Volume 26: Number 141
Tue, 21 Jul 2009
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:56:16 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 08:12:09PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: You know, you state so confidently and so obviously that "you aren't
: accomplishing as much being a stay-at-home mom is ... false." While I
: am all for giving stay at home mums the respect they deserve, I am not
: quite sure that we can dismiss the feeling of many women that they are
: achieving a more meaningful, fulfilling life by having a career, with
: some mere hand waving.
You're talking about how they feel, and I'm talking about value as
avodah.
There aren't too many tasks equal in value to building a Jewish home and
raising the next generation of shomerei Torah umitzvos. I didn't really
think that point needs defense.
As I see it, at the core of deciding the advisability of this sort of
innovation is whether the woman who feels her life is less meaningful and
fulfilled ought to be given a form of avodas Hashem on these new terms,
or are we to invest that effort in changing her feelings about which
avodah is more meaningful and fulfilling. Perhaps she is unfulfilled on
the religious plane because her definition of what G-d wants from her
isn't entirely in line with what He actually does want.
I understood RHS to be arguing that the sacrifice in vehatzneiah lekhes
im E-lokekha is an overly high price to pay for accepting the new terms.
That even if economic and social realities have women in the workplace,
modifying our modes of avodah to sacrifice this kind of tzeni'us is a
step away from the Torah's ideal.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Yitzchok Zirkind <y...@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:27:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] A 9 Days Shower - The Navy to the Rescue?
For more details (including tempreature of water) see Piskei Tshuvos 551:48
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:46 AM, <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The dilemma - how to stay "clean" w/o stepping on this restrction?
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090720/f15f8c1a/attachment-0001.html>
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Meir Shinnar <chide...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:39:06 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
> RMB
> I'm saying the word means what it literally translates to. As I said
> above in reply to RnCL, I do not see another definition being offered
> that is relevent. Dragging in tzeni'us in terms of ervah aside, we all
> agree (I beliefe) that's not the whole picture -- so what's the other
> piece in yours?
>
I am quite confused and puzzled (and reminded of Humpty Dumpty Linguistics -
a word means what I want it to mean...)). The word zniut translates to
privacy. However, it has been used for millenia, and no understood the word
zniut to mean a denigration and a problem with assuming public roles. To
suggest that that is the simple pshat, when no one else has ever understood
it in those terms, is problematic.
There is another definition of zniut and hatznea lechet - which was actually
cited by RMB - namely, RYBS;s discusion of it, as cited by RHS in Nefesh
Harav. In that discussion - the issue is on the importance of a public
personae (he uses his father as an example, but talks about the issue of
biography in general) maintaining their private dimension - one has to
maintain tzniut and hatznea lechet even while being in the public eye -
which seems a very clear statement that being in the public eye does not
intrinsically violate zniut........- being in the public eye or a public
role is not a violation of tzniut, but one has to be careful it doesn't lead
to such a violation.
This is, of course, a very late source for a very ancient term - but it fits
much better with what is normally understood, and does not have all the
problems that RCL (and others) see. RMB's approach here seems far more
apodictic than usual - but suggesting something is obvious and does not need
a source is a problematic argument. ( I remember in my algebraic number
theory class spending 3 classes tryiing to prove a statement that the text
said was obvious, and in the end was wrong....)
Again, does RMB have any source other than RHS that uses tzniut in the
sense that he thinks is so obvious? How does he understand RYBS?
Meir Shinnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090720/e99650aa/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: harveyben...@yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Avodah] eisav
1. eisav soneh es yaakov: i have oftern heard that this is a >>
halacha??? q: what does that mean?? that they must hate us??? they have "no
choice" in the matter??? [are they allowed to go agianst the halacha? and
Not hate us???]
2. yaakov was called an "ish tam..." ; does an ish tam steal a brother's brachos and/or deceive his father (if not outright lie to him??]
3. acc 2 rashi, the tube explanation of why yaakov >really deserved the
brachos< makes no sense to me, because if that were true, why wouldn't
that be the halacha afterwards (and before?) in all cases where twins are
born?? [and at least one
of the twins is a male].
4: was it directly yaakov's fault that b/cause of his deception and the
resultant tears that eisav (acc 2 the medrash) shed (2 out of 3 actually
dropped) led to our lengthened (and perhaps more arduous exile).
