Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 47

Mon, 09 Mar 2009

• 1. Re: Rambam's naturalism (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: D or DE (Harry Weiss)
• 3. Re: Shmoneh esrei - 18/19 (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: Keeping Up With The Tsibbur (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Seudah on Purim Night (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Minhag Avos and Sephardim (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Minhag Avos and Sephardim (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: Keeping Up With The Tsibbur (Liron Kopinsky)
• 9. Shmoneh esrei - 18/19 (David Cohen)
• 10. Why G-d Lets Mankind Live (Michael Makovi)
• 11. THE NOT OF TEFILLIN (Cantor Wolberg)
• 12. Some interesting facts about the Avnet (Marty Bluke)
• 13. Ein Mevatlin issur lechatchilah (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 14. Re: Ein Mevatlin issur lechatchilah (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Ein Mevatlin issur lechatchilah offlist (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Ein Mevatlin issur lechatchilah (Yaakov Ellis)
• 17. Re: Ein Mevatlin issur lechatchilah (Akiva Blum)
• 18. Women covering hair (Michael Makovi)

On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 04:58:35PM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: R' Micha asks,
: >Where do you get this out of what the Rambam writes?

: It's explicit in the Shemonah Perakim, chapter 8. Rambam says that
: "hakol biydei shamayim hutz miyirat shamayim", means that G-d controls
: our actions insofar as He created the natural laws in the first place.
: So, as one of my rabbis put it, if your car crashes, it's because G-d
: made black ice slippery.

That's looking at the background, not the figure. The Rambam is talking
about the chafshi nature of bechirah chafshi. It doesn't necessarily
mean natural law in distinction to other Divine Action. He is clearly
rebutting the notion of things being fated. To quote (Gorfinkle's
translation of Ibn Tibon):
    The statement found in the sayings of the Rabbis, "All is in
    the power of God except the fear of God" is, nevertheless, true,
    and in accord with what we have laid down here. Men are, however,
    very often prone to err in supposing that many of their actions,
    in reality the result of their own free will, are forced upon them,
    as, for instance, marrying a certain woman, or acquiring a certain
    amount of money. Such a supposition is untrue. If a man espouses
    and marry a woman legally, then she becomes his lawful wife, and by
    his marrying her he has fulfilled the divine command to increase
    and multiply. God, however, does not decree the fulfillment of a
    commandment. If, on the other hand, a man has consummated with a
    woman an unlawful marriage, he has committed a transgression. But
    God does not decree that a man shall sin....

(IOW, a talmid of the Rambam would not speak of his "bashert.)

Where do you see anything about other limitations on where natural
law applies?

: R' Micha further asks,
: > Where's the chiddush, that's Moreh III:18 explicitly!
: > From Friedlander's translation:
: > ... Divine influence, that reaches mankind through the human
: > intellect...the greater the share is which a person has
: > obtained of this Divine influence...the greater must also be the effect
: > of Divine Providence upon him, for the action of Divine Providence is
: > proportional to the endowment of intellect...The relation of Divine Providence is
: > therefore not the same to all men; the greater the human perfection a person
: > has attained, the greater the benefit he derives from Divine Providence.

: This is a separate issue; Manekin deals with this issue elsewhere in
: his book, summarizing four shitot on how this works:

: 1) Divine Providence is the information gained from the Active
: Intellect, and the opportunity it proffers for more correct
: (materially, not spiritually) living

Ralbag.
...

: What Manekin is proposing regarding the Divine Will, however, is
: separate from intellectual Divine Providence. Manekin proposes a
: distinction between Eternal Will and Novel Will. Eternal Will is that
: which Rambam proposed in Shemonah Perakim and Avot, that G-d
: pre-implanted miracles and governed via natural law, etc. Novel Will,
: is G-d's eternally unchanging and consistent will, that nevertheless
: produces novel miracles and such, just as a constant and unchanging
: fire can produce different effects.

That's a very hard position to support. Will is something Intellect has.
Basic Aristotilian physics: Intellect has Will, which imparts Impetus,
which then changes the Potential into the Actual -- it does things. An
overflow of Active Intellect includes events. See his discussion of
mal'akhim as sikhiliim nivdalim. It's as though there is a bucket brigade
handling this overflow until it reaches the level of gashmius.

