Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 270

Fri, 25 Jul 2008

• 1. Re: money and halakhah (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Alei Shur: "Mussar is not hashkafa" (saul mashbaum)
• 3. Re: length of the aron (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Differences between Charedism and Modern Orthodoxy (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Re: Differences between Charedism and Modern Orthodoxy (David Riceman)
• 6. Re: Husband (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: length of the aron (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: what G-d can't do (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 9. Re: vsalachta (Arie Folger)
• 10. Re: Buying a dirah (David Riceman)
• 11. Re: police misdeeds and trial evidence (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 12. Re: Differences between Charedism and Modern Orthodoxy (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 13. Re: women giving testimony in court [was: police misdeeds and misdeeds and trial evidence] (hankman)

Yitzhak Grossman wrote:

> Hasam Sofer (YD 134) clearly says that 'banknotes' derive their value
> from government fiat, not from their convertibility into metal, from
> which he infers that they are in the Halachic category of 'matbea' as
> opposed to 'shtaros'.
> 
> He proves his contention that their value derives from government fiat
> by pointing out that their assigned value is sometimes greater than
> purely economic considerations, based on their convertibility, would
> dictate.

But, IIRC (and it's been about 20 years since I saw it inside) he says
this only applies bein adam lachavero, not bein adam lamakom.  And
therefore that for pidyon haben, which is bein adam lamakom, it doesn't
work.


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

RMB cites RSWolbe
>>
Ra'ayonos are similarly ends-directed, bringing your desired results
with you to the study of the text, but this is about creativity in
Torah study. One has conclusions in mind of how the Torah ought to be,
and works what he learns to fit those preconceived notions.
>>
This is very similar to what I recently wrote here about homiletics. Often
, the darshan starts with the conclusion, and searches around for sources
for said conclusion.
Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080725/e03ebb4e/attachment-0001.htm>

Alan Rubin wrote:

> Can we try a thought experiment here? Someone takes a 20 Amah length
> ruler into the KhK clearly marked in half amah divisions and lies it
> against the Aron. What do they see? What numbers are adjacent to the
> edges of the aron?

The gemara doesn't say.  I would *guess* that if you looked at the aron
then you would see that it starts at 8.75 and runs until 11.25, but that
if you then looked the space between it and the northern wall you'd see
that the northern edge was at the 10 mark, with all of its length south
of 10, while if you looked at the space to the south of it you'd see that
the southern edge was at the 10 mark and the whole length was north of 10.
But that's just a guess.  I don't suppose we'll ever have the opportunity
to carry out the experiment for real.

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

For some reason I can't cut and paste your post but I have to disagree
that believing that chazal were fallible is tantamount to heresy.
 
Also I believe the flavor of Chana's post was diminidshed by at least 2
statements that concerned me: 
 
"Most of those within the Modern Orthodox world would approve of any
method being utilized, any method which would seem to bring us closer to
God, whether it be historical analysis, psychological readings or any
sort of outside tool which will aid us in our understanding of Tanakh
and the Torah"   - where did  this demographic information from and
didn't chazal use these types of analysis/ IIUC R'YBS was saying that
they must be used within the self contained system of halacha, not that
they can't be of value.
 
" One has the right to speak only when he realizes whom he is speaking
to, and whom he is speaking of, and this is something that alas very few
within the Modern Orthodox world understand- because it is not something
they have been taught. "  again a sweeping generalization based on what?

 
KT
Joel Rich 
 
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080725/d11e7756/attachment-0001.htm>

Harry Maryles wrote:
> Modern Orthodoxy has often been accused of believing that Chazal were 
> fallible - that they made mistakes. They were human beings subject to 
> the spirit of their time and that influenced how they created rabbinic 
> law which we must follow.
>
> This is simply not true. Modern Orthodoxy does not believe that. 
> Faulting Chazal in this way is tantamount to heresy!
>
I.m sure we've discussed this before, but nonetheless I'll ask again.  
Was Rabbeinu HaKadosh a heretic for discussing in Masseches Horayos what 
to do when the Sanhedrin makes a mistake? Or do you claim that Hazal 
were actually more competent than the Sanhedrin?

David Riceman

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:04am EDT, R Yitzchok Levine quoted 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...

:     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....

RSRH comments on the qeri ukesiv of vekivshuha (in birkhas Adam, Bereishis
1) in Judaism Eternal ch 11 ("The Jewish Woman"):
    Vikvshuha is read malei [full, ie with the vav], but written chaseir
    [deficient]. In other words, while it is read as though both should
    participate in conquering the world, it's written "vikivshah",
    that only one of them should.

