Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 40

Tue, 06 Mar 2007

• 1. Tzeit (Jeffrey Saks)
• 2. Re: VASHTI'S TAIL ETC (Gil Student)
• 3. Re: Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 39 (Levi Serebryanski)
• 4. Re: Vashti's tail (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 5. Re: Vashti's tail (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Vashti's tail etc... (Zev Sero)
• 7. A Letter Observation (Jonathan Baker)
• 8. Re: [Areivim] vashti (Micha Berger)
• 9. yefas toar (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: [Areivim] vashti (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Ikkarim redux (T613K@aol.com)
• 12. Re: Vashti's Tail etc... (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)

There is a potential confusion within the discussion about Tzeit HaKokhavim, end of fasts, Shabbat, etc.
In the case of Tekiat Shofar on Motzai YK: technically one is allowed to blow during Bein HaShmashot (i.e., before Tzeit), since it is not a melachah, but a "chochmah", therefore it is permitted as a "shvut ba-makom mitzvah" -- see Mishnah Brura 623:12.
In practice however, the Luach (both Rav Tukachinsky and the Heichal Shlomo) says to wait 20 minutes after Shkiah for Tekiat Shofar (and 32 minutes after shkiah for havdala/melacha). In Israel this creates a problem of wanting to get to Birkhat Kohanim for Neilah before Shkiah, then having to shlep out everything else (Avinu Malkeinu, etc.) to fill the time. If anyone has a creative solution to this problem -- aside from paskening like the Mishnah Brura over the Luach -- I'd be delighted to hear it. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070305/750f78d9/attachment.htm 

SBA wrote:
>OTOH, if it is, how often do we find a maamar Chazal
>that is half kepshutoy and the other half not?

That is gufa the Tzelach's approach to aggadata (as opposed to, say,
the Maharal). See his introduction.



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

From  "Eli Turkel"
  >"In line with medrashim on Megillat Esther I assume someone explains how
Esther could have been married to Mordecai when only virgins were 
"invited "to Achashverosh"<
   
  My wife pointed out to me that in a latter posuk it says" Vaye'ehav hamelech es ester mikol hanoshim vatiso chein vochesed lefonov mikol habesulos" which implies that there was a broadening of the selection criteria at some point after the initial decree.

 
---------------------------------
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070305/cd710fb4/attachment.html 

> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:12:08 +0200
> From: "Michael Kopinsky" <mkopinsky@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Vashti's tail etc...
> Message-ID:
> <c1b3e2ee0703050412n4983a71bldb77254e9d15211b@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
 We, as
> ma'aminim can see these things as miracles, but historians could see them
> otherwise.  Vashti's tail, even if seen only by herself, would have been
> seen as a nes nigleh (or at least a bizzare deviation from normal life).
> Thus it's difficult to understand Vashti's tail as being literal among the
> other events of the megilla.

Here is another take on Vashti's tail (posted originally to Areivim):

IS wrote:
> we automatically think of Vashti as a vain woman who would have been happy
> to display herself before Ahashverosh's guests, had it not been for a
> sudden
> miraculous disfigurement that revealed her true animal nature.

But mabye this is doing a disservice to Chazal.

Another way to view things is through a semi-historical view.

If you take the whole string of midrashim of Chazal as they go through the
first part of the Megilla, they describe how Axhashverosh became a king.  A
king who only in this 3rd year of reign felt sufficiently safe on his chair
to go to the next step and have a giant party, to more-or-less bribe the
nobility (and many in the capital and close by) to support him.

Remember that according to Chazal, Vashti was the actual queen and heiress.
Achashverosh was an upstart who married the queen.  In many places in the
world, depending on local custom and law, this would have made Achashverosh
the Prince Consort (see the current queen of England...). Not the King.

Achashverosh wanted to be a King.

So, he sent for Vashti -- not Queen Vashti, but rather Vashti the Queen.  He
was attempting to show, and gain the support of the people for his claim 
that he was
actually the King, and not just the consort.

And Vashti grew a tail.  Or more accurately -- instead of being the head of
the ruling couple, she became the tail of the ruling couple.  She lost her
rank as Queen and became the Consort herself, the "tail" of the couple.