: Manekin proposes that by the time of the Moreh, Rambam had realized
: better the contradictions between Aristotle and the Torah, as shown by
: the Moreh's emphasis of the fact that an eternal universe would negate
: miracles, etc. Rambam in the Moreh emphasizes that G-d must be
: volitional and willful, albeit while retaining the Aristotelian notion
: that G-d's will cannot change, given the insinuation that His will
: lacked perfection previously.

Look at the context of Moreh III:18. Ch 16 introduces "hakol tzafui
vehareshus nesunah." Ch 17 gives four theories about free will and
providence.

1- [Epicurus: -mb] There is no providence (Epicurus -mb)
2- Aristo: Providence only deals with things that don't change, the rest
   is chance
3- Ashariyah: Determinism
4- Chazal: Man has free will, and therefore subject to sechar va'onesh.

Then chapter 18 redefines this 4th opinion by saying the different
homosapiens are more or less in the class of "people" WRT hashgachah
peratis and sechar va'onesh.

And chap 18 includes: "For it is the intensity of the Divine
intellectual influence that has inspired the prophets, guided the good
in their actions, and perfected the wisdom of the pious."

Which makes sense only within light of what I wrote above, that saying
something was done by Divine Will *means* His Intellect willed it.

From later in the pereq:
> Now consider how by this method of reasoning we have arrived at the
> truth taught by the Prophets, that every person has his individual
> share of Divine Providence in proportion to his perfection. For
> philosophical research leads to this conclusion, if we assume, as has
> been mentioned above, that Divine Providence is in each case
> proportional to the person's intellectual development. It is wrong to
> say that Divine Providence extends only to the species, and not to
> individual beings, as some of the philosophers teach. For only
> individual beings have real existence, and individual beings are
> endowed with Divine Intellect; Divine Providence acts, therefore, upon
> these individual beings.

Returning to RMM:
: So according to Manekin, G-d's will caused Sodom to be destroyed, not
: via anything intellectual like the Active Intellect, but just stam
: because His will causes evil things to be destroyed, and good things
: to prosper, stam, without anything involving the Active Intellect or
: intellectual perfection.

Well, since Sedom was evil, then the Rambam's reasoning leads one to
conclude it was cast off to hashgachah kelalis because of a lack of
intellectual perfection. Therefore its destruction had to be part of a
general rule.

The alternative would be to assert that there was enough good in Sodom
to merit having their sin expiated through HP meting out onesh.

The example does not reflect reward as well, since there someone who
merits HP is getting rewarded through HP, and thus Novel.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

If you e mail (or call) the OU they will let you know if it is D or DE. 
At least one product with and OUD (Trader Joes Mini Merangues) are 
actually totally pareve, but the manufacturer wanted the right to switch 
to another recipe at any time.  The OU told me to check every few months 
on the status.

Harry J. Weiss
hjwe...@panix.com

David:
> A week or two ago, a posting on the number of brakhot in shmoneh esrei
> suggested, IIRC, something like that the addition of birkat ha-minim in
> E"Y changed the 18 to 19.

> It appears, however that in E"Y there were originally 17 b'rakhot,
> gematria tov and the addition of birkat ha-minim made it 18, k'minyan
> chai

Interesing
AIUI EY always had 18 and contracted binyan with matzmi'ach after minim
was added.

Either way, we know the contraction existed in Qallir's time because of
his q'rovos (qrovatz) on Purim which as been preserved.

Geniza only confirms earler documentation.

This preservation of minhag EY is quite unique to ashkenaz and
demonstrates the liturgical link. Between EY Italy and early Ashkenaz.

According to ba'al hama'or (aka r zerchya halevi) the advent of the
talmiddim of the Rif quashed the old .Mnhag in EY in favor of Minhag
sepharad, which goes to show that migrations from spain brought minhag
avos in triumph over minhag hamaqom

Good Purim
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 

>
> Who says you have to keep up with the minyan?  If you start Shmoneh 
> Esrei with them, can't you take as long as you want?
>

No.

