Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 128

Mon, 06 Jul 2009

• 1. one person saying vayuchulu (Shlomo Pick)
• 2. Re: R Tzadok-TSBP (Michael Makovi)
• 3. Pinchas "All Men and Women are Created Equal in the Eyes of the Almighty" (Cantor Wolberg)
• 4. better to remain suspected of Safek Eishes Ish than prove ones innocence by another person to be shamed (Meir Rabi)
• 5. Tosfot (not) (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Jewish Women in the Midbar (Yitzchok Levine)
• 7. Baruch hu umvoruch shemo (rebshr...@aol.com)
• 8. Re: Baruch hu umvoruch shemo (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Pinchas "All Men and Women are Created Equal in the Eyes of the Almighty" (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Baruch hu umvoruch shemo (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 11. Re: Pinchas "All Men and Women are Created Equal in the Eyes of the Almighty" (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Re: R Tzadok-TSBP (Ra...@namor.dreamhost.com)
• 13. Re: Pinchas "All Men and Women are Created Equal inthe Eyes of the Almighty" (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 14. Re: R Tzadok-TSBP (Rich, Joel)
• 15. Is Body Paint Halakhically Clothing? (Michael Makovi)
• 16. Re: Is Body Paint Halakhically Clothing? (Micha Berger)

Concerning your observation about one person saying vayuchulu on Friday
nite, see chazion ish, moed hil shabbos, siman 38 ot yud, s.v. tur siman
reish samech chet.

His position is against rishonim, see the discussion in meiri's introduction
to beis habechira.

Kol tuv

Shlomo Pick

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090705/1bed4613/attachment-0001.htm>

> This is RSRH's critique of Wissenschaft, that it took theories about
> how Judaism ought to be and redefined Judaism to fit the theory. Alchemy
> style -- fitting the date to the theory rather than the other way around.
>
> R' Micha

Fair enough. I'll note that I do try to get my hashkafah from the
Torah itself and not from alien sources. Whether or not I actually
succeed in this is an entirely separate issue.

One thing that has troubled me: In theory, Rav Hirsch's proposal to
derive hashkafah from halakhah - note his criticism of Rambam, that he
had ta'amei mitzvot that ignored the halakhah - sounds perfectly
logical and reasonable. But we know that certain laws are concessions
to human nature - yafet toar, milhemet reshut, go'el ha'dam, etc.
Also, I remember a rav - I think it was a YU-type rav's article, maybe
Rabbi David Berger or Rabbi Carmi or Rabbi Riskin, but I cannot
remember - noting the following very real question: how do we know
"thou shalt not murder" / "ze sefer toldot adam" (etc.) is the rule
and "kill the Amalekites" is the exception? In other words, the Torah
is not always easy to fit into one seemless whole, so how do we know
which halakhot and hashkafot to reinterpret to fit with the others, or
to put in a box on the side marked "exceptions"? If we derived
hashkafah from halakhah as Rav Hirsch proposes, wouldn't we have to
say that G-d's ideal is for men to take women captive in war?
Obviously, this conclusion is false, but is this not the logical
conclusion of Rav Hirsch's method? Rav Hirsch's method sounds
beautiful on paper, but in practice, you start getting intractible
difficulties.

Another example: I don't remember the exact details, but I think there
are some obscure cases where one is permitted to slaughter the mother
and child on the same die, or eat unshechted meat. I don't remember
the details, so maybe someone else can help out. In any case, all this
would constitute a serious challenge to Rambam's understanding that
these are mercy to the animals, that the mother feels pain watching
the child die, etc. But I'd answer: maybe these exceptions are
formalistic loopholes. I believe there's a story in the Gemara of
people taking their produce through the window to avoid terumah, and
so G-d causes the house to collapse. So not every halakhah can be used
to derive a hashkafa. We might think that produce-through-the-window
teaches a profound message of spirituality and holiness, but actually,
it's just a strange loophole.