4a. if so, what should yaakov's punishment be? if any???
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090720/2db1cabe/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:08:39 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 04:39:06PM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: I am quite confused and puzzled (and reminded of Humpty Dumpty Linguistics -
: a word means what I want it to mean...)). The word zniut translates to
: privacy. However, it has been used for millenia, and no understood the word
: zniut to mean a denigration and a problem with assuming public roles...
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice
objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
`it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so
many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master --
that's all.'
- Alice in Wonderland, ch. 6
Saying a word means how it is translated to mean isn't the same thing.
However, I did along the way give contrary sources to your "no [one]
understood", and will list 5 as this post proceeds.
: There is another definition of zniut and hatznea lechet - which was actually
: cited by RMB - namely, RYBS;s discusion of it, as cited by RHS in Nefesh
: Harav...
He doesn't discuss it there, he mentions an application. You're deducing
that his one case is the only case. Obviously, RHS wrote wrote the
citation in question didn't think he meant it such a limited way, since
he used the quote as though it bolstered his point.
That's a very thin reed upon which to latzeis miqra miydei peshuto.
Also, RYBS writes about retreat and the imitation of tzimtzum frequently
enough. (He has a beautiful vort on it, the seneh, and the link between
Mosheh's anavah and his nevu'ah. I used it in a speech at my son's bar
mitzvah, blogged at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/01/fire-within-bush.shtml>.)
As for the history of the word "tzeni'us"... I already mentioned my
namesake's famous pasuq "vehatzneiah lekhes im E-lokekha" as well as
the Shunamit's "besoch ami". (Although the latter proves the main point,
that the value exists, without the minor issue of whether it's what we
call "tzeni'us".)
See also the Yalqut Balaq 771, which defines tzeni'us as acting in
privacy. To the Rambam (Deiso 1:4), it's dressing as neither a bum nor
in ostentacious clothes.
So, I would reiterate my conclusion that tzeni'us is a shared value
across both genders. Where we differ, such that ko kevudah bas melekh
(or is that bas Melekh?) penimah is only said of women is in the relative
rarity of conflicting goals that force the sacrifice of tzenius.
The refinement of that subset of the Gra's teachings into the theory
of the Mussar movement was largely developed by R' Zundel Salanter.
But he went into hiding in the woods, and had no interest in letting
others know he was trying to be a tzadiq and a chassid (lower case ches).
It was only when Rav Yisrael saw that Litta needed a spiritual movement
that he took his further development of R' Zundel's work and actively
prosletized for a new movement.
And R' Zundel wasn't the only tzadiq nistar. It's an entire genre of
Chassidic story, and discussed more than once in the Besh"t's letters.
I also mentioned the reoccuring theme of anonymously written sefarim,
and while that got sidetracked by mention of a newly appearing article,
that too shows a tendency to avoid getting attention. Even at the expense
of opportunities to teach.
There is a real conflict involved in being a teacher, even Moshe
Rabbeinu. That's not to say that no one should teach; obviously HQBH
foisted that choice on Moshe. Nor does it mean that only men should
teach. But it does mean that teaching, like the amud, shouldn't just be
leaped into.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:28:04 EDT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
: You may not like any of these, but these run far deeper in the sources
than
: what is being proposed. And while one might not like the consequences of
: these, they do not lead to the other negative consequences that would
come
: about by applying your thesis generally.[--rcl]
They're vox popularis, and that's not how mesorah works.
--
Micha Berger
>>>>>
No? From hanging around A/A all these years I've picked up a smattering
of Aramaic, and some random Aramaic words may be of relevance. Like...Puk
Chazi?
Also here's some Hebrew that I knew even before my A/A days: Minhag
Yisrael kedin hu.
--Toby Katz
==========
_____________________
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323041x1201367261/aol?
redir=http://www.fr
eecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&;hmpgID=62&bcd=Jul
yExcfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090720/13331df5/attachment.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:53:16 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:28:04PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: Also here's some Hebrew that I knew even before my A/A days: Minhag
: Yisrael kedin hu.
Not if it is in contrast to a position that has meqoros dating back
to Yeshaiah and Terei Asar, and the suggested counter-argument is that
people colloquially use the term differently.