If you do, you are preventing people from walking in front of you, and
you are preventing anyone within 4 amot of you from sitting down.  If
you take longer to complete the Amida than the tsibbur does, then you
are, at best, thoughtless, rude, and inconsiderate, unless you first
stick yourself in a corner more than 4 amot away from everyone else, and
that applies to both men and women.


                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
===============================================
I've always wondered about this since most people seem to ignore it and
walk in front - is it lack of knowledge or is there some heter? It's
particularly annoying when people come in late (e.g. for maariv) and
stand right by the door and are still in the middle of their amida when
the tzibbur is leaving.

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.

Mishne Brura 695:3 writes: "Even when the 14th falls on Motzaei Shabbos,
where one made a Seudah Chashuvah as the third meal, nevertheless he has to
have a bit more (leharbos ketzas) at night l'kavod Purim..."

Why does the MB refer to Shalosh Seudos? Wouldn't it be simpler and better to mention Melaveh Malka?

After all, Shalosh Seudos is merely an illustration of why one might not be
hungry, and might not want to make a seudah on Purim night. But, if the
case concerns Motzaei Shabbos, then the problem is not that he isn't
hungry, but that he is already making a seudah anyway. Even if his Shalosh
Seudos was a minimal one, he should still "have a bit more" in order to
distinguish his regular Melaveh Malka from this combined "Melaveh Malka on
Purim Night".

So what is the point that the MB is making? Thanks.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Looking for insurance?  Click to compare and save big.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsHF60qwsl1Sv78fhC6FLOnyi2JX24PNNMrnHfjkxA5jxUvurk0uAI/

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 04:46:08PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Follow up question. Some of the same Sephardim assert that
: When ashkenazim came in numbers they should have followed minhag hamakom
: in. Both EY and NYC. And to surrender their minhag avos.
: Why?

: If Michael's model is accurate it might make
: Sense if they had voted and established it already.

: Otherwise if Sephardim were following minhag avos from Spain then
: Ashkenazim should follow their minhag avos too.

I think both should, and will, follow minhag hamaqom, once one congeals
in our new meqomos. And assuming mobility hasn't rendered the entire
concept of stable maqom moot.

I think the establishment of minhag takes consensus, not (as RMM
suggests) majority. It's not a matter of formal vote, but eventually
norms emerge. Because of that lag of time, we living in a reconstruction
period are still clinging on to our minhag avos. For people who actually
lived through it, the formation of minhag Ashkenaz took forever.

But someday, Bet Shemesh may have its own minhag, and someone moving
there would abandon one minhag to conform to the society (shelo yaasu
agudos agudos).

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 

But someday, Bet Shemesh may have its own minhag, and someone moving
there would abandon one minhag to conform to the society (shelo yaasu
agudos agudos).

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
You might find this shiur of interest, R' Rimon discusses the issues of
lo titgodidu and machloket in the context of minhag and the eyes of R'
MF and R' OY, he also discusses something similar to the "agreement"
theory .


http://media.libsyn.com/media/torah/tefila_ryzrimon_5769-06.mp3 

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.

>
> > Who says you have to keep up with the minyan?  If you start Shmoneh
> > Esrei with them, can't you take as long as you want?
> >
>
> No.
>
> If you do, you are preventing people from walking in front of you, and
> you are preventing anyone within 4 amot of you from sitting down.
>
>

2 Points:
1) I have found that most people aren't so makpid in this halacha
2) I thought the halacha was only that people can't walk within the 4 amot
directly infront of you, and that things like chairs are considered a
hefsek.

Thanks,
~Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090306/2ca1c703/attachment-0001.htm>

R' David Bannett wrote:
> That the b'rakha beginning V'lirushalayim (Sefaradim: Tishkon) and the one
> after it, that begins with Et tzemach were one brakha in E"Y is attested
> to also by the nusach E"Y found in the geniza and old manuscripts.

On that note, those who say the kerovah ("krovetz") on Purim will note that
there is no section for the berakhah of "es tzemach," as the kerovah was
initially composed for nusach Eretz Yisrael.