At this point, she attempted to make the point that she was actually the
Queen, but she lost - not just "growing a tail" -but actually losing her
head.  [Chazal do have ma'amarim where they connect "tail" and "head" in the
same sentence when discussing leadership].

And Achashverosh was free to nominate a new queen - someone who wasn't Davka
from the nobility, so that it would be clear that he was King Achashverosh,
ruling in his own right.


Shushan Purim Sameach
Shoshana L. Boublil

Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:

> Here is another take on Vashti's tail (posted originally to Areivim):
> [...]
> He was attempting to show, and gain the support of the people for his
> claim that he was actually the King, and not just the consort.

This is from the Malbim.


> And Vashti grew a tail.  Or more accurately -- instead of being the
> head of the ruling couple, she became the tail of the ruling couple.
> She lost her rank as Queen and became the Consort herself, the "tail"
> of the couple.  At this point, she attempted to make the point that
> she was actually the Queen, but she lost - not just "growing a tail"
> -but actually losing her head.

That's very nice, and fits well with the Malbim's take on what was going
on behind the scenes (which IMHO was meant more as a commentary on 19th
century German politics than on what he thought the megillah really means).
But it's impossible to read this into the actual gemara which says that
Gavriel came and made for her a tail.  Not that as a result of this
story she *became* a "tail".

Bear in mind that the first opinion, that she developed tzaraat, is
not attributed to angelic intervention.  Skin conditions do develop
naturally, and do appear suddenly; that it happened just at the right
time for it to cause her downfall and Esther's rise was clearly
miraculous, but the outbreak itself would not be supernatural.

But the second opinion rejects that approach, and insists that her
disfigurement wasn't some mere skin outbreak, but a supernatural
event, one that requires the instrumentality of Malach Gavriel;
perhaps the reason why this was necessary was to drive home to her
that she hadn't merely suffered from bad luck, but was being
punished for her misdeeds.  I think the fact that the gemara names
Malach Gavriel is a clear proof that we should *not* try to look for
natural explanations, and like the Maharsha we should accept that
the author of this opinion meant it literally.

Of course we don't have to hold like that opinion.  We can prefer the
first opinion, which is also Torah.  But to force the second opinion
into this "naturalist" approach seems to me to be either promoting an
agenda instead of honestly trying to understand the gemara, or to speak
of a disbelief in miracles in general, ch"v.  In other words, one need
not believe that Gavriel gave Vashti a tail, but to believe that he
*couldn't* have done so is apikorsus, and to believe that the gemara
doesn't really mean to say that he did is evasive.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Michael Kopinsky wrote:
> On 3/2/07, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
>> Micha Berger wrote:

>>> The whole mehalekh we consistently take to understanding Purim *requires*
>>> a lack of any supernatural events.

>> Not really.  Eliyahu informing Mordechai about Haman's decree.  Esther's
>> appearing beautiful to everyone, especially Achashverosh, despite her
>> age and unattractiveness, Achashverosh's hand extending the sceptre to
>> Esther when he intended not to; these are all miracles, just not public
>> spectacular ones.  And they're not mentioned in the text of the megillah,
>> but the gemara makes sure that we know about them. Because the story
>> *was* miraculous, but the miracles were known only to the people to
>> whom they happened, not to thousands of bystanders.

> I understand the difference between nes nigleh and nes nistar as being
> more an issue of whether what happened was recognizably the hand of G-d
> vs. explainable in natural terms, rather than public vs. private.  The
> examples you mentioned are all explainable in natural terms - a bearded
> Jew with good hearing who happened to walk past the palace at the right
> moment, people having a particular taste in women (including age and skin
> hue), or the King making a particular political decision.  We, as
> ma'aminim can see these things as miracles, but historians could see them
> otherwise.  Vashti's tail, even if seen only by herself, would have been
> seen as a nes nigleh (or at least a bizzare deviation from normal life).
> Thus it's difficult to understand Vashti's tail as being literal among the
> other events of the megilla.

The same historians who could make up a natural explanation for how
Mordechai found out about the decree, and why Achashverosh picked
Esther, and why he welcomed Esther (the explanation for that one
*seems* obvious to your hypothetical historians), can also make up
a story for Vashti's sudden attack of modesty.  Indeed, they can
hypothesise that Vashti was really a tzadekes, a very modest and
private woman, who would naturally refuse such a command.  There's
nothing in the text of the megillah to prove otherwise.