Then you have to prove you're not in minhag ta'us territory.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Yitzchok Zirkind <y...@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:12:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Lo Ra'inu Eino Raya ==> Blanket Heter
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:07 PM, <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Q: Can anyone explain to me this line of reasoning that lo ra'inu eino
> raya implies all is muttar unless explicitly forbidden?
Since the Halacha of Shas is it is muttor, Lo Roi'nu women Shechting cannot
create an Issur.
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090721/ca0c0b36/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:54:48 EDT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
> That is exactly what my father said about women being witnesses, that
the
> halacha protects their dignity. He added that their ne'emanus is not
in
> question, as a woman's word is trusted in matters of critical halachic
> importance like taharas hamishpacha and kashrus. [--TK]
RYG wrote:
"she'ain ha'nashim be'toras edus, she'ha'edus zarich kivun ve'yishuv
ha'da'as harbeh" (Hinuch #37).
>>>>>
That is only the Chinuch's opinion -- his personal understanding of the
reason for the halacha that women can't be witnesses in court. His
understanding fits with the common beliefs (or prejudices) of his time and place --
13th century Spain -- but I don't know if the Gemara's own words suggest
any reason.
HOWEVER, having said that, I also remember another reason my father gave, a
reason that might be a bit more in consonance with the Chinuch (and I
think I wrote about this once before, a long time ago in Avodah years):
He said that men will tend to testify to "just the facts" while women in
their testimony are more likely to include things like the person's
emotions, motives, background and so on. My father said that in a certain way
women see things more the way Hashem Himself does -- the whole picture, the
background story, the shades of meaning and motivation -- and that when Hashem
judges, He takes all this into account and judges in a "womanly" way, with
compassion, but that a human court is not allowed to take all these
"extraneous" things into account. I know that some people will find my father's
words warm and wise while others will think they're just apologetics and
far-fetched. Naturally I myself tend to the former view but anyway. I must
also say that I am not transcribing my father's words very accurately
because I can't remember them exactly, and without his particular eloquence his
ideas definitely lose in the translation. So if you like what he said,
good, and if not, blame me.
--Toby Katz
==========
_____________________
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323041x1201367261/aol?
redir=http://www.fr
eecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&;hmpgID=62&bcd=Jul
yExcfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090720/d0f46c39/attachment.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: David Riceman <drice...@att.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:47:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Lo Ra'inu Eino Raya ==> Blanket Heter
rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Q: Can anyone explain to me this line of reasoning that lo ra'inu eino
> raya implies all is muttar unless explicitly forbidden?
>
I don't understand your hava amina. Like Ogden Nash, I've never seen a
purple cow. What possible issur could that imply?
David Riceman
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Meir Shinnar <chide...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:43:08 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
Re the definition of tzeniut, hatzne lechet, and public roles:
Bret Stephens has a nice piece today in the Wall Street Journal
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020394690457429985
1367749282.html)
on
Celebrity Culture vs. The Right Stuff, which seems quite apropos about
the discussion - and the meaning of tzeniut for a public figure- and
quite in agreement with RYBS's understanding.
At its heart, is the understanding that being a public figure -
sevrving a public role - is not inherently in conflict with being a
private person - and that modern American culture is eliminating that
distinction - but that some people still maintain it.
Meir Shinnar
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: "Chana Luntz" <ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:43:54 +0100
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
RAF writes:
> You have cogently answered all the questions, except why the
> Sifrei has this limud that the woman (girl) isn't allowed to
> speak before the man. According to the Torah Temimah, this is
> about the mother of the accused girl. However, whether
> according to his interpretation or yours, meaning, whether
> the mother or daughter is excluded, either way, the Sifrei
> should not have made its statement barring the woman
> (girl) from speaking before the "man" (either the
> husband/father, the plaintiff turned defendant or the beit
> din), as that teaching implies that we generalize from our
> narrative, WHILE IN OUR NARRATIVE NEITHER OF THE WOMEN IS A
> PARTY to the civil proceedings, and the mother is not even a
> party to the criminal proceedings.
