Volume 26: Number 145
Fri, 24 Jul 2009
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:41:06 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] bathing during the 9 days
From the OU site
Rav Moshe Soloveichik explained that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah
381:1) records the original Ashkenazic custom not to shower or bathe
for the entire Shloshim period. Therefore, the custom was to similarly
refrain from showering or bathing during the Nine Days. However, since
nowadays the custom is to shower immediately after Shivah and not to
be stringent in this regard during the Shloshim period, therefore
there is no reason to refrain from bathing during the Nine Days. The
old Nine Days custom no longer applies because it was based on a
mourning custom that is no longer observed.
Adapted from Shiurei Harav on Mourning and Tisha B?Av, based on the
lectures of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. T
--
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:55:34 EDT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
In a message dated 7/22/2009, cele...@gmail.com writes:
> RYG wrote:
>
> "she'ain ha'nashim be'toras edus, she'ha'edus zarich kivun ve'yishuv
> ha'da'as harbeh" (Hinuch #37).
I then wrote:
>
>
> 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. [--old TK]
RYG responded:
>>I wonder why RnTK seems to consider it legitimate to
casually dismiss statements of Rishonim on no other grounds than that
they are incompatible with modern, progressive sensibilities. This
is exactly what the liberal denominations of Judaism often argue, that
they concede the authority of Halachah and the Talmud while asserting
the right to reject various opinions of "the Rabbis" as "common beliefs
(or prejudices) of [their] time[s] and place[s]" ...
While I of course mean to cast no aspersions on RnTK's Orthodoxy, she
is basically lending legitimacy here to Open Orthodoxy and its
innovation of the Maharat.... <<
Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Le'din - http://bdld.info -
>>>>>
We need to examine this sentence a bit more closely:
>>[The] liberal denominations of Judaism...assert
the right to reject various opinions of "the Rabbis" <<
The modernizers assert the right to reject the *halachic* opinions of
authorities they don't care for. They assert the right to choose, say,
Shamai
over Hillel, or to reject them both, if they don't care for a certain
halacha.
If I had dismissed the *halacha* (women can't be witnesses in court) on the
grounds that the *halacha* was "incompatible with modern, progressive
sensibilities," you might have a point. That would be a non-Orthodox thing
to
do. However I did NOT say, "The Chinuch only rejects women as witnesses
because he lived in 13th century Spain."
What the Chinuch did here was to speculate as to the *reason* for the
halacha. IIANM, the Gemara itself does not give a reason. The /reason/
given
by the Chinuch is only his opinion. The halacha stands whether or not we
understand the reason behind it. I accept the halacha but I do not accept
the reason he gives. I believe that his understanding of women's
capabilities was colored by his time and place. If there is any source
earlier than
the Chinuch, any source which he himself could have pointed to, to say that
women can't be witnesses because their testimony can't be trusted --
because they lack the intellectual ability to testify accurately -- I would
be
interested to hear about it.
--Toby Katz
==========
_____________________
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377105x1201454426/aol?r
edir=htt
p://www.freecreditreport.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-aishdas.org/attachments/2
0090724/
c667b0d5/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: "Chana Luntz" <ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:53:52 +0100
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
The other slightly odd thing about this discussion - leaving aside the
issues that I have been objecting to, is that RBB's thesis, to my mind,
opens the door to precisely what he is objecting to. RMB writes:
> Is the benefit a Maharat over a Yoetzet bring to the table
> the public's or in her opportunity to serve G-d in the way the
contemporary world
> told her was more valuable? Or the benefit of being at the amud for
> Pesuqei Dezimara rather than behind the mechitzah that of the
> community?
See I am sure that R' Avi Weiss would answer you and say - it is the
public's. He would tell you that looking around at the community he serves,
he sees too many girls and women who are alienated from Yiddishkeit, and
reluctant to engage or ask shialas, and that by having a Maharat holding a
public position in the community, it is possible to re-engage with those
women.
With your thesis, you will struggle to disagree with him. Because while
maybe in your community you do not see this need, you have identified that
you do not really consider yourself MO, and maybe you are just mixing in
different circles.
...
> All halachic or mussar terms aside, the Maharat who gets a rabbi-like
> role leading a shul and its congregation will have a harder
> time walking privately with G-d. It's straight psychology, if not the
Chinukh's
> constant refrain.