Even observers at the time could imagine that Mordechai had spies
in the palace; they would themselves have been under Esther's glamour
and have imagined her to be an epitome of their own standards of
beauty; they would need no explanation for Achashverosh welcoming
her; and they might come up with many explanations for Vashti's
refusal.

But Chazal tell us that Mordechai found out from Eliyahu, and that
Esther was old and ugly but had a glamour that made everyone think
otherwise, and that Achashverosh intended to ignore Esther and let
her be dragged off and killed, but that his hand extended the sceptre
of its own accord.  These were all supernatural events, miracles, but
only visible to the people involved.  The same Chazal also explain
Vashti's refusal the same way - that it was in fact a miracle,
something happened to her appearance that made her suddenly and
uncharacteristically reluctant to strut her stuff.  One opinion is
that the miracle consisted of a natural skin condition appearing at
just the right moment, which she could explain to herself as mere
coincidence, while the second opinion says that no such explanation
was possible for her, and she was aware that Hashem was responsible
for her downfall.  But nobody *else* knew, so the miracle was "hidden".


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

From: "Yisrael Medad" <yisrael.medad@gmail.com>
 
> Yaakov Yosef of Paloney in his Tzafnat Fane'ach notes that when reading Ish
> Yehudi Haya, one should imagine dropping the Yud of Yehudi back into the
> Dalet and you get Yud-Key-Vav-Keh!
 
Cute.

But doesn't that risk running afoul of the idea of the Xtians or,
lehavdil, the Lubavitchers?  "Ish Hashem Hayah".  Even those who are
called Godly have an adjectival appellation, e.g Eloki Rabbi Yitzchak
(Luria), or Moshe Ish Ha'Elokim - the man of God, rather than "a man
was God" hv hv hv

By the way, that's usually spelled "Polonnoye" in English.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

Could someone post a maqor that says that the default assumption when dealing
with a medrash that is "fantastical" is to assume it IS historical? Or even
that the majority are

We have a list of rishonim compiled a year back who say otherwise: the Rambam
(who, kedarko beqodesh, goes as far as berating those who take them
historically), the Ritva, the Maharsha, the Maharal, the Gra...

On Fri, March 2, 2007 9:38 am, Zev Sero wrote:
:> Actually, it defies every maqor that speaks of hesteir panim.
>
:> The whole mehalekh we consistently take to understanding Purim *requires*
:> a lack of any supernatural events.

: Not really.  Eliyahu informing Mordechai about Haman's decree.  Esther's
: appearing beautiful to everyone, especially Achashverosh, despite her
: age and unattractiveness, Achashverosh's hand extending the sceptre to
: Esther when he intended not to; these are all miracles, just not public
: spectacular ones....

Of course, if medrashim that are "fantastical" are meshalim, then those aren't
ra'ayos either.

Besides, in this case, is the tail even a full-blown mashal, or an idiom? Was
her tail simply idiom for being overweight, like growing a "spare tire", or
some other thing that embarasses her?


The question of whether a private lema'alah min hateva miracle defies hesteir
panim is an interesting one.

In the Alter of Slabodka's hashkafah, each person has their own reality
created for them. "Bishvili nivra ha'olam." The Borei allows these distinct
realities to interact, since that allows us to perform chessed for each other
-- or ch"v abuse the gift. Sounds very Berkleyian, except that I do not know
where the AS is not saying these distinct realities are because only our
sensory impressions exist. I get the understanding -- trying to follow subtle
philosophy in what is r"l not my first language -- that "nivra ha'olam" my
personal world is really "out there".

IOW, Bishop Berkley said that all that exists is what G-d puts into our
senses, and thus if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to
hear it, there is no tree, no forest, and no -- it doesn't make a sound.

As I understand him, the AS would say it does make a sound, but we need to ask
which people's worlds contain this forest.

It's only in the case of nissim that worlds can go widely disjoint. Is that
only lemaalah min hateva? I don't know. I'm inclined to guess that it is (but
remember, I'm not 100% sure I got the Or haTzafun correct), since REED is a
talmid of this derekh, and he holds that all of teva is a pattern to the
nissim nistarim.

To get back from the philosophy detour...

