Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 265

Tue, 22 Jul 2008

• 1. Husband (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. Re: Bavli Redux - Does it's authority stem from Sanhedrin? (Zev Sero)
• 3. What can't God do? (David Riceman)
• 4. RSRH: Vows - Difference Between a Man and a Woman (Yitzchok Levine)
• 5. Re: kohen in war / pinchas & kehuna (David Riceman)
• 6. Tefillin on Ch"M (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: What can't God do? (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Husband (Gershon Dubin)
• 9. Re: police misdeeds and trial evidence (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 10. Re: police misdeeds and trial evidence (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: police misdeeds and trial evidence (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 12. Re: money and halakhah (Marty Bluke)
• 13. Re: police misdeeds and trial evidence (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 14. Re: kohen in war / pinchas & kehuna (Micha Berger)

Lashon Hakodesh does not have any word which can be unambiguously
translated as "wife". The word used in such contexts is "isha", but
literally, this actually means "woman". If the context describes her as
being in a marriage to a man, then we'll translate it as "wife", but we
should realize that this is an extra layer of meaning which we are adding
to the text, and it is not actually present in the Hebrew words.

(In fact, I think that in some cases this translation can be wrong and
misleading. For example, if a pasuk describes Jewish men as having
non-Jewish nashim, translating it as "their wives" could mislead a person
into thinking that the pasuk recognizes the marriage as legal, when in
truth the pasuk is merely talking about "their women".)

In contrast, although Lashon Hakodesh does not have a word which can be
unambiguously translated as "husband", it does have TWO words which can
have that meaning.

In the great majority of contexts where we would expect a word for
"husband", the word actually used is "baal". The basic meaning of "baal" is
"master", but in contexts involving a man-woman relationship, we usually
translate it as "husband".

There is another word which is also translated as "husband", and that is
"ish". The basic meaning of "ish" is "man", but in contexts involving a
man-woman relationship, especially when used in the possessive form
"ishahh" (with a mapik-heh) this word too is usually translated as
"husband" (or "her husband").

In the beginning of this week's parsha, I found the word "ishahh" nine
times (in pesukim 8, 9, 11, 12, twice in 13, twice in 14, and again in 15),
but the word "baal" or "baalahh" does not appear even once.

I find this very odd. This parsha teaches us about the ability of a husband
to cancel his wife's vows, just as her father had this ability previously.
This is a very one-sided relationship: he can cancel her vows even against
her wishes, while she cannot cancel his vows at all. It sounds (to me) like
an ideal context for the word "baal". I would not expect to see "ishahh"
used in such a "male chauvinistic" context. My expectation would be to see
"ishahh" only in more egalitarian contexts (although, given the Torah's
apparent preference for a patriarchal society, I can't think of any good
examples offhand).

So my question is: Why was "ishahh" used in this parsha, instead of "baalahh"?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click for online loan, fast & no lender fee, approval today
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3m3WLib8bH93QLebe8ILnBmS77N4LKpk6uXHhi3esB8UCglk/

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> Dear List,
> Someone [I don't recall who] suggesteds that there WAS a Sanhedrin 
> around [inEY] when the Bavli was completed. FWIW the Rambam in his 
> hkqdamah flatly rejects this notion. [I amp osting today because I jsut 
> reread it today]

I've never heard it suggested that there was a Sanhedrin after 425.
But this article argues that semicha and batei din of semuchim continued
right through the Rambam's day, and that the Rambam knew about it and
alludes to it, and that semicha didn't die out until the Damascus yeshivah
closed as a result of the Third Crusade.
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/hatkufa/mishpat-4.htm

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

I'm trying to collect sources in Hazal (as opposed to Tanach or 
rishonim) about what God can't or won't do.  Examples include:

"ain HKBH mekapeah schar kol briyah"
"hamispalel lesheavar harei zo tefillas shav"

Any suggestions?