Shavua tov,
D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090307/206ea6a8/attachment-0001.htm>

Cross-posted from
http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-g-d-lets-mankind-live.html

Near the end of the first chapter of Tanna debei Eliyahu, a
Zoroastrian priest asks Eliyahu why G-d created "creepy-crawlies".
Eliyahu answers that whenever G-d is ready to destroy the world on
account of man's sins, He realizes that really, we're no more
disgusting or useless or ignorant than beasts, and so He lets us live,
just as He lets these beasts live. A sobering thought.

On Facebook, my friend Asher Zeiger's status message recently was,
"Asher Zeiger really loves it when his daughters lie down together for
the older one to read to the younger one. Especially when it's their
idea.."

I responded,

My mother has said that no matter how much your children trouble you,
once they go to sleep, they are so cute, you cannot be angry at them
anymore.

I said to her, THAT'S why G-d has half the world be night at any given
time: so that at any given time, He has half the world looking cute,
and too innocent-looking to destroy, and He saves the other half too
in their "merit".

To this, we can add your daughters; it is such things as they are
doing, for which G-d doesn't destroy the world.

Michael Makovi

You will then have a vision of My back. My face, however, will not be  
seen. [Shmos 33:17-23]

In Brachos 7a, Rabbi Shimon Hasida explained that God revealed His  
back to Moses by showing him the knot of God's tefillah shel rosh.
An interesting symbolism is possible.  The tefillah shel yad has one  
parchment in one compartment with the four different sections of the  
Torah. The tefillah shel rosh has the same four sections of the Torah  
but in separate parchments each in its own compartment. It has been  
explained that when it comes to action, symbolized by the shel yad, we  
must be unified. However, when it comes to thinking, we have a right  
to disagree and think individually. Therefore, when God showed Moses  
the knot of the shel rosh, it suggested that God has allowed us the  
freedom to think individually. Nevertheless, as the knot of the shel  
rosh is bound tightly, so too, we Jews, must stand together, tightly  
bound, in spite of our differences and disagreements and NOT be  
disagreeable.

If we are able to achieve this, the chag of Purim will not allow our  
masks to deceive or disrespect each other, but rather enable us to  
give charitably as Purim mandates.

ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090307/57bd4bd4/attachment-0001.htm>

The Avnet is one of the lesser known bigdei kehuna. In the Chumash it
doesn't say how long the Avnet was, however, the Yerushalmi (Yoma 8:3)
states that it was 32 amos long (between 48-64 feet). I always thought
of the Avnet as a belt. However, the Gemara in Zevachim (19a) learns
out that the avnet is actually worn higher, right under the heart.

Tosafos in Erchin 16b states that the Kohen wrapped it around 2 times,
the Shita Mekubetzes there states 32 times (kneged lev). Both of these
opinions seem very difficult.

The avergae waist/chest is somewhere between 36 and 40 inches. 2
obviously doesn't work, the Avnet was 48 -64 feet long (depending on
how long an amah is) and 2 wrappings only uses about 6 feet. What did
the kohen do with the other 40+ feet? On the other hand 32 is too
many. Event taking an average waist/chest of 36 inches (3 feet) 64 /3
is 21.3 much less then 32.

Given
A Jew may not mevateil issur lechatchilah

And a corollary
A Jew may not ask a Gentile to mevateil issur on his behalf.

Q1:  what if a Gentile in the course of producing X (eg gelatin) 
Is mevateil issur lechatchilah but lav davka for a Jew. If a Jew later
buys it, is it huvrar lemafreI'a?

Q2: Does putting the Gentile process under a kosher supervising agency
tantamount to being mevateil the issur lechatchila for the eventual
Jewish purchaser?

Any relevant Shu"t or other material is appreciated.