So let's accept that she has a harder time just as a man will have a harder
time. But if the need is there - and remember it is being identified as
being a need by, inter alia, the Rav of a sustantial and significant
community - according to you, it becomes imperative, based on the male
model, and given that it is a gender neutral obligation, to push aside her
own personal growth for the growth of the community. End of story.
> In short, I would argue that the Maharat as an insitution violates qadeish
es atzmekha bema shemutar lakh (cast into lashon
> neqeivah). It's not assur by the letter of the law, but it's not stepping
back from
> something whose middos negatives far outweigh the benefit.
But why, according to you? Let us analyse what are the possibilities. What
are her functions: - teaching Torah and poskening shialas, presumably. Now
if the community learns some Torah from her that they would otherwise not be
learnt, then is that a positive or a negative for the rabbim? And who is
going to be asking her shialas? Is it going to be somebody who has a good
relationship with their existing Rav? Let's face it, is it likely to be
men? How many shialas do you think are going to be switched to her from
others and how many are going to be shialas that people were not prepared to
ask of the existing men out there? So even were you to say that we should
prefer men to take up such a role to women, all things being equal, and we
ought to be trying to produce sensitive rabbis that people (and particularly
women) feel comfortable going to - it is not too hard to demonstrate that
the reality on the ground is that most women in particular can't find such
rabbis (attribute it to the weakness of our generation if you like).
So, according to you, if the congregation will learn torah that they will
not learn elsewhere, and shialas would be asked that would not otherwise be
asked, then it would seem, at least according to you, incumbant on a woman
who can (because lets face it, for a whole host of reasons, there is not a
huge pool of women around who can) to push aside any reservations she might
have and step up to the plate, as it were. That is what public service
means does it not?
> -Micha
Shabbat Shalom
Chana
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:57:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 08:42am EDT, R Dr Meir Shinnar wrote:
: In my discussion with RMB, the issue has not been whether one could
: formulate a theoretical basis of opposition between tzniut and being a
: public servant - clearly one can - nor whether there is a literature
: on the dangers of public service. The issue of conflicting values of
: the individual needs and communal needs can be easilty stated. The
: question is whether that theoretical basis of opposition has actually
: been expressed into the form that RMB and RHS have expressed - and I
: (and others) have argued that it hasn't, and that RMB and RHS's
: formulation is an innovation with dangerous consequences, and against
: the traditional literature.
: One could formulate an opposition to public roles for women on the
: basis of tzniut as representing the pritzut category - which would be
: more of what RAY Kook is doing - but then the issue becomes the
: general social role of the woman in the MO community.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 08:29am EDT, R Dr Meir Shinnar wrote:
: 1. The discussion started with a discussion of RHS's psak (not mussar
: schmooz) that a public role inherently required a violation of
: tzeniut, and required a mattir in the form that someone had to to do
: it - and only someone obligated could violate his tzeniut. We are now
: told that we shouldn't focus on halacha - this is hyperlegalism - this
: is a matter of mussar. I take it that you are not willing to defend
: the halachic nature of this psak any more.
Well, I think to better articulate what I'm saying, let's break it into
two levels.
I see the mussar effect of the activity as the metzi'us about which RHS
is pasqening. Not that there are dinei tzeni'us, but that the existence
of a fundamental mussar concept of tzeni'us causes halachic outcome.
Thus one shouldn't be trying to analyze tzeni'us on a halachic level. As I
wrote, being a shocheit does make one more capable of dealing with blood,
whether the shechitah is a qiyum asei or not. That was the point I was
centering on. Hutrah vs dechuyah isn't the right discussion, because
we're still discussing psychology on "what do we expect will happen
to our personalities" terms.
After the mussar is resolved, then on can ask what that reality demands
in terms of a halachic response. The halakhah involved is either the
Ramban's qedoshim tihyu "bemah shemutar lakh" or the Rambam's lehidamos
bidrakhav (quoting the list of mitzvos asei preceding Hil' Dei'os).
: 2. WRT mussar - there are different values. Yes, there is a large
: mussar literature on the danger of being seduced by honor and power -
: and the need to train oneself against them. What there isn't in
: mainstream Jewish literature is the implication that public service is
: something to be avoided unless there is a particular requirement...
Except RHS holds that being asked to be chazan etc... is a precedent
for that very thing. That accepting being chazan is only something you
should do when the minyan would otherwise be stuck.
