occuring over millions of years - because "woe to that
>> wisdom [i.e. the study of nature] if it does not lead one to be aware of
>> the handiwork of Hashem"...

> You have chosen one comment that he makes, all the way at the end of
> the letter, and insist that this is the reason for his rejection of
> evolution but apparently you seem to be ignoring the body of the letter
> itself. A close examination of the text will reveal that R' Dessler does
> not reject the "facts" of evolution as presented by the scientists. The
> only thing he refutes is the evolutionist's *interpretation* of the facts.

(sigh) No, I think you are misunderstanding the context and meaning of
the letter (as it was presented) - focusing on issues that matter to you.

REED isn't dealing with the issue of the age of the universe per se -
and that issue doesn't come up in the letter. Notions of preexistent
worlds or different time scales aren't addressed.

What he is dealing with is the issue of what he views as the evolutionary
theory and its implications - the claim that science proved that there
was an old universe, with species evolving naturally - without divine
intervention. The age of the universe is part and parcel of the issue of
a masterless universe - and it is that hashkafa that he is dealing with.
By trying to deny the scientific basis of the time for evolution, it is
because those who claim that are using it as the basis for denying the
divine role (porek ol). Therefore, while the time issue seems paramount
here, it is because the entire theory he is opposed to - there is nothing
to suggest he would consider the tiferet yisrael to be speaking hevel.

Now, does REED believe in 5765 - or an older universe - there is
nothing in the letter to prove either way (even if one thinks that he
is leaning to a young one, he doesn't come out and say it) - however,
it isn't the older universe per se that is bothering him in this letter-
but the context in which it appears)

Meir Shinnar

On September 19, 2005, Jonathan Baker wrote:

> Micha has often called for a holistic analysis of the word toevah that
> accounts for both its use for certain sexual sins, and for keeping
> dishonest weights and measures.

According to the Rambam, dishonest weights and measures (i.e. ginayva) is a
toeva whereas arayos is not. (shimona pirakim perek shishi) I actually have
a take on this Rambam but I will wait to see if I've spurred our moderator
to response with this quote first before posting :-)

Simcha Coffer

On September 20, 2005 Meir Shinnar wrote:
(Me)
> > You have chosen one comment that he makes, all the way at the end of
> > the letter, and insist that this is the reason for his rejection of
> > evolution but apparently you seem to be ignoring the body of the letter
> > itself. A close examination of the text will reveal that R' Dessler does
> > not reject the "facts" of evolution as presented by the scientists. The
> > only thing he refutes is the evolutionist's *interpretation* of the
facts.

(Meir)
> (sigh) No, I think you are misunderstanding the context and meaning of
> the letter (as it was presented) - focusing on issues that matter to you.

Sigh? Hmm... 

(sigh) I hope I haven't offended your sensibilities... 

I would like to respectfully suggest that we try and stick to the topic,
avoid sanctimonious icons, and discuss the subject at hand based solely
on its merits.

> REED isn't dealing with the issue of the age of the universe per se -
> and that issue doesn't come up in the letter.

Are we talking about the same letter? The heading of the letter in
question is "Two Refutations to the Claims of the Evolutionists" and
the only thing R' Dessler manages to disprove is that the geological
formations and embryological development described by the scientists
could have very well been speeded up thus rejecting their temporal
calculations regarding the duration of the existence of the world. "World"
in this case also means universe except that R' Dessler was confining
himself to earth based proofs in this letter in direct response to his
questioner. If you are looking for a more direct quote from R' Dessler,
I included it in my last communication to you but I'll quote it again.

"And according to what we have stated, that which the *universe* looks
to scientists *as if* it existed for millions of years... (Chelek Dalet
pg. 114

> Notions of pre-existent worlds... aren't addressed.

You know why? Because R' Dessler didn't believe in them. Nowhere in any
of his letters or mamarim does he ever mention the existence of previous
physical worlds. Anyone who is familiar with R' Dessler knows that if
he believed in such a concept, there would *definitely* be maamarim
out there discussing the issue. In fact, the one place that R' Dessler
does discuss the Medrash of "boneh olamaos umachrivan" he suggests that
none of these worlds were physically created and destroyed; rather,
it happened in the spiritual realm, "l'malah min hazman" i.e. it didn't
take any time to happen, and creation is synonymous with giluy whereas
destruction is synonymous with hester.

> Notions of... or different time scales aren't addressed.

Precisely. Which is the biggest proof that he rejected the notion. After
all, if he took the same approach as Aviezer/Schroeder/Schwab, or
the approach of Kaplan/Slifkin, why was he trying so hard to prove
*scientifically* that the world unfolded in a short period of time such
as his proof from the woolly mammoth? What's wrong with saying that the
world is 15 billion years old and life evolved over that period of time
as the above-noted writers claim?