Der Alter could say that a miracle in Vashti's world that Jews don't know
about may not defy the concept of hesteir panim for the Jews.

In other ontologies, though, most people would assume "hesteir panim" and
strict compliance to teva are identical. That would be my default position to
be pushed from which I would want a ra'ayah.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

RSBA writes:

> From: "Marty Bluke" <>
> R ' Akiva Miller wrote:
> According to this logic, rape is not inherently immoral, 
> because if it was, then we would not find a case (yefas toar) 
> where it is mutar.
> ---
> By yefas toar Chazal say explicitly that lo dibra torah ela 
> k'neged yetzer hara which implies that it is not a moral action.
> >>
> 
> I am not so sure about this being a true 'hetter' of 'rape'.
> 
> See Kiddushin 22a, Rashi dh: Shelo Yilchotzeno Bamilchomo: 
> "Lavoy oleho." Which may mean no rape, or to wait until he 
> takes her home. (Admittedly Tosfos has a lot kashes on this.)
> 
> Also see Rambam Hilchos Mishpotim 8:2-7 all the halachos 
> concerning  a 'yefas toar'. Definitely not the usual rape situation.
> 

And to add to what RSBA is saying -  whether he is even permitted to
have relations with her even once before the conversion and all the
procedures have been gone through is, according to the Kesef Mishna
there on the Rambam, the subject of a maklokus between Rav and Shmuel in
the Yerushalmi (the Kessef Mishna also quotes the Tosphos in Kiddushin)
with the Rambam poskening like Rav (because in such matters we posken
like Rav over Shmuel).  However, the Kesef Mishna also brings the Smag
who quotes the Yerushalmi in Shabbas as having the maklokus between Rav
and Rav Yochanan (and as between Rav and Rav Yochanan, the halacha is
like Rav Yochanan) and therefore he poskens like Rav Yochanan. {although
you should note that the Kesef Mishna goes on to give reasons why, based
on the Bavli, he believes it is logical to posken like the Rambam).  But
that does mean that the Smag at least holds that in fact nothing that
could even vaguely be considered rape is permitted to occur at all.  And
further you should see the Ramban on the pasuk (Devarim 21:11-13) who
states after a long discussion that the plain meaning of the text is
that no relations at all are permitted until after all the mourning
period and the conversion occurs (the Ramban also quotes the Yerushalmi
dispute between Rav and Rav Yochanan, (although he suggests it is in
Sanhedrin - Makos)) - ie his version appears to again be, like the Smag,
with Rav Yochanan, meaning again that l'halacha no relations on or near
the battlefield is permitted to occur according to the Ramban.

So according to these other meforshim, there is in fact no relations at
all on or anywhere near the battlefield, but the special allowance the
Torah makes in this circumstance where he sees her in a war situation
would seem to be to allow the man to marry her altogether if he can
pursuade her to convert (whereas in other circumstances he would not be
able to) - rather than any sanction of any form of rape, or even the
Rambam's private allowance of a once  off battlefield liason.

> SBA

Regards

Chana

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, March 2, 2007 9:38 am, Zev Sero wrote:

>:> Actually, it defies every maqor that speaks of hesteir panim.
>:> The whole mehalekh we consistently take to understanding Purim
>:> *requires* a lack of any supernatural events.
 
>: Not really.  Eliyahu informing Mordechai about Haman's decree.
>: Esther's appearing beautiful to everyone, especially Achashverosh,
>: despite her age and unattractiveness, Achashverosh's hand extending
>: the sceptre to Esther when he intended not to; these are all miracles,
>: just not public spectacular ones....
 
> Of course, if medrashim that are "fantastical" are meshalim, then
> those aren't ra'ayos either. [...] The question of whether a private
> lema'alah min hateva miracle defies hesteir panim is an interesting one.

Aren't you rather putting the cart before the horse?  The idea that
the Purim Miracle was characterised by "hester panim" is itself
merely a drasha, of no better pedigree than these midrashim.  It's
based on people's observation that Hashem's name doesn't appear in
the megillah, and nor do explicit nissim.  From this they developed
a "medrash" about hester panim and hidden miracles, etc., just as
Chazal did before them.