: Your approach, which places individual self fulfillment ahead of the
: needs of the community, is problematic - and without precedent...
But it doesn't! It says that personal need bows to the needs of the
community. What it doesn't allow is violating personal need without
proving that the community gains from the violation.
When the minyhan needs a chazan, go, be a chazan.
I think this entire self vs community dichotomy is off target. It's
about self refinement as a halachic end. In the case of tzeni'us, that's
vs the community, but that's only one instance of a more general idea.
But since the community "wins" even in my model, it isn't placing the
individual first.
: 3. You emphasize that the issue is the accomodation of the individual
: women's desire for religiosity, and focus on the maharat as violating
: kadesh et atzmech bema shemutar lakh - viewing it as a form of self
: expression and realization. This reflects (IMHO) a complete
: misunderstanding of the issue - and reflects, again a bias for the
: individual self perfection over the community. The issue is quite
: different - and is intrinsically a communal issue - and one of tzorche
: tzibbur (properly understood). The issue is that we are now dealing
: with a community (which reflects all of its members) which has
: undergone major structural changes - and the issue is of addressing
: the spiritual/religious/halachic needs of that community - where many
: of the women today routinely live, outside the shul, a very public
: life....
And again, the question is whether that should be a given.
Do we accomodate this structural change or resist it? Isn't that the
entire question? You're assuming the change, and then asking "Now what?"
I wouldn't.
Which brings me to RnCL's post.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 9:53am BST, Rn Chana Luntz wrote:
:> Is the benefit a Maharat over a Yoetzet bring to the table
:> the public's or in her opportunity to serve G-d in the way the
:> contemporary world
:> told her was more valuable? Or the benefit of being at the amud for
:> Pesuqei Dezimara rather than behind the mechitzah that of the
: > community?
: See I am sure that R' Avi Weiss would answer you and say - it is the
: public's. He would tell you that looking around at the community he
serves,
: he sees too many girls and women who are alienated from Yiddishkeit, and
: reluctant to engage or ask shialas, and that by having a Maharat holding a
: public position in the community, it is possible to re-engage with those
: women.
But these are other women for whom we should be asking the very same
question. Are we supposed to be reengaging them on these terms, or are
they compromised terms? To assume the former is to presuppose the
conclusion.
Which path costs us more? Do we lose more by not even trying to preserve
the value of tzni'us, particularly among women who are not given as
many reasons to violate it? Or do we lose more because there is simply
no way to produce a society of female professionals (or women who have
such among their friends and role models) who can be kol qevudah at home?
(This also is an aspect of why it's not about self vs community.)
: With your thesis, you will struggle to disagree with him. Because while
: maybe in your community you do not see this need, you have identified that
: you do not really consider yourself MO, and maybe you are just mixing in
: different circles.
: ...
That could very well be. Part of my lack of MO-ness is that I feel such
a community needs correcting, not accomodating. My whole take-off on
RHS's theme is to justify that conclusion.
Actually, that's not 100% correct, but I couldn't figure out how to make
the next point without that stawman.
My objection is that the community isn't thinking in these terms.
Modernity is such a given, the idea of questioning a new value doesn't
come up. What I think requires a real cheshbon hanefesh (in the mussar
sense) to know if such a societal change is mutar (in the halachic
sense), is simply being skipped.
To quote my blog on why I don't see myself as MO or yeshivish
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/06/modern-orthodoxy-chareidism-and
-mussar.sh
tml
To simplify, let's phrase the difference between Modern Orthodoxy
and Chareidim as basically whether (1) chol is an opportunity whose
risks must be mitigated or (2) it is a set of risks that ought to be
avoided and only then we can look to see what opportunities remain
of what's left. ... Both are relatively remedial ways of addressing
personal challenge. Methods usable for setting communal policy or
for someone who doesn't really know himself. However, in a community
of people who strive to know themselves and judge each situation
accordingly, there is no need to rely on such blanket statements...
... Modern Orthodoxy sadly collapses into Orthodoxy-Lite for so
many of those who affiliate with that community because there is no
such introspection. Without that self-awareness, the dangerous gets
embraced long enough for the risks to blind the victim to themselves
before anyone even thinks to ask the question of mitigating them.