Good Purim
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Given
> A Jew may not mevateil issur lechatchilah
> 
> And a corollary
> A Jew may not ask a Gentile to mevateil issur on his behalf.
> 
> Q1:  what if a Gentile in the course of producing X (eg gelatin) 
> Is mevateil issur lechatchilah but lav davka for a Jew. If a Jew later
> buys it, is it huvrar lemafreI'a?
> 
> Q2: Does putting the Gentile process under a kosher supervising agency
> tantamount to being mevateil the issur lechatchila for the eventual
> Jewish purchaser?
> 
> Any relevant Shu"t or other material is appreciated.


AIUI this is the subject of a long-standing machlokes.  What I'm
remembering is that the sides are the Rashba and the Noda Biyhuda, but
that doesn't make any sense; there must be some rishon that argues with
the Rashba, or the Noda Biyhuda couldn't.  But AIUI this is precisely
the attitude that hechsherim take: if it's made without a hechsher then
it's botel and it can be certified as kosher so that Jews can buy it,
but it can't be made lechatchila under a hechsher.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> The first part I'm fuzzy when done commerciall because one can say the gentile expects 5% to go to jews etc.

The assumption is that he has no such expectation.

This is a major difference between the hechsher industry in the USA and
elsewhere.  In the USA the manufacturers pay for hechsherim, and put the
symbol on their products, expecting that it will increase their sales.
Overseas the manufacturer does the heechsher a favour by letting it inspect
the premises, and in return for a listing in the kosher list it agrees to
notify the hechsher of any change in recipe.  The tiny percentage of Jews
who will buy the product is very low on the manufacturer's mind, and not
a factor in his calculations.  


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

See Igrot Mishe, Yoreh Deah 1, Siman 62, page 105 in the standard edition,
first column, first complete paragraph. He is talking about where a blended
whiskey may have wine in it, and how the wine can be nullified.

Summary: Even if the whiskey factory belongs to a Jew, and even if Jews
purchase the product (and one might say that it is therefore made for them),
since most of the whiskey is sold to non Jews, it is thought of as being
produced for the rov, and there is no issur because of "ein mavatlin issur
lechatchila" in this case.

(Also see siman 63, page 107, last pargraph, for Rav Moshe's response to
someone attacking his reasoning on the grounds that since there are a
significant number of Jewish customers, it should be assur to mevatel issur
on their behalf. Also see the end of Siman 64, bottom of the first column on
page 110).

Presumably the same would hold true in the case of gelatin, where most of
the gelatin is going to non Jews.

Yaakov Ellis

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:35 PM, <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Given
> A Jew may not mevateil issur lechatchilah
>
> And a corollary
> A Jew may not ask a Gentile to mevateil issur on his behalf.
>
> Q1:  what if a Gentile in the course of producing X (eg gelatin)
> Is mevateil issur lechatchilah but lav davka for a Jew. If a Jew later
> buys it, is it huvrar lemafreI'a?
>
> Q2: Does putting the Gentile process under a kosher supervising agency
> tantamount to being mevateil the issur lechatchila for the eventual
> Jewish purchaser?
>
> Any relevant Shu"t or other material is appreciated.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090309/2f83941c/attachment-0001.htm>

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Given
> A Jew may not mevateil issur lechatchilah
> 
> And a corollary
> A Jew may not ask a Gentile to mevateil issur on his behalf.
> 
> Q1:  what if a Gentile in the course of producing X (eg gelatin) 
> Is mevateil issur lechatchilah but lav davka for a Jew. If a Jew later
> buys it, is it huvrar lemafreI'a?
> 
> Q2: Does putting the Gentile process under a kosher supervising agency
> tantamount to being mevateil the issur lechatchila for the eventual
> Jewish purchaser?
> 
> Any relevant Shu"t or other material is appreciated.

I wrote once http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol25/v25n086.shtml#11:

Generally, the intention we refer to is the intention for bitul, not the
intention for adding.
However, where the addition was made for a specific person, we consider it
as if that person himself intended to add, and therefore to do bitul. In
the case of a producer for selling to Jews as well as non-Jews, and there
is an increase in production because of the Jews, it is considered as if
the Jews themselves added bemaizid (Tshuvas Rashbash quoted by Darkei
Tshuva 108, and KSA of Rav Pfeifer).