I agree, and I cannot explain the limud. In neither case would one have
expected either the mother or the girl to be party to the proceedings. I
struggle to see why one would have thought the mother a party - except
perhaps because she is mentioned a few lines up (or maybe because of the
parallels to ben sore u'more), and certainly can't see why she would have
been expected to speak, so we could learn from her not speaking. In
relation to the girl, well the best I could come up with was that, given the
existence of the possibility of civil litigation, maybe we should have
thought that she would be leading it. Maybe the Sifri understands that the
knas comes to the father because he has the right to speak, and he has the
right to speak because his daughter shouldn't. Or maybe it thinks we might
expect the daughter to sue for the knas on behalf of her father, and speak
b'mkom haish, except that she can't, But it is very forced.
BTW, I notice that the language of the Sifri is "b'mkom haish" (as it is in
the yalkut shimoni) and the language of Rashi is "bifnei haish". I am not
sure if there is any significance to the change in loshon (the first might
imply that a woman cannot speak on behalf of a (certain) man, while Rashi's
version would seem to suggest that speaking in front of a (certain) man is
the problem) but it is interesting.
> BTW, if the concern was that a 12 year old girl cannot be
> expected to properly defend herself, and so an adult steps
> in, why necessarily the father?
I think you are reverting to the defence part of it now, and for that part
the suggestion is that both the father and the mother come and present the
physical evidence.
Why not the mother or an
> impersonal plural (which would indicate that if the father is
> absent or died, beit din appoints a to'en for her)? Probably
> because the Sifrei (intentionally?) disregarded this line of
> reasoning.
When it comes to the statement actually made, it is clearly only the father
who can say "I gave my daughter to this man" - even though when orphaned,
the mother or brother have this right, it is only d'rabbanan, and miyun can
always be performed, so this trial is never going to happen. So I can't see
the mother saying anything - unless there was a hava mina to say that the
mother should speak on behalf of the father - but why would she do that?
Especially as the father is right there. Unless you are trying to say that
ishto k'gufo only goes so far, and the mother cannot speak on behalf of the
father.
> Kol tuv,
> --
> Arie Folger,
Regards
Chana
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:32:51 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Chana Luntz<ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
> BTW, I notice that the language of the Sifri is "b'mkom haish" (as it is in
> the yalkut shimoni) and the language of Rashi is "bifnei haish". ?I am not
> sure if there is any significance to the change in loshon (the first might
> imply that a woman cannot speak on behalf of a (certain) man, while Rashi's
> version would seem to suggest that speaking in front of a (certain) man is
> the problem) but it is interesting.
May be there is a different. I tentatively suggest that For the
Yalqut, she may not represent her father. That supports your reading,
that the father is the real party to a civil litigation, and while she
is symbolically there, she may not speak for him. This may, however,
question the propriety of a woman being a litigator (corporate lawyers
earn more while they stay gently in offices drafting and reviewing
documents, with occasional meetings).
Rashi's lashon is more difficult, as it may imply that she may not
stand up in court to sue her husband who has besmirched her name, but
needs to delegate this responsibility to someone else, for instance,
her father. Indeed, while both parents accompany her to court in
22:15, only the father speaks in 22:17, so even the mother is
prevented from speaking up.
Again, we don't pasqen from Rashi or Yalqut Shim'oni, and there may be
many reasons why we do or do not include this Sifrei as halakha
pessuqa; I am not touching upon this point, letting you guys argue it
out. You are all doing a marvelous job.
>> BTW, if the concern was that a 12 year old girl cannot be
>> expected to properly defend herself, and so an adult steps
>> in, why necessarily the father?
>
> I think you are reverting to the defence part of it now, and for that part
> the suggestion is that both the father and the mother come and present the
> physical evidence.
No. Since only in 22:17 is the father speaking, I am not convinced
that the Sifrei distinguished between a criminal and a civil suit.
Instead, I think it saw 22:17 as the elaboration of 22:15, which
explains why it can state that the mother or the girl has no right to
speak instead of/before the father or the defendant.
Now as you aptly demonstrated, that is not the only way to explain the
parasha. But, as I stressed before, I am not trying to establish
whether or not that Sifrei is halakha pessuqa. You demonstrated that
there is tension even within the Sifrei. However, I did want to
demonstrate that it is not true that there is no statement/view in
'Hazal that impedes on a woman's right to express herself in court.