    ... [T]he command to "subdue", and with it to procure the means
    necessary for marriage and for founding a household, is addressed
    only to the male sex, to whose function it belongs to compel the
    earth through labour to serve the needs of man. Hence the command
    to marry and found a household has absolute force only for the
    male sex. Since, however, these commands are after all addressed to
    both sexes, it is obvious that for the performance of man's task of
    building up the world the Law-giver reckoned on the harmonious and
    equal co-operation of both sexes. Further, by excusing the famale sex
    from the hard labour of subduing and mastering the earth,... [H]e
    left it free to be devoted to the higher and more humanistic task
    of employing the products of man's labour for the ethical purposes
    of building up a house and family, that is to say, in the service
    of his true vocation and his welfare as a human being.

R SR Hirsch explains this verse as being about the Talmudic aphorism
that "man brings in the grain, and woman makes it into bread". Man
conquers and acquires, woman develops the raw material into a finished
product. Man builds a society, woman gives it a religious backbone.
Ideally it would be man who produces technology, and women who make sure
we don't dehumanize ourselves in the process.

This is akin to an observation by "Dear Abby" (Pauline Phillips, born
Pauline Esther Friedman). She wrote that men are goal oriented, while
women are process oriented. This is an alleged gender difference from a
totally unrelated source, albeit one probably based on anecdotal evidence,
that would fit the roles assumed above.

Rav Hirsch speaks in terms of "inside" vs. "outside", community in
service of its members, vs the expansion of the community's domain,
reach, and standard of living. The similarity to Rav Aharon's dichotomy
of qibbush extending our reach vs. chazaqah developing what we have is
quite strong, although not identical.

Thus, his "kol kevudah bas melekh penimah" (Tehillim 45:14) is "But the
king's daughter is all glorious within, more than the golden borders
of her raiment." As R Michael Poppers pointed out a long while back,
this better fits the hyphenation of "kol-kevudah" as well as the use of
"kevudah" not "kevudas". The commentary reads:

    "But", the singer adds with infinite tact and delicacy, "though the
    princess may appear glorious and splendid in public, she reveals
    her true glory in quiet, more private circles, and the splendid
    qualities she shows there are much greater than the exquisite beauty
    of the gold borders which shine at the hem of her garment." Penimah
    "within," is always used to designate an inner recess as opposed to
    the outer chambers.

(The above is about half of
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/06/gender-differences.shtml>.)

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:15pm GMT, R Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
wrote:
: 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".

Given what I recently wrote on ba'alus, a ba'al is one who has
responsibility. With responsibility comes authority, but that meaning
of ba'al is the derived one.

IOW, I see "ba'al" as "husband" in the sense of she'eir kesus ve'onah.

: 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.

Whereas I see ish ve'ishah in terms of the vekivshuha/vekivshah
partnership. And therefore I feel that RSRH's approach to gender roles
addresses this. A husband has the power of hafaras nedarim not in his
role of provider and therefore holding control (as anyone who holds the
purse-strings will), but because it's his role in the partnership
to be the one who sets new directions. (It's hers to insure that they
are developed in a holy way.)

Which shtims with what RGDubin wrote on Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:16am GMT:
: 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.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
micha@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Alan Rubin suggested:
> Can we try a thought experiment here? Someone takes a 20
> Amah length ruler into the KhK clearly marked in half amah
> divisions and lies it against the Aron. What do they see?
> What numbers are adjacent to the edges of the aron?

I've done this thought experiment a few times already. Came up with at least two half-answers:

One idea is that "Bracha exists only in that which is hidden." (Source,
anyone? Or is it another phantom Chazal?) By the way, I consider that
statement to be not-too-different from "Quantum physics miracles stop as
soon as someone looks at the system." Anyway, what I'm suggesting is that
introduction of a ruler would cause catastrophic results not too different
from those shown in "Raiders of the Lost Ark".

Another idea stems from a story I once heard about someone who was in the
tunnels below Har Habayis and actually saw some of the Keilim of the Beis
Hamikdash. On his return, they asked him, "Did it look like this perush or
that perush?" He answered, "It did look like this, and it did look like
that. I know the perushim are contradictory, but it did look like both." So
too, there is a real possibility that the ruler would show exactly what it
is supposed to show, even though we cannot imagine how that might be.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click for information on obtaining a VA loan.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3m3mV7jT90yyGPjoWZvs3E7JRSsItzSFvCK6cLCr8RdfVd6i/

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:16:43 -0400
Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> 
> > Doing things against logic --- I'm not sure what is meant by this.
> > 
> > Surely He cannot make a five-sided triangle, nor a rock so heavy
> > that He cannot lift it. (See footnote later.) But my
> > understanding of these examples is not that Hashem is incapable
> > of making such a thing; rather the thing is undefined and
> > incapable of existing.
> 
> The opposing view is that yes, He can make a five-sided triangle, or an
> object that measures 2.5 amot long, but when put into a 20-amah wide room
> doesn't take up any of those 20 amot.  According to this view, He can make
> a rock so heavy that He can't lift it, and He can still lift it, because
> He is not bound by the Law of Non-Contradiction.