Akiva

The Aruch haShulhan ruled that since we are accustomed to seeing women's
hair, it is no longer an impediment to the saying of Shema; but all
the same, he ruled that uncovering the hair is still prohibited. But
if people are used to seeing their hair, and it is no enticement (vis
a vis Shema), then why is it still prohibited in the first place?

For indeed, the Maharam Alkashar has said ("Kol b'Isha with
a current perspective", Rabbi Avraham Shammah, part 2 (reply
to critiques), http://www.kolech.org.il/show.asp?id%484
(Hebrew original), www.jofa.org/pdf/uploaded/1529-GHKB8620.pdf,
pp. 11ff (English translation); the English PDF also has part 1
(the original article), while the Hebrew original of part 1 is at
<http://www.kolech.org.il/show.asp?id%318>), "Response: Indeed,
there is no concern about that hair [that is outside of the braid being
uncovered], because it is customary to reveal it... and that [which
is said] 'a woman's hair is a sexual enticement' is only referring
to hair that it is usual to be covered, but a person is accustomed
to that which is usually uncovered [and therefore is not aroused] and
it is permitted... Likewise, the Ravya"h wrote that all those [things]
that we mentioned for [concern about] sexual enticement are specifically
for things that are not customarily exposed... all is according to the
customs and the locations."

Regarding the AhS, if people are used to seeing their hair, and it is
no enticement (vis a vis Shema), then why is it still prohibited in the
first place?

Obviously, today, for us, it will still be prohibited to uncover the
hair, since, as my rabbi has put it (with regard to a prominent Sefardi
posek (I forget who) who ruled that women need not cover their anymore,
since most women do not, and it is no longer enticing), most Orthodox
women today (unlike many women a few decades ago) DO cover their hair. It
would seem to me personally, that even if their hair is NOT an enticement
(this seems likely to me; plenty of non-Jewish and non-Orthodox women
leave their hair uncovered, and it seems reasonable that we are inured
to their hair), nevertheless, covering the hair, per se (aside from any
hirhur), is a sign of Orthodoxy. That is, even though womens' hair will
not lead to hirhur, nevertheless, covering the hair is a sign of modesty
done by Orthodox women, irrespective of
any hirhur.

But for the AhS, whose women did not cover their hair, why was it still
prohibited to behave in this way?

[Email #2. -mi]

In my previous post, I cited Rabbi Avraham Shammah's article, regarding
kol 'bisha. I may as well say a few words on this as well.

In brief: before I saw Rabbi Shammah's article, I saw Rabbi David
Bigman's article on Rabbi Marc D. Angel's website (Rabbi Angel
is probably the closest I have to someone I consider my own rav),
<http://www.jewishideas.org/rabbi-david-bigman/new-analysis-kol-bisha-
erva>.
Rabbi Bigman's thesis is that if kol b'isha is like an etzba ketana, then
it is prohibited only for hana'a. Numerous authorities would support
such an assertion (before I saw Rabbi Bigman's article, a friend of
mine, who goes strictly by Rambam exclusively, showed me the same in
the lashon of the Rambam - the irony is, of course, fantastic; Rambam
rules yeiharog v'al ya'avor on a mere sexual lav, but this friend, who
goes like Rambam, shows me the kol b'isha heter!). Indeed, kol b'isha
could theoretically include even mere speaking (as Rabbenu Hananel and
others indeed ruled), and those who excluded speaking from kol b'isha,
did so on the grounds that speaking has no hana'a. And Rabbi Weinberg,
following the Sdei Hemed, following the Divrei Hefetz, ruled that the
singing of zemirot and dirges has no hana'a. If so, cannot we say the
same of certain other singings, at least in certain situations?

Cf. footnote 22 of Rabbi Shammah's article, in the English version:
"R. [Yehiel Yaakov] Weinberg cites Maimonides Hilkhot Isurei Bi’a (Laws
of Forbidden Sexual Relations) 21:2, in which Maimonides states that
“one who looks even at a woman’s little finger with the intent to
derive [erotic] pleasure is as if he looked at her privates and even to
hear the voice of a forbidden woman or to see her hair is forbidden.”
R. Weinberg points out that the meaning of Maimonides’ words is that
the prohibition to hear a woman’s voice is only if there is intent to
thereby derive erotic pleasure."