Alternatively, I could say to a yeshivish person that what they
need is a different kind of yeshivish, one in which tiqun hamidos
tools are used to know when and how to protect oneself from today's
degenerating society without missing out on its opportunities....
But the resulting "yeshivish" would be something that is too new to
simply fit within the current movement's umbrella.
And in fact, both this new Modern Orthodoxy and new Yeshivish would
be identical.
The solution, in my humble opinion, is orthogonal to that whole
axis. (Or perhaps I'm just one of the "newly converted" who just
got a shiny new hammer and sees everying as nails...)
: > In short, I would argue that the Maharat as an insitution violates
qadeish
: es atzmekha bema shemutar lakh (cast into lashon
: > neqeivah). It's not assur by the letter of the law, but it's not
stepping
: back from
: > something whose middos negatives far outweigh the benefit.
: But why, according to you? Let us analyse what are the possibilities.
What
: are her functions: - teaching Torah and poskening shialas, presumably...
And counseling, and communal leadership. Running a shul. There is a
reason why neither Rn Jungreis, nor a yoetzet nor lbch"l Rn Prof
Nechamah Lebowitz is a Maharat.
You're casting her role into the halachic categories, which skips over
those elements of her role which wouldn't fit those categories. Your
reductionism fails to identify the full set of elements to reduce things
to.
: if the community learns some Torah from her that they would otherwise not
be
: learnt, then is that a positive or a negative for the rabbim? And who is
: going to be asking her shialas? Is it going to be somebody who has a good
: relationship with their existing Rav? ...
What existing rav? The goal is, to quote Maharat Sarah Hurwitz a woman
who functions in the same capacity as a rabbi." She, not a rabbi, is in
charge of the shul and the kehillah. To give another example from her
interview with The Jewish Week, "If you're calling the funeral director
and he asks, 'Well, who are you?' If you say, 'I'm the rabbi here,'
the tone totally changes."
That's the major societal change I believe is assur to undertake without
a real cheshbon hanefesh. If it's made and they reach a different
conclusion than I currently hold, it would bother me far less.
: So, according to you, if the congregation will learn torah that they will
: not learn elsewhere, and shialas would be asked that would not otherwise
be
: asked, then it would seem, at least according to you, incumbant on a woman
: who can (because lets face it, for a whole host of reasons, there is not a
: huge pool of women around who can) to push aside any reservations she
might
: have and step up to the plate, as it were. That is what public service
: means does it not?
You said nothing that requires going beyond the models that already
exist.
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:11:17 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Re A 9 Days Shower - The Navy to the Rescue?
I asked:
> "Why do you perceive a need to "minimize hana'ah"? As long
> as one is not going out of his way to do more than what is
> needed for effective cleaning, where do we see a need to
> also minimize the hanaah?"
R' Rich Wolpoe responded:
> Why do you suppose that posqim are makpid to not wash
> negel vasser on tisha b'av and yom kippur?
> Either not at all (rambam) Or Not beyond the knuckles
> (rov posqim)? If the extra hana'ah is deminumus then why
> bother? Shma mina that the hana'ah (ideally) should be
> minimal. Shma minah
Are you suggesting that the same rules apply during the nine days as on TB
and YK? Are you suggesting the for the whole nine days we should wash negel
vasser only to the knuckles?
No, I didn't think you were. It was a rhetorical question.
We both understand that the nine days are not as restrictive as TB and YK.
The question is where to draw the line.
For example, Mishna Brura 551:94 says that it is mutar to wash the hands and
face (and feet) with cold water during the nine days. If he had meant that
one could wash dirt away, there's no chidush, and there's no difference
between those areas and other parts of the body. So it seems clear to me
that he means we can wash those areas even if they are NOT dirty. In other
words, specifically to get a certain amount of hanaah from the washing.
My point is that on TB and YK, when there is a halacha not to wash, then
even when washing is necessary, it must be kept to the absolute minimum. But
I see nothing in the poskim to suggest that this is also true of the nine
days. Yes, there are lots of situations discussed and judged and ruled,
regarding when one may and may not wash during the nine days. But I don't
think I've seen anyone write that "in situation xyz, one may wash, but he
must go out of his way to minimize the hanaah."