But it must be noted that *no Rishon* is known to espouse this view.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

RMB wrote:
> Except that Havayah, aside from connoting lema'alah min hazeman (yihyeh,
> hove, hayah) and Cause of existence, is also middas haRachamim. Motherhood,
> being in the rechem of rachamim, is about as immediate as you can get.
>
> Adnus implies Someone Whose law we should follow, connoting individuality
> (the qamatz yud suffix) of the follower and moral law. E-lokim is the
> master of all kochos, not just one follower, and includes His mastery
> of natural law. (And therefore I'm not sure about its immediacy.)

We have a Tetragrammaton form of both Adnut and E-lohut. Hence, I believe that 
the form of writing is about whether G"d emphasizes His Essence, meaning, 
lema'alah min hazeman, or the immediacy, as you note indeed later in your 
post, that "yeileih na Ad-nai beqirbeinu" is one of my sources.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

Micha Berger wrote:
> While on tangents about MK.... I believe that feeding your 12 yr old
> daughter would qualify for maaser money. Don't think that's a great idea,
> but in terms of the technical din... You have no chiyuv qua parenting
> to feed or educate children who are gedolim. Shouldn't 100% of your HS
> tuition quality -- once you already got to say Barukh shePatrani?
>   
Why 12? Hazal permit you to send your kids off to work once they turn 
six! IIRC Rabbi Feinstein has a tshuva in which he disagrees with you 
(YD 1:143) and says you need to support them as long as typical kids 
live at home.

David Riceman

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:07:07 -0400
Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> In any case, as I pointed out earlier, non-eidus evidence, including
> women's testimony, is admissible in order to impeach witnesses.

You have said this several times; what is your source?

> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:13:38 -0400
David Riceman <driceman@att.net> wrote:

> Harry Maryles wrote:
> > Modern Orthodoxy has often been accused of believing that Chazal were 
> > fallible - that they made mistakes. They were human beings subject to 
> > the spirit of their time and that influenced how they created rabbinic 
> > law which we must follow.
> >
> > This is simply not true. Modern Orthodoxy does not believe that. 
> > Faulting Chazal in this way is tantamount to heresy!
> >
> I.m sure we've discussed this before, but nonetheless I'll ask again.  
> Was Rabbeinu HaKadosh a heretic for discussing in Masseches Horayos what 
> to do when the Sanhedrin makes a mistake? Or do you claim that Hazal 
> were actually more competent than the Sanhedrin?

It is one thing to say that Hazal can error, which is undeniable, but
quite another to say that "They were human beings subject to the spirit
of their time and that influenced how they created rabbinic law".  [I
take no position here as to whether the latter belief is true, false,
pernicious or heretical.]

> David Riceman

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

(To moderator, I have trimmed the quote as requested.)

R'n TK wrote:
>>>>
My father said that women can't be eidim (eidos?)  because they tend to see 
the whole picture and don't confine themselves to "just  the facts, ma'am."   
They will not only say that the guy picked up the  knife but will also include 
his emotions, his motives, the whole context.   He also said that HKBH judges 
people the way women do -- seeing the big picture,  the inside of a person as 
well as his outward actions -- but a bais din cannot  judge that way.
....
He also gave other reasons:
 
One reason is similar to why women are exempt from mitzvos asei shehazman  
grama -- they have household duties that are of greater importance than public  
affairs.  ... Women as a class are responsible for children and households.
 
And another reason is concern for the dignity and modesty of women, not to  
subject them to the hurley-burley of court.
....
 
BTW my father also said that you see from other mitzvos that the reason for  
exempting women from testifying is NOT because they are not trustworthy.   In 
matters that are of utmost weight -- even involving possible penalties of  
kareis -- a woman's word is totally believed.  If she says she did bedikos  and 
is not nidah, or if she says she went to the mikva, or if she says she  checked 
the rice for bugs or kashered the kitchen for Pesach, etc.,  etc., her word 
can be relied on.


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



Ashreichen benos Yisrael She'RnTK beineichen.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster

PS: RnTK wrote: "And another reason is concern for the dignity and modesty of women, not to  
subject them to the hurley-burley of court."

CM comments: Tos.  San. 30a d"h "Col Kevooda Bas Melech Penima" seems not to agree with this reason.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080725/9497ff28/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 270
***************************************

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..."