> What he is dealing with is the issue of what he views as the evolutionary
> theory and its implications - the claim that science proved that there
> was an old universe, with species evolving naturally - without divine
> intervention. The age of the universe is part and parcel of the issue of
> a masterless universe - and it is that hashkafa that he is dealing with.

All this is true but the operative issue here is *how* he
dealt with it. He didn't roll over and play dead in the face of
ostensibly overwhelming scientific evidence. He used his knowledge
of science to "refute" the scientist's conclusions, not kow-tow to
their prevarications. Thus, whereas the above-noted writers took the
scientists at their word and chose to reinterpret the Torah's account
of maaseh berishis to fit with the scientist's billions of years, R'
Dessler took the Torah at face value and reinterpreted the scientist's
data to fit with a young creation.

> By trying to deny the scientific basis of the time for evolution, it is
> because those who claim that are using it as the basis for denying the
> divine role (porek ol). Therefore, while the time issue seems paramount
> here, it is because the entire theory he is opposed to 

Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that R' Dessler could very well
have been aligned with a billion year universe but rejected an old
universe in favour of a young one in order so that people wouldn't stray
after the evolutionists? I'm sorry to say but your theory is wholly
untenable. I have shown you in no less than four places that R' Dessler
unequivocally rejects millions of years. This is his stated opinion,
nothing more. When Hashem said na'aseh Adam, although some rishaim
would subsequently interpret those words in the context of shituf chs'v,
he did not withhold the lesson of anivus from mankind so that Rishaim
wouldn't stumble. As Hoshea haNavi said, "ki yisharim darchei Hashem,
v'tzadikim yeilchu bam, v'rishaem yikashlu bam". If R' Dessler believed
that the world was or could be billions of years old, he would have
never misrepresented the truth for the sake of those who would stray,
or because he opposed evolution.

> - there is nothing
> to suggest he would consider the tiferet yisrael to be speaking hevel.

You are making the same error that many others have made. Let me make this
clear. Shemittos has nothing to do whatsoever with billions of years. The
TiferesYisroel would be aghast if he knew you were invoking his name to
support the idea of an old universe. According to the Tiferes Yisroel's
calculation, the world is precisely 26,765 years old form berias yesh
meyayin. We are currently in the fourth shemita and Hashem created (or
recreated in subsequent shemittos) all plant and animal life instantly
exactly as it states in the Torah. Please do not confuse the doctrine
of shemittos with the idea of an ancient universe. They are entirely
different concepts.

> Now, does REED believe in 5765 - or an older universe - there is
> nothing in the letter to prove either way (even if one thinks that he
> is leaning to a young one, he doesn't come out and say it)

Well, at least a partial admission...I'll take it! It's better than
nothing.

Simcha Coffer

so my wife talks to a young lady and , gave her shabbos candles; my
wife then mentioned something about mikva being another woman's mitzva;
the lady says oh, i am living with my boyfriend.

now, how would you recommend proceeding? would one think [ as my wife
did] that mikva is for the married only? would one think that a chiyuv
karet could be prevented; could the act of mikva get her in a 'marry me'
mode; or do we just let her proceed in blissful ignorance?....

"Newman,Saul Z" <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org> wrote:
> so my wife talks to a young lady and , gave her shabbos candles; my
> wife then mentioned something about mikva being another woman's mitzva;
> the lady says oh, i am living with my boyfriend.

> now, how would you recommend proceeding? would one think [ as my wife
> did] that mikva is for the married only? would one think that a chiyuv
> karet could be prevented; could the act of mikva get her in a 'marry me'
> mode; or do we just let her proceed in blissful ignorance?....

Best: Get them to seperate until marriage, get them to accept Hilchos
Niddah and then marry them.

2nd best: If it can be reasonably assumed that they would be amenable
to it, teach them the basics and get them to follow Hilchos Niddah if
possible even if they don't get married.

3rd best: Blissful ignorance.

Caveat: The middle option is fraught with overlays of Pritzus and would
require a Shailas Chacham. But IMHO even if they never get married, if
they are indeed amenable to proper Mikva usage than there is hope they
might get married someday as well. In the meantime the Issur Kares can
be avoided so, it would be appropriate teach them Hilchos Niddah.

Frankly I would think it is a very unusual circumstance... the idea that
someone chooses to live in "sin" (as it were) but would be interested
in Mikva usage K'Halaca. But since I am not a pulpit rabbi, I would
never encounter it anyway, most likely.

Are there any pulpit rabbis on this list that could tell us if anything
like this has ever occurred and how they handled it?

HM

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


[ 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         ]