Also, I think there's something to be said for Rambam's notion that
G-d had to set certain laws as filler, because *some* law has to
exist. I saw a rabbi - I think Rabbi J. H. Hertz or another British
rav, but I don't remember - say that it is meaningless to search for a
meaning in each individual act of melakhah. As he further explained,
while Shabbat does have a certain definite meaning - he followed Rav
Hirsch's interpretation of Shabbat - it is futile to try to make each
individual act carry that meaning. When I get a certain specific type
of stain on my pants and have to clean it in a very specific way, this
does not help me remember G-d; if I were suddenly permitted to clean
my pants by blotting some water, I wouldn't suddenly forget G-d's
creation. So what this rav said is that while abstaining from labor in
general on Shabbat testifies to G-d, each and every single solitary
act does not. Only when all the acts are put together across a whole
day do they become meaningful. Each individual act, on the other hand,
is just the outcome of a certain formal legalism which has no meaning
in and of itself aside from its legal formalism. I don't think he
mentioned the Rambam in this connection, but it seems to me that all
this logically flows from the Rambam's general statement that if G-d
said 7 sheep, He could have said 6 or 8, but He had to say something
definite. Even if we reject Rambam on the specific example of korbanot
- Rav Hirsch surely would - I think the principle still has
legitimacy, just as concessions to human nature is a valid principle
even if we reject its application to korbanot.

I am not proposing a relativism where we throw out Rav Hirsch's method
and just concoct whatever ta'amei mitzvot occur to us from our
imaginations. I think Rav Hirsch's method is a good one, but it needs
to have one caveat realized: the method is not a science; it also
requires some common sense and the use of certain non-verifiable
principles like concessions to human nature, loopholes, formal
legalistic filler material, etc. So Rav Hirsch's method can be used in
general, but when someone comes across milhemet reshut, he ought to be
able to step back and realize that perhaps the permission to conquer
land is just a concession to primitive people, and not a law which
teaches grand G-dly ideals. In other words: Rav Hirsch's method works
99% of the time, but that 1% of the time that it fails can only be
found with common sense and a feeling for the ethos of Judaism, or
what have you.

> However, using aggadita ... to break the tie is also very common.
> R' Micha

This is EXACTLY what I'm doing. Look, when I'm learning hilkhot
shabbat or kashrut, I don't start bringing hashkafa. 99% of the time,
my halakhah is the same as everyone else's. In hilkhot shabbat and
kashrut, I might raise hashkafah with nicht jude on Shabbat or with
wine, but these are relatively rare. 99% of the time, I practice
halakhah like any Orthodox Jew.

Rav Uziel put it well: he'll rule on hesed and ahavah, but only when a
solid halakhic basis exists. I'll bring Meiri, but only because Rabbi
David Berger already said that Rabbis Hirsch, Kook, Yehiel Weinberg,
Herzog, and Henkin paskened him as halakhah l'ma'aseh. (I myself saw
Rabbi Yom Tov Schwarz does, and Rabbi Haim David Halevy apparently did
as well.) So I'm not inventing a halakhah out of nowhere; I have a
halakhic basis. So when someone asks about cheering for nicht jude
baseball players due to lo techonem, I'll reply with hashkafah. But
this is because I already hold the Meiri is halakhah, so I just have
to show that hashkafically, the Meiri is applicable here.

> To put it broader: MO traces more from Hildesheimer's than RSRH. And is
> doubly true of the Academic Orthodoxy subtype.
>
> RSRH didn't have positive things to say about Wissenschaft even knowing of
> the varient followed by R' Dovid Zvi Hoffman, whose first job was teaching
> at RSRH's Realschule, and eventually becoming rector at Hildesheimer's.
>
> R' Micha

I think that what I do is to take Rav Hirsch's justification for
secular knowledge in general - that understanding the world helps one
understand the Torah -  and apply the same to academic study of
halakhah. (I.e., understanding history and sociology and psychology
would help one understand how the posek operated.) Similarly, though
Rav Hirsch opposed finding Near Eastern literary or cultural
explanations of Torah narratives, I find no problem with this - I
follow Rav Kook here, that the Torah took whatever could be uplifted
from the derekh eretz of that time (prophecy is given in accordance
with the abilities of the recipient - thus the Torah can sound similar
to the Code of Hamurabbi), and that the Torah has concessions to human
nature (the Torah speaks in the language of man - thus the Torah has
yafet toar and milhemet reshut). I don't claim that Rav Hirsch would
agree with everything I do. All I can do is take his words, along with
everyone else's, and take them where they logically lead in my own
opinion, even if Rav Hirsch or someone else disagrees.