David Riceman

 From the new translation of the Hirsch Chumash, Bamidbar, 30:4

         A man?s vow is binding on him from the outset. He can ?
and should (see ibid. 59a; cf. Commentary, Devarim 23:22ff.) ? submit
his vow to the national community and its representatives, so that they
should examine the vow and decide on its fulfillment. Only in this way
can a man dissolve his vow. For a man creates his 
position in life independently,
and if he binds himself with a vow that cannot be absolved,
he introduces into his life a new element that is not ordinarily applicable.
This element changes and individualizes his life, and, since he is independent,
he is able to take this individuality into account when he shapes
the conditions of his life.

         Not so for a woman. The moral greatness of the woman?s calling
requires that she enter a position in life created by another. The woman
does not build for herself her own home. She enters the home provided
by the man, and she manages it, bringing happiness to the home and
nurturing everything inside the home in a spirit of sanctity and orientation
toward God. The woman ? even more than the man ? must
avoid the constraint of extraordinary guidelines in her life, for they are
likely to be an impediment to her in the fulfillment of her calling.

         From this standpoint, one can understand the prescriptions instituted
here out of concern for the woman. The Word of God seeks to
insure the vowing woman against the consequences of her own words,
and therefore confers on the father and on the husband a limited
right to annul vows ? on the father, as regards vows of a youthful
daughter still under his care; on the father and on the fianc?, as regards
vows of a betrothed daughter; on the husband, as regards vows of his
wife. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080722/419c13e1/attachment-0001.htm>

Eli Turkel wrote:
> Note that Pinchas was not a kohen when he killed zimri.
>   
This is a machlokes.  See Zevahim 102a (citing Seder Olam), Rashi ad. 
loc. s.v. "ben bnah".

David Riceman

RZLampel did me the favor of sending me a copy of his son's notes for his
bar
mitzvah derashah. The topic:
> How did it become a question whether to wear tefillin on Chol HaMoed?
Didn't
> each generation see whether the previous one davenned with tefillin on
Chol
> HaMoed or not? Did Moshe Rabbeynu and Yehoshua daven with tefillin on
Chol
> HaMoed or not?

> You may want to say that there were long periods of time when nobody wore
> tefillin. ...
> For instance, you may think that this could have happened in the times of
> Menashe or Achav...
> But this is not such a good answer, because it doesn't say that these
kings
> stopped people from doing mitzvos. As a matter of fact, the Gemora...
> So instead, you may bring up the Syrian Greeks...

> My father has suggested a different approach. Namely, we see from
mishnayos,
> gemoros and poskim that from the very beginning, talmidei chachamim on
any
> given day, and at any given time of day, al pi din wore. and did not
wear,
> tefillin. What each one did was obvious, but there were different
halachic
> reasons each one had for his behavior...

> There is more....

See <http://www.aishdas.org/articles/tefillinChM.pdf> for the rest,
including
the topic of "os" on ch"m, tefillin beShabbos, etc...

At the mesibah, which I happily attended, I teased RZL about it going into
the
next edition of The Dynamics of Dispute.

Tir'u baTov! 
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
micha@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

David Riceman wrote:
> I'm trying to collect sources in Hazal (as opposed to Tanach or 
> rishonim) about what God can't or won't do.  Examples include:
> 
> "ain HKBH mekapeah schar kol briyah"
> "hamispalel lesheavar harei zo tefillas shav"

Ein HKBH ba bitrunia im briyotav.
La avid KBH nisa lemagana.
Ein HKBH oseh davar ad shenimlach beveit din shel maalah.


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

-- "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:

<<In the beginning of this week's parsha, I found the word "ishahh"
nine times (in pesukim 8, 9, 11, 12, twice in 13, twice in 14, and again in
15), but the word "baal" or "baalahh" does not appear even once.

So my question is: Why was "ishahh" used in this parsha, instead of "baalahh"?>>
I can't answer the specific question, but perhaps hi hanosenes, that the Torah does NOT want to emphasize the husband's power over his wife.
See meforshim on Hoshea 2:18 "On that day you will call Me ishi and no longer call me Baali"
e.g. Rashi:  Ishi is lashon ishus vechibas ne'urim;  Baal is lashon adnus umorah.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

____________________________________________________________
Need cash? Click to get an emergency loan, bad credit ok
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3mKmy85kD4gnUONQBkzepv6TmdDoaORM5r8XdL1fMTJW8xXU/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080722/ff5a1192/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Eli Turkel:
> about the effect of police doing things wrong on the subsequent trial
> evidence.
> 
> what does halacha say?