If our understanding of this late drasha contradicts our understanding
of Chazal's drashot, then we must surely reject it and accept them,
rather than the other way around.  Or we can interpret one or the other,
or both, so that they don't contradict.  But we certainly shouldn't
take the "hester panim" drasha as an "ikkar" which must be taken
literally and radically, so that everything that contradicts it must
be reinterpreted!  And if we're to reinterpret one or the other so as
to make them fit, there's no reason why the brunt of this exercise must
fall on the gemara.


> Besides, in this case, is the tail even a full-blown mashal, or an
> idiom? Was her tail simply idiom for being overweight, like growing
> a "spare tire", or some other thing that embarasses her?

I've addressed this earlier today.  If this were the case, the gemara
could have left the cause at a case of "tzaraat", which "spontaneously
bloomed". 

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

 
 

>>The debate here is whether halachic criteria factor at  all  into the  
ikkarim - but the suggestion that what ikkare  emunah are is decided  
by the minhag amcha - rather than by rational  analysis and the  
leaders,   would have made the author of  the ikkarim cringe...Yes,  
there are halachic issues where the which  shita is used depends on  
the minhag - and, as in this post, the  question was specifically  
which minhag was the accepted one - and, in  general, unless one  
believes it is a minhag taut one does go with what  people do.
However, the very idea that ikkare emunah are decided by the  amcha  
reflects a fundamental cheapening of the very idea....
(WRT  Artscroll - their acceptance is IMHO a case of minhag taut, and  
I will  leave it at that..)<<
Meir Shinnar
 
>>>>
As RMS has stated several times that there is no universal acceptance  of the 
13 ikkarim in our sources, I wonder a) which of the 13 are not  universally 
accepted as binding and b) which of the 13 he personally does not  believe.  
Also I wonder when he says that the ArtScroll's acceptance of the  13 ikkarim is 
a "minhag taut" -- I wonder what exactly is the taus that  ArtScroll has 
made, in his opinion?





--Toby  Katz
=============
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070305/bed4395a/attachment.htm 

R' MB:
*To give context, on Areivim we were discussing the dilemma of how to
*deal with your children coming home with stories like Vashti's tail.
*
*I pointed the chevrah to R' Adlerstein's "Did Vashti Really Have a Tail"
*<http://www.innernet.org.il/article.php?aid=236> where he humorously
*expressed his nervousness about non-frum Shabbos guests coming the Shabbos
*before Purim, and his child bringing this medrash home when discussing
*"So, what did you learn this week?"

To selectively quote from that article:
"MaHaRal does not reject the miraculous. Rather he rejects a superficial
reading of the words of the rabbis, words he is convinced almost always
disguise more than they reveal. (4) When we probe the true intent of the
rabbis, we discover that they saw Divine intervention occurring in ways that
may be more profound than the simple miracle that the text suggests. The
Talmud (5) tells of a man whose wife died, leaving him with an infant to
care for. He had no means of support, and literally nothing to feed the
child. God performed a miracle for him. enabling him to nurse a child.

Parnasa, the wherewithal to support oneself and loved ones does not come
easily. In the natural order of things, this man had no way to earn a
living. His child should have died. What God did for him, says MaHaRal, was
provide him with the ability to find food for his child, although he
couldn't make ends meet for himself. Perhaps this previously unskilled
worker just followed a hunch, and walked into a job interview and was
immediately given a managerial position for a Talmudic period 500 company.
It shouldn't have been. It was-- because God intervened for him. This was
actually no less an overturning of the natural order than if he had actually
begun lactating.

Most would not give a second thought to taking this passage literally.
MaHaRal himself concedes that Hashem may actually have given this father's
body the milk that the child needed. But it is the first approach he favors.
(6)

MaHaRal's approach allows us to explain this Talmudic excerpt to the kind of
skeptic who doesn't react well to overt tampering with God's own natural
law. Most importantly, perhaps, it says something to the rest of us who have
no problem at all accepting what the eighth century Rav Saadia Gaon called a
tradition: that God accomplishes miracles for select people in every
generation."

This is, unfortunately, a poor example. Male lactation is a documented
phenomenon - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation. From there,
"Extreme stress combined with demanding physical activity and a shortage of
food has also been known to cause male lactation." This would certainly jive
with the situation described by Chazal. 

KT,
MYG




------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 40
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."