Michael Makovi

For those who say the Torah discriminates against women:

[26:65] "....not a man among them was left except Caleb and Joshua..."
In Midrash, "B'midbar Rabbah" 21:10, the decree stating that (except  
for Joshua and Caleb) all Israelites over the age of twenty who had  
left Egypt should die in the desert, extended only to the men. The  
women were spared, for they had preserved the spirit of law and  
morality.
[27:1] "And there drew near the daughters of Tzelafchad...And these  
are the names of his daughters: Machlah, Noah, Chaglah, Milkah and  
Tirtzah."  When the daughters of Tzelafchad heard that the land was  
being divided by tribes and that daughters were not included, they  
gathered together to take counsel, and they said: "Not as the mercies  
of flesh and blood are those of the Holy One Blessed be He. The  
mercies of flesh and blood are greater for males than for females, but  
the mercies of the Holy One Blessed be He are (equivalent) for all, as  
it is written (Psalms 145:9): And His mercies are over all His  
works" (Sifrei). So basically what this is teaching us is that  
prejudice and discrimination against women come from man -- not God.

ri



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090705/b5ee34a9/attachment-0001.htm>

Commenting on the Gem BMetzia 59a, the Ben Yehoyoda explains that it is
better to remain suspected of the Issur of Eishes Ish than prove ones
innocence by causing or by setting into motion elements that may cause,
another person to be shamed.
However, he differentiates between a Vaday or Safek Eishes Ish. One is
obligated [permitted?] to prove and promote his innocence if the suspicion
is of a Vaday nature but MuTav [preferred] not to if it is a Safek.

What is the difference?

And how does this square with the Gemara Berachos that teaches us from the
episode with Chana and Eli HaCohen, to actively defend our name and
reputation, which appears to apply even to circumstances of Safek?
Furthermore, Chana chastised Eli that he had done wrong by not judging her
righteously, he could have readily imagined that she was a depressed woman
in earnest prayer. According to some meforshim this exchange took place in
the presence of other people, (at least) Peninah in fact.


Meir Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090706/ee0cc975/attachment-0001.htm>

Is there any general explanation as to why certain sections of certain mesechtot (e.g.horiyot) are devoid of tosfot on the daf?
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/20090705/aa71f87f/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from the new translation of RSRH's commentary on Bamidbar.

201 The Children of Israel ? the entire community 
? came into the wilderness of Tzin in the first 
month, and the people settled down in Kadesh. 
There Miriam died, and there she was buried.

?There Miriam died and there she was buried.?
She had completed her mission on earth. Her grave in Kadesh would
show future generations that she did not leave this world until the new
generation was ready for the future that had been promised to it.

During Israel?s long wanderings, filled with so many difficult experiences,
the women did not take part in the incidents of defection from
God, which resulted from despair. They cheerfully trusted in God and
devotedly waited for Him, and for this reason they were not included
in the fateful decree of death in the wilderness (Bemidbar Rabbah 21:10).
Now, mothers and grandmothers were about to go up with the new
generation to the Promised Land. Bringing with them their personal
recollections of the past in Egypt and of the journey in the wilderness
under God?s guidance, they could refresh the souls of their grandchildren
and great-grandchildren from the spiritual wellspring of their experiences
with God. The fact that these Jewish women were so deeply imbued
with the Jewish spirit may be ascribed in no small part to Miriam,
who set them a shining example as a prophetess (see Commentary,
Shemos 15:20).