Is there such a thing as evidence according to Halachah? Fingerprints, sound
or video recordings, expert testimony, etc. - are they admissible in Beis
Din?

KT,
MYG

Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> R' Eli Turkel:
>> about the effect of police doing things wrong on the subsequent trial
>> evidence.
>>
>> what does halacha say?

> Is there such a thing as evidence according to Halachah? Fingerprints, sound
> or video recordings, expert testimony, etc. - are they admissible in Beis
> Din?

Such evidence would be admitted by BD in order to impeach witnesses.
And I see no reason to believe that BD would care in the least how this
evidence was obtained.  It speaks for itself, after all.  If it relies
on the testimony of the person who got it, then of course his wrongdoing
might make him pasul le'edut.  But the exclusionary rule is something
that was invented by USAn judges in the early 20th century, and would
seem to have no more place in halacha than it does in any other legal
system.


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

MYG:
> > Is there such a thing as evidence according to Halachah? Fingerprints,
sound
> > or video recordings, expert testimony, etc. - are they admissible in
Beis
> > Din?
R' ZS: 
> Such evidence would be admitted by BD in order to impeach witnesses.
> And I see no reason to believe that BD would care in the least how this
> evidence was obtained.  It speaks for itself, after all.  If it relies
> on the testimony of the person who got it, then of course his wrongdoing
> might make him pasul le'edut.  But the exclusionary rule is something
> that was invented by USAn judges in the early 20th century, and would
> seem to have no more place in halacha than it does in any other legal
> system.

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear - my question was on R' Eli Turkel's
unwritten premise that BD _does_ accept evidence aside from Shnaim Eidim. I
was asking if this was indeed the case. IIRC, we had a thread a while back
about the permissibility of using DNA to matter an Agunah (for example,
after 9/11), but that is a whole different set of rules.

KT,
MYG 

The Aruch Hashulchan Choshen Mishpat Siman 66 Sif 9 writes:
"Sh'taros shel melucha hayotzim bamedina k'matbeyos kesef v'zahav,
yesh lahem kol din matbeya"

My translation:
Paper money issued by the government that is accepted like gold and
silver coins is considered money for all halachic purposes"

Tomorrow morning I will find the Chazon Ish and Chasam Sofer.

Old MYG:
> I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear - my question was on R' Eli Turkel's
unwritten
> premise that BD _does_ accept evidence aside from Shnaim Eidim. I was
asking
> if this was indeed the case. IIRC, we had a thread a while back about the
> permissibility of using DNA to matter an Agunah (for example, after 9/11),
but
> that is a whole different set of rules.

And then I just saw this post by listmember R' Rafi Goldmeier, which clearly
indicates that for Psak, at least, one can use video evidence:
http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2008/07/interesting-psak-instant-
replay.htm
l (I really think that's Pashut - you only need a Birur of the Metzius,
unlike Eidus - but it ties in neatly).

KT,
MYG

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 02:12:34PM -0700, Eli Turkel wrote:
: On another matter I was asked this shabbat why Pinchas was not
: included in the original establishment of the kohanim just as his
: grandfather, father and uncles were

If he was not originally included (see RDR's recent post, or my survey of
"berisi shalom" from last week)...

When was Pinechas born? Was he 20 yet at the time of the meshichah?
Perhaps he was simply too young.

It's hard to figure out from his age, because Pinechas (even without
mixing Eliyahu in) was still alive 300 years later serving as Kohein
Gadol in Mishkan Shilo during the story of the Pilegesh beGiv'ah. Given
the supernatural lifespan, there is no way to say he couldn't possibly
be 20 because otherwise...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
micha@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rabbi Israel Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 265
***************************************

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..."