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Turn your concept into reality. Click for professional signage solutions.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/BLSrjnsMciFFsWITpmwfgl
iRGzHKj939
U0hLrZ1tK69aFghVftHOOmoURIs/
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:43:40 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] bathing during the 9 days
Eli T:
> From the OU site
>> Rav Moshe Soloveichik explained that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah
>> 381:1) records the original Ashkenazic custom not to shower or bathe
>> for the entire Shloshim period. Therefore, the custom was to similarly
>> refrain from showering or bathing during the Nine Days. However, since
>> nowadays the custom is to shower immediately after Shivah and not to
>> be stringent in this regard during the Shloshim period, therefore
>> there is no reason to refrain from bathing during the Nine Days. The
>> old Nine Days custom no longer applies because it was based on a
>> mourning custom that is no longer observed."
WADR - Flawed logic:
Given - naniach:
Minhag X may have triggered minhag Y
But just because Minhag X has been subsequently been abandoned proves
NOTHING one way or the other about Minhag Y NOW!
Take this to its logical extreme and you could unravel most minhaggim!
Extreme Example:
Given that bigamy was an issue for R Gershom's era due to people still
fulfilling yibbum it was banned.
But since we subsequently abandoned yibbum in favor of halitza - therefore
other bigamy is now OK!
-----------------------
So from this logic at least stop saying yekum purkan! :-)
GS
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:21:38 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] How Do I Respond?
This is straight off my blog, but I think the notion needs as much
marketing as I can give it. A prettier version is at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/07/how-should-i-respond.shtml>.
-micha
When they gossip in Vilna, they desecrate Shabbos in Paris.
- Rav Yisrael Salanter
Some take Rav Yisrael Salanter's causality to be metaphysical. I don't
think that fits R' Yisrael's general approach to life. Mussar is fully
comprehensible without invoking metaphysical concepts. I would instead
say it's more likely to be very rationalistic psychology. In two ways:
1- It fosters a general culture of the rules and tradition not really
counting. Each person contributes to eroding the culture, and thus the
lives of everyone else in it.
2- It makes Orthodoxy look like a bunch of hypocrites and turns people
off from looking at what we claim to preach.
All Jews are intermixed, one in the other.
-- Ein Yaaqov, Sanhedrin
the version in the Vilna Shas 27b differs,
to speak of "guarantors one for the other")
We are all in one boat. You can't drill a hole in the boat without
sinking all of us. I know American values are based in personal autonomy,
of protecting one's rights and "live and let live". But as we see from
Sanhedrin, that notion is very un-Jewish. Conversion is summed up by
Ruth's "your nation is my nation and your G-d is my G-d", and letting
the rest of "O Israel" hear is the first two words of our doxology. We,
the Jewish People, are a unit. When Madoff sins, people think less of me.
I think about these words reading recent events in the news. When
petty customs evasion is the norm, we open our children to the threat
of consorting with drug smugglers. And when the masses play games with
their taxes, the hard-pressed charity goes one step beyond. And then
another step, and then another.
Yirmiahu posted the following on his blog, Machzikei HaDas:
"The Holy Rav, our master Menachem Mendel (of Rimnov) commented about
the curious sight that we often see children who in their youth go
to school and continually learn Torah, and daven with kavanah, and
answer "Amen, yehei Shmei rabba" and Amen, and are upright in their
ways. Afterwards, when they grow up, their behaviour reverses, chas
v'Shalom, with diminished middos, neglecting Torah, Prayer, and so
forth...the Torah which they learned in their youth, breath in
which there is no sin (Shabbos 119b), would be suitable to establish
them, and add strength to their neshamas, since a mitzvah leads
to another mitzvah.
Regarding this he said, "This is because of their fathers who feed
them stolen money which they enriched themselves through unfaithful
commerce, and fattened themselves in violation of halachah... and
in this way they descend into desire and degraded middos."
From his Holy words it is established, that also with food which is
inherently kosher, except that it was acquired with money which isn't
acquired in an upright manner and lacking in emunah. The power of the
act enters the product, and the food goes from the side of kedushah and
descends and degrades himself into desires and poor midos, rachmana
litzlan."
-- The Sanz-Klausenberger Rebbe zy'a, Shefa Chaim,
Chumash Rashi Shiur, parshas Nasso 5742, page 395.