This chapter, which describes briefly and simply the deaths of Aharon
and Miriam, is preceded by the great Parah Aduma chapter, which teaches the
Jewish concept of immortality. That chapter is in 
itself an important introduction
to these deaths. It declares that what made Miriam into
Miriam and what made Aharon into Aharon did not die when Miriam
and Aharon died. Just as their work lives on forever in their nation, their
true essence is eternal: it has now departed transient earthliness and returned
to God, the Source of all life. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090705/12a92d5e/attachment-0001.htm>

I understood my rebbie's, Rav Yoseph Beer Soloveitchik's, refusal to say
Baruch hu umvoruch shemoh as a simple problem of Hefsik.?? During all
situations of the Shaliach Tzibur saying the bracha to be motzei me through
shomayah K'oneh, my recitation of Baruch hu etc. would be like me adding
those words to my own bracha and being Mafsik the B'rachah or creating a
bracha outside of the form established by Chazal.?? Thus most Rabbanim that
I know will instruct their congregants at the very least during the brachot
for megillah or Tekiat Shofar not to say Baruch hu etc.??? During the
Chazarat Hashatz since the Rav viewed that repetition as Tefilat Hatzibur I
am required to stand with feet together and answer amein, though not baruch
hu etc. since his recitation is my recitation (as part of the Tzibur).??
Furthermore, any time I wish to fulfill my 100 Berachot requirement through
the Brachah of another I again do not say Baruch hu etc for the reasons
mentioned.?? I am aware, howev
 er, that there are numerous Rabbanim who do not consider Baruch hu etc. as a hefsik, and I certainly respect their position.

Stuart Grant
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090705/d2afeac9/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 07:42:55PM -0400, rebshr...@aol.com wrote:
: I understood my rebbie's, Rav Yoseph Beer Soloveitchik's, refusal to
: say Baruch hu umvoruch shemoh as a simple problem of Hefsik.?? During
: all situations of the Shaliach Tzibur saying the bracha to be motzei me
: through shomayah K'oneh...

I think you mean "berukh Hu uvarukh Shemo". Although your "umvarukh"
would answer my question about how one can bless the Ein Sof beyond
blessing He As He Is Perceived (Shemo).

This requires accepting a chiddush of RCBrisker that says that chazaras
haShatz is tefillas hatzibbur, a separate chiyuv from my own tefillah.
It's a diyuq belashon haRambam, which (as we recently discussed) may be
valid Torah but a distinction even the Rambam himself didn't notice. It
ends up being a Brisker chumrah causing a qulah.

But what about when you hear someone make a berakhah on a food you don't
intend to eat? Or before a mitzvah you aren't about to do?

For that matter, talmidei RYBS (including what my father taught me to do
when I was young) say birkhas hamitzvah before Hallel with the chazan
because if mitzvos einum tzerikhos kavanah, in order to still make my
own berakhah after his, I would have to have active negative kavanah,
intent not to be yotzei with the chazan's berakhah. And pahs nisht
to have kavanah not to do a mitzvah. I always wondered, therefore, why
RYBS didn't suggest the easier tactic of saying BHUBS, having a hefseiq,
and thereby requiring saying the berakhah oneself that way. It would
stand out less.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 05:14:15PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
:            When the daughters of Tzelafchad heard that the land was  
: being divided by tribes and that daughters were not included, they  
: gathered together to take counsel, and they said: "Not as the mercies  
: of flesh and blood are those of the Holy One Blessed be He. The  
: mercies of flesh and blood are greater for males than for females, but  
: the mercies of the Holy One Blessed be He are (equivalent) for all, as  
: it is written (Psalms 145:9): And His mercies are over all His  
: works" (Sifrei)...

Can someone explain this Sifrei in light of the general ethic of "women
and children first" (eg the lifeboats on the Titanic)?