Rabbi Shammah's article argues more ideologically and less halakhically
than does Rabbi Bigman. Rabbi Shammah notes that the same paragraph of
the Shulhan Aruch which forbids kol b'isha, also forbids bachelors from
teaching children, and forbids mixing the marketplace, both of which
we permit today. Rabbi Shammah says that to forbid kol b'isha today is
simply self-righteous religious hypocrisy.

Obviously, Rabbis Bigman and Shammah both agree that not ALL kol b'isha
is mutar. Rabbi Bigman says it must be judged on the woman's clothing,
lyrics, and gesticulations, and Rabbi Shammah says one must follow the
Ritva and sincerely ask himself what gives himself hana'a, and refrain
from such.

[Email #3. -mi]

I earlier asked how the Aruch haShulhan could rule as he did. I asked
my Gemara ra"m, whose rabbi is Rabbi Henkin himself, and my ra"m answered:

Rabbi Henkin in his article on hirhur and community norms, holds that
while some laws of tzniut depend on hirhur, others are intrinsic. My
ra"m says the Aruch haShulhan is being likewise: while the law against
saying Shema with a woman's hair uncovered is based on hirhur, the law
of hair covering per se, is (contra Maharam Alkashar) an intrinsic one
that has nothing to do with hirhur.

On the other hand, another one of my rabbis would agree with the Maharam
Alkashar, that tzniut is only conventional, and not intrinsic. He notes
that Rambam, in Moreh Nevuchim, says that drinking alcohol overmuch is
intrinsically disgusting (morally), since it clouds the human intellect,
but the morality against public defecation is only conventional. I.e.,
defecation is purely natural, and only because society says it is
disgusting, is it so. He said modesty is the same; only because society
says such-and-such a body part must be covered, and only because society
says that part is immodest if uncovered, is it so. Were people to be
capable of looking at that part without getting sexual pleasure (for
example, in some parts of Africa, women are almost naked, but this
is ordinary, and the men derive no pleasure), then there'd be nothing
immodest in leaving this part unclothed. (I must, however, emphasize
one point (I did not hear this from my rabbi, but I assume he'd agree):
it is not that something's being the norm makes it permissible; were
all women today to suddenly be unclothed by communal decision, it would
still be prohibited! Were all college students to agree to have co-sex
restrooms, it'd still be prohibited! Rather, something's being the norm
means it (eventually) won't lead to hirhur, and once it has no hirhur,
it is permitted. Thus, gradual natural evolution, rather than sudden
cataclysmic change, will occur in tzniut. It is not that norm-->mutar;
rather, norm-->no hirhur-->mutar.)

Apropos of all this, my first rabbi (the Rabbi Henkin-ist) described
another machloket:

The right-wing sector of the dati community, led by Rabbi Avraham Shapira,
et. al., holds that if we are so habituated that there is no hirhur (as
per Rabbi Henkin), there is a problem. That is, the ideal is to have men
and women be unable to resist being sexually aroused. When this is the
case, the husband and wife will have a stronger sexual bond. If anyone
today is habituated to the opposite sex, this is something to bemoan
and fight against. (Personally, I'd say like Golda Meir, that if so,
let the men stay home and women go out into the marketplace, if this
is so great. My rabbi replied that they advocate separate-but-equal,
and I replied this already failed with the blacks.)

On the other hand, Rabbi Yuval Cherlow of Yeshivat Petah Tikva and
Tzohar, said the ideal is to have everyone be as habituated and mixed
as possible. (This very much resonates with me; I myself have said that
I don't believe G-d intended for men and women to be separate species; I
cannot imagine that He is pleased when men and women are unable to mix. So
I was delighted with Rabbi Cherlow.) My rabbi noted that Rabbi Henkin
would disagree; Rabbi Henkin explicitly says, with his co-education heter,
that this is only a post-facto justification of an existing practice,
and we cannot try to introduce further reforms in this area.

Michael Makovi


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 47
**************************************

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..."