Interestingly, we already saw this same idea from Rabbi Breuer, in his
essay 'Glatt Kosher -- Glatt Yoshor'. And Rabbi Schwab warns us that
the reason why, despite of our investment in education, we fail to
produce the number of greats that we did in previous generations is that
so much of that tuition is being paid with "tainted money". Non-kosher
good "closes up the heart"; food bought with non-kosher money, no less
so. This too could be understood in metaphysical terms, but I believe
one can keep things in totally rationalistic terms. We are teaching our
children that halakhah is something you can get away with violating, and
then are surprised when their commitment is not all it could be.
On the plus side, this gives us something to do. The unity of the Jewish
People, that we're all in one boat, means that any personal action I
take can actually be a step to reversing the trend.
I often tell people that if I ever were to become capable of deciding
halachic questions, my first ruling would be the following: If you buy
an esrog, and the salesman declines a check telling you that he would
prefer cash, or even that he could charge you less if you paid in cash,
you must pay be check. He is prohibited from avoiding sales tax, and you
are therefore prohibited from helping him do so, or even making it more
tempting. Thus an esrog bought in a circumstance where you have real
reason to believe that's what you are doing would be useless, as trying
to use it for the mitzvah would be a mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah (a
mitzvah made possible through a sin) and void.
So I started thinking about the notion of integrity, about how I act
when no one else (forgetting about G-d while in the moment) would know.
Here are some suggestions, and if someone wants to add their own ideas
in the comments section, I would be grateful:
* If one finds that they are much stronger at rituals that involve
his relationship with G-d than in interpersonal integrity, how
about the following exercise: Every time you enter a room, kiss
the mezuzah (if there is one) and remember that Hashem is in that
room along with any people who may or may not be there, watching.
Another suggestion for the same person: When you greet a person,
think "Behold, the 'Image' of G-d!"
* Embrace a role model, so that when one is making a tough decision,
his/her face will be before you to ask, "What would you do?"
(Perhaps actually keeping a picture around would help remembering
to do so.)
* If the former advice could be mapped to the line in Pirke Avos
"asei lekha rav -- make a mentor for yourself", then one must
also consider the continuation: "qenei lekha chaveir -- acquire
for yourself a friend." Picking peers with integrity helps keep
"shenanigans" in the range of the unthinkable.
* Think of the people for whom you are a role model. Keep a picture
of your children on the desk, reminding you to refrain from making
business decisions you would be ashamed to explain to them.
* Learn the appropriate sections of Choshein Mishpat, the Qitzur
Shulchan Aruch (simanim 62-67), or the Chafetz Chaim's Ahavas
Chessed -- the halakhos of integrity. Daily, so that the topic is
always close to consciousness.
* Spend more time doing things that are truly important, and free.
The less one is caught up in the pursuit of trying to buy happiness,
the less tempting it is to try to aquire at the expense of the
things that really matter. Related to this is the idea of planning
one's own eulogy, and making every decision in life with an eye
toward whether it will help make that eulogy happen. I thought
I blogged this notion already, but I see it's still on my to-do
list. The things I want in my eulogy, a summary of my life's
accomplishments, should drive what I actually decide to do in
life. No?
We can change the culture, one person at a time.
Again, I invite others to join with their suggestions. And to actually
follow through on them. Today. While the outrage of today's news provides
the fire and motivation to act.
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:36:19 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Re A 9 Days Shower - The Navy to the Rescue?
Plz post
Akiva:
"Are you suggesting that the same rules apply during the nine days as on TB
and YK? Are you suggesting the for the whole nine days we should wash negel
vasser only to the knuckles?"
No I am not!
Think of dechuya.
I am saying the svara is parallel and therefore when faced with the need
to wash when washing has been restricted, we do the minimum.
Think of RHS and tzenius. When the value of tzenius needs to be violated for
the public welfare we are to violate it minimally.
When a person breaks a fast on a fast day does he eat steak and fries? Or
does he indulge in minimal han'ah just to preserve one's health?
Even if the fast is a minhag (EG Taanis Esther of Taanis Bechoros)
GS
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:04:52 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Re A 9 Days Shower - The Navy to the Rescue?
> But I don't think I've seen anyone write that "in situation xyz,
> one may wash, but he must go out of his way to minimize the hanaah.
> Akiva Miller
Well isn't it plain intuitively obvious?
If hot water is assur miminhag and waived (dechuya) only for dirt
Why would it be waived more than the minimum to get thee job done!
Aderabba Alecha lehavi raya that more hana'a than needed is OK!