For that matter, Horiyos 3:7 (in the gemara: 13a) suggests the problem
is non-trivial.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Plz post 
Micha:
 I always wondered, therefore, why
RYBS didn't suggest the easier tactic of saying BHUBS, having a hefseiq,
and thereby requiring saying the berakhah oneself that way. It would
stand out less.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha"

Your post was Zeher gut gezagt!

On this last point I have a simple teirutz

We can say that
Bhuvs is only a "hefseik" lechatchila
Bediavad one is still yotsei.

I have been advocating a shift to allow bhuvs lechatchila because of its
long-standing nature (dating to Rosh and Tur) that it has lost its hefseik
status by now

Tangentially:
I discussed Bhuvs with my rebbe on inyanei qabbalah and he saw no problem with any duality etc.

Apparently the Sheim Hashem is the dynamic that keeps the B'riah etc. going 

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Can someone explain this Sifrei in light of the general ethic of "women and children first" (eg the lifeboats on the Titanic)?

For that matter, Horiyos 3:7 (in the gemara: 13a) suggests the problem is non-trivial.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

====================
Everything else being equal the gemara in horiyot is pretty clear that 
"women and children first" is not the halachic priority.  IIUC poskim that
want to get around it work on the everything else being equal issue
(similar to horiyot priority to talmid chacham....)

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.

Michael:
> One thing that has troubled me: In theory, Rav Hirsch's proposal to
> derive hashkafah from halakhah - note his criticism of Rambam, that he
> had ta'amei mitzvot that ignored the halakhah - ...

I have been hesitating to post this.

I think WADR that both Rambam and Hirsch fell into similar traps!

Viz. Since they had a holistic view of Torah they posited and subscribed
to a kind of "unified field theory"

But in both cases it breaks down in some details.

Perhaps that is the nature of humans - ki lo machshevosai
machshevosaichem...

In order to portray torah accurately one would needed a "higher" birds-eye
view to encompass the whole; and as high as Rambam and Hirsch were they
were not high enough to formulate a system that encompassed it all!

Look how flat the earth looks from the ground
And how round from outer space!

Perhaps if either one had ascended higher they could have refined their
systems to encompass more -
Or more likely - no human gets that high!

And even if Moshe Rabbeinu knew all the correct prattim, even he may
not have been able for formulate a unifying theory.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

> (similar to horiyot priority to talmid chacham....)
> Joel Rich"

In reading books re: hatzala and the holocaust, (EG the book on Mike
Tress) the frum groups davka went out to be matzil talmidei chachomim.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 


I have been hesitating to post this.

I think WADR that both Rambam and Hirsch fell into similar traps!

Viz. Since they had a holistic view of Torah they posited and subscribed to a kind of "unified field theory"

But in both cases it breaks down in some details.

Perhaps that is the nature of humans - ki lo machshevosai machshevosaichem...

In order to portray torah accurately one would needed a "higher" birds-eye
view to encompass the whole; and as high as Rambam and Hirsch were they
were not high enough to formulate a system that encompassed it all!

Look how flat the earth looks from the ground And how round from outer space!

Perhaps if either one had ascended higher they could have refined their systems to encompass more - Or more likely - no human gets that high!

And even if Moshe Rabbeinu knew all the correct prattim, even he may not have been able for formulate a unifying theory.

KT
RRW
------------------------------------------------------------
I would say ein hachi nami, but they both tried to get as close as they
could (i.e. improve the then existing approximation to the extent they
could) within the resources given to them by HKB"H (which is what we all
try to do?)
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.

Air New Zealand's new safety video features - aside from some
delightfully light-hearted and endearing humor - the flight attendants
and pilot wearing nothing but body paint. (Their body parts are
covered by deft placement of clipboards and skillful camera work.)

Off-list, R' Ken Bloom asked, "Halachically, are you still watching
erva if it's painted like clothes?"