Sure enough, someone has to stand up for her rights, but it ain't
necessarily her.
--
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Barukh She-Amar Elucidated
* The Anatomy of a Beracha
* Basic Building Blocks of Jewish Prayer
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:47:22 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Lo Ra'inu Eino Raya ==> Blanket Heter
Please follow this logic and try to isolate the precise flaw - if any.
Given: anything not prohibitted by Shas
Is therefore permitted by Shas
Therefore, when one adds a prohibition not found in Shas - one is ipso
facto disputing Shas
Since it if were halachically prohibitted
Shas itself would have said so.
And therefore from Shas's silence on any matter - A heter may be
legitmatley constructed.
-----------------------
Axiom:
BY must be correct
Proof:
since Shas explicitly permits women to do Shechita
Therefore it must be halachically permitted
And therefore Agur, Rema, and Shach must be wrong.
KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: "Chana Luntz" <ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:36:28 +0100
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
I wrote:
> > I think you are reverting to the defence part of it now,
> and for that
> > part the suggestion is that both the father and the mother come and
> > present the physical evidence.
>
> No. Since only in 22:17 is the father speaking, I am not
> convinced that the Sifrei distinguished between a criminal
> and a civil suit.
> Instead, I think it saw 22:17 as the elaboration of 22:15,
> which explains why it can state that the mother or the girl
> has no right to speak instead of/before the father or the defendant.
> Now as you aptly demonstrated, that is not the only way to
> explain the parasha. But, as I stressed before, I am not
> trying to establish whether or not that Sifrei is halakha
> pessuqa. You demonstrated that there is tension even within
> the Sifrei.
Are you saying here that you think the Sifri is contradicting itself?
Because the comment about the father being the toveah and us learning from
this pasuk that the toveah speaks first is also on 22.17 (the Yalkut has the
one comment virtually right after the other, the Sifri does separate them
slightly, but not materially) - and that can only be a comment on the civil
litigation bit of it. (Of course, it is also a strange limud, because
nowhere do we find the defendant speaking either, so how do we know that the
toveah spoke first in this case).
It seems to me far more straightforward to learn that the Sifri sees 22:17,
not as a continuation of 22:15, but as the commencement of the civil
litigation, and it is as plantiff that the mother or girl cannot speak
instead of/before the father or husband, and it is as plantiff that the
father speaks (first). All in all it is a very strange Sifri, and it is
perhaps not so surprising that the Ramban chose to ignore it.
However, I did want to demonstrate that it is not
> true that there is no statement/view in 'Hazal that impedes
> on a woman's right to express herself in court.
> Sure enough, someone has to stand up for her rights, but it
> ain't necessarily her.
As I also pointed out, while the gemora in Shavuos 30a does not prevent, it
does suggest that it is not customary for a woman to do so, and that most
women send somebody else.
> --
> Arie Folger,
Regards
Chana
Go to top.
Message: 16
From: Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:37:29 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Chana Luntz<ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
> Are you saying here that you think the Sifri is contradicting itself?
> Because the comment about the father being the toveah and us learning from
> this pasuk that the toveah speaks first is also on 22.17 (the Yalkut has the
> one comment virtually right after the other, the Sifri does separate them
> slightly, but not materially) - and that can only be a comment on the civil
> litigation bit of it. ?(Of course, it is also a strange limud, because
> nowhere do we find the defendant speaking either, so how do we know that the
> toveah spoke first in this case).
I don't know. Ess chatooay ani mazkir hayoim: I am barely familiar
with Sifrei, having occasionally looked something up, or in one case,
really looked into one sugya. So I don't know whetehr we should assume
that there is no ma'hloqet in Sifrei, or whether there do exist
inconsistencies, which sometimes are the result of ma'hloqet.
Furthermore, from the one sugya I studied in depth in the Sifrei, I
learned that the issue of the correct girsa is not trivial.
Manuscripts would be welcome in resolving this. However, I am quite
sure that I properly portrayed Rashi's read of that Sifrei, and he
doesn't quote the other part.
--
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Barukh She-Amar Elucidated
* The Anatomy of a Beracha
* Basic Building Blocks of Jewish Prayer
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 141
***************************************
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..."