The principles derived from YK and TB work just the same for the 9 days
viz. Do the minimum. I see no svara, raya, or mesorah lechaleik. By
all means Plz show me one!
KT
TTW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:23:31 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
> The other slightly odd thing about this discussion - leaving aside the
> issues that I have been objecting to, is that RBB's thesis, to my mind,
> opens the door to precisely what he is objecting to.
I cannot speak for Micha
I guess he might agree.
Judaism has faced off with many isms during the last several centuries
Enlightenment
Socialism
Marxism
Zionism
Capitalism
Feminism
Egalitarianism
Etc.
Almost each one threatens to compromise Torah values
As I understand Micha, the rush to Maharat is not fueled by internal
Torah standards But rather by the desire to "accomodate" ourselves to
the lates ism-fad.
Hula hoops and Nehru Jackets do not quite present the same challenge.
Reductio ad absurdum:
Imagine if Ortho Rabbis declared "Michael Jackson Memorial Day" in a
rush to remain "relevant".
While it might indeed produce a THRILLER - what's Jewish about it?
------------------------
masters in Tanach and lectures at Drisha. I consult her at times regarding
tricky passages in Tanach. Maybe she would like to be a Maharat, too,
but in the meantime she makes a communal contribution without it
And most men learn torah w/o expectation of titles anyway
------------------------
objections even if the motivation is external.
Now, Micha might still protest that we should not innovate based upon
external isms. And I would agree, but I am a bit more pragmatic.
If it helps torah Judaism go for it.
And for the record I think WTG's would lead to separate women
"congregations" and I would see Maharats being very valuable in a venue
for women
My 2 cents
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Yitzhak Grossman <cele...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:27:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:55:34 EDT
T6...@aol.com wrote:
...
> We need to examine this sentence a bit more closely:
>
> >>[The] liberal denominations of Judaism...assert
> the right to reject various opinions of "the Rabbis" <<
>
> The modernizers assert the right to reject the *halachic* opinions of
> authorities they don't care for. They assert the right to choose, say,
Shamai
> over Hillel, or to reject them both, if they don't care for a certain
> halacha.
>
> If I had dismissed the *halacha* (women can't be witnesses in court) on
the
> grounds that the *halacha* was "incompatible with modern, progressive
> sensibilities," you might have a point. That would be a non-Orthodox
thing to
> do. However I did NOT say, "The Chinuch only rejects women as witnesses
> because he lived in 13th century Spain."
>
> What the Chinuch did here was to speculate as to the *reason* for the
> halacha. IIANM, the Gemara itself does not give a reason. The /reason/
given
> by the Chinuch is only his opinion. The halacha stands whether or not we
> understand the reason behind it. I accept the halacha but I do not
accept
> the reason he gives. I believe that his understanding of women's
> capabilities was colored by his time and place. If there is any source
earlier than
> the Chinuch, any source which he himself could have pointed to, to say
that
> women can't be witnesses because their testimony can't be trusted --
> because they lack the intellectual ability to testify accurately -- I
would be
> interested to hear about it.
While I agree that the distinction between actual Talmudic Halachah and
the reasons offered for it by Rishonim is crucial and fundamental, RnTK
has not responded to my point about Open Orthodoxy and its Maharat
innovation. My earlier message had continued:
"While I of course mean to cast no aspersions on RnTK's Orthodoxy, she
is basically lending legitimacy here to Open Orthodoxy and its
innovation of the Maharat. After all, it's pretty clear that there's
no technical infraction of Halachah involved, and the primary objection
of the opponents is that it is contrary to to the traditional Jewish
Hashkafah of gender roles. But RnTK seems to have no problem with
rejecting Hashkafos of Rishonim that can be attributed to their
particular cultures."
So I myself acknowledged the distinction that RnTK makes here, and
that's why I mentioned the institution of the Maharat, rather than some
blatant revision of Halachah. Pace RnTK, its proponents ought to be
perfectly entitled to argue that any post-Talmudic Hashkafah regarding
women may be disregarded as having been based upon someone's
"understanding of women's capabilities" which has been "colored by his
time and place", and as long as they follow Halachah, RnTK ought to
have no quarrel with them.
Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Le'din - http://bdld.info - *** Note change of address ***
http://bdld.info/2009/07/19/by-any-other-url/
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 145
***************************************
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..."