I replied:
> I'd imagine that halakhically, the principle isn't whether one
> is wearing clothing per se, but rather, whether another can see
> whatever's supposed to be covered. In this case, the
> private parts are covered by clipboards, seats, and camera angles,
> while the color and texture of the skin is covered by paint. On the
> other hand, if someone wore
> transparent clothing, such as plastic wrap, this would not be halakhically covered.
>
> But even if I'm wrong in the above - i.e., even if the principle is
> (contrary to my above argument) one of actual clothing, rather than
> (as I argued) the inability to see what should not
> be seen - nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that body paint would qualify
> as a hatzitzah for the mikvah; if so, then it must also qualify as clothing,
> along with plastic wrap.
>
> In other words: body paint, whichever way you cut it, appears to suffice.
> The only nafka mina I see is with plastic wrap.

(Watching the video, I never got the feeling that I was seeing
anything I shouldn't be. I've gotten more hirhur from people wearing
clothing, than I did from these body-painted individuals. The paint,
plus the skillfully placed obstructions and deft camera work, resulted
in there being less to see on these people than there to see on many
people on the streets.)

But I haven't studied Hilchot Bigdei Tzivei haGuf in the Shulhan Arukh
yet, so I'm not sure. Any ideas?

Mikha'el Makovi

I fail to see the question.

The only reason why the video is of interest is that it taps into
prurient thoughts. Intentionally causing these kinds of hirhurim is
assur, regardless of whether deft camera placement avoids actually
showing ervah. The camera trick is kind of like "I'll bet you $5 you
can't avoid thinking about pink elephants for the next 10 seconds." The
topic is raised, and therefore the thoughts are generated.

BTW, without it being a flat picture, stereo vision means that paint will
OBVIOUSLY not be clothes. (For those of you with decent stereo vision.)

I was toying with the idea of piquach nefesh -- people do tend to
otherwise ignore the flight video, and one might argue that this is
an attempt that could well save lives. However, if the trick is a
distraction, how much is added beyond what people remember from any
previous flights? I would say that lemaaseh, the hatzalos nefashos effect
is negligable, and could be better obtained in mutar ways.


On a different note WRT "the topic is raised"... I think that a
Hirschian explanation of tum'ah would naturally explain why parah adumah
is metamei es hatehorim.

Leshitaso, tum'ah is defined by:

    A dead human body tends to bring home to one's mind a fact which
    is able to give support to that pernicious misconception which is
    called tum'ah. For, in fact, there lies before us actual evidence
    that Man must -- willy-nilly -- submit to the power of physical
    forces. That in this corpse that lies before us, it is not the
    real human being, that the real human being, the actual Man, which
    the powers of physical force can not touch, had departed from here
    before the body -- merely its earthly envelope -- could fall under
    the withering law of earthly Nature; more, that as long as the real
    Man, with his free-willed self-determining G-dly nature was present
    in the body, the body itself was freed from forced obedience to the
    purely physical demands, and was elevated into the sphere of moral
    freedom in all its powers of action and also of enjoyment, when the
    free-willed ruling of the higher part of Man decided to achieve the
    moral mission of his life;
                                - Commentary on Lev. 11:47

R. SR Hirsch portrays the tamei object as one that causes the illusion
that man is nothing more than a physical object, an animal, a helpless
subject to physical forces and physical desires. In reality,
    death only begins with death, but that in life, thinking striving and
    accomplishing Man can master, rule, and use even his own sensuous body
    with all its all its innate forces, urges, and powers, with G-d-like
    free self-decision, within the limits of, and for accomplishment of,
    the duties set by the laws of morality; ...

I would therefore suggest that for someone already dwelling on his
physical nature and being a victim of his hormones, his mortality,
and everything else living in a body causes, the parah adumah helps him
resolve the topic. (See RSRH at the beginning of Chuqas for how he
believes that works. My previously mentioned discomfort with finding
meaning through symbols applies.
<http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2009/06/reflections-upon-nishma
-intellectual.html>
a/k/a <http://tinyurl.com/kpo4lx>, already discussed here.)

However, for someone not currently dwelling on the problem, it needlessly
raises it. Thus, metamei es hatehorim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 128
***************************************

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..."