Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 179

Fri, 04 Sep 2009

• 1. Laughing at someone doing a mitzva (Dov Kaiser)
• 2. Culling Halachic Norms from Aggadic Passages (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 3. reading thermometers on shabbos (Gershon Seif)
• 4. Re: Kol kevudah: a woman's place is in the home (Chana Luntz)
• 5. Re: Kol kevudah: a woman's place is in the home (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: Laughing at someone doing a mitzva (Ben Waxman)
• 7. Re: reading thermometers on shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Laughing at someone doing a mitzva (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Laughing at one who does a mitzvah (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Kol kevudah: a woman's place is in the home (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 11. Re: Kol kevudah: a woman's place is in the home (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Kol kevudah: a woman's place is in the home (Micha Berger)
• 13. pirkei avos v. chochma yevanit; see mekoros...... (Harvey Benton)
• 14. YT Sheini Vs. YT Rishon (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 15. Boruch She'amar (Cantor Wolberg)

<<If the halacha had said that one should not answer Kaddish too
loudly because it disturbs the kavana of other people, I would understand
that. But merely because they are laughing? I don't get it.>>
 
See Perek 20, Mesilas Yeshorim, where Ramchal explains that although must
one perform mitzvos, ie strict obligations, even though people will laugh
at him, this does not apply to chumros.  In the case of chumros, making
oneself an object of mockery involves lifnei iver vis-a-vis the mockers. 
Therefore, it is sometimes inappropriate to go beyond the letter of the law
in public.
 
One might easily have adopted the position that we need not be concerned
with mockers, but this is clearly not the Ramchal's position.  It is
possible that this would not apply to the mockery of non-Jews, but I think
that the gist of Ramchal's shita does not make any distinction.
 
Kol tuv
Dov Kaiser

_________________________________________________________________
Use Hotmail to send and receive mail from your different email accounts.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/167688463/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090901/b7c541fe/attachment-0001.htm>

There seems to be an understanding that Aggadic Passages are not normative within Halacha. That may be true - yet it may also be an oversimplification.

Illustrations
A. Darash R Simlai ...613 mitzvot
Halachot G'dolot did not take this as a normative passage and proceeded
to list 613 mitzvot of all shapes and sizes
However, Rambam took this obvious Drasha and assumed it was predicated
upon 14 separate axiomatic conditions!

B Standing for Qiddush Levanah
Based upon DRASH, we greet the Shechinah whilst reciting Birkat
Levana.
Yet, Abbaye rules that we must stand.

C. Glass is Smooth
The issue of glass absorbing "treif" is discussed in Avot de R. Nattan
[ADRN] yet the Rashba issues his permissive ruling using an aggadic
source text.

D Women wearing Tallit
Many Posqim object to women wearing a Tallit because it violates "lo
tilbash kli gever". The source text used is Targum Yonatan ben Uziel
[TYBU]- a midrashic work.
However, this is a "perfect mis-understanding" of how this is used.
TYBU is not producing binding p'saq as a precdent - rather Posqim are
using his text to determine if Lo tilbash applies to Talit. And they
accept his Meisi'ach lefi tummo as normative that Tallit is indeed a
man's garment.
NOTE: this norm could be subject to change over time and place.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

My understanding is one may not set up a thermometer on shabbos as it falls under the issur of medida.

But may one read a thermometer that was put in its place before shabbos? ie. a large weather thermometer hanging in the backyard 

> I do concede the plausibility of your suggestion that the Gemara in
> Yevamos can be understood as descriptive rather than normative.
> Nevertheless, the Aharonim that I've seen, perhaps in light of all the
> Gemaros together, perhaps from some other basis, do understand kol
> kevudah to be normative (although it obviously remains to be 
> determined
> exactly what conduct is being praised here).  In addition to the Hasam
> Sofer (Resp. EH II:99) mentioned in my previous mail, see R. Leiter's
> fascinating and erudite collection of sources in his MiTorasan Shel
> Rishonim to Gittin 12a.
> 
> Moreover, I remind you once again that you have yet to respond to the
> Rambam who explicitly derives from the verse that a woman's 
> place is in
> the home.

Um, I rather suspect that the Rambam, if you asked him, would say that it
was at most an asmachta, as otherwise he would be going against the
principle that one does derive halachos from Nach.

And as I have said previously on this list (and to which RMB referred), to
the extent that one holds that a woman's place is required to be in the home
as prescriptive behaviour, you end up poselling a lot of our foremothers to
whit:

A)if Rivka had believed "kol" kavuda, then she would a) not have been at a
public well; b) not have
talked to strange men; and c) certainly not have had the familiarity to
have given Eliezer water in a public place, not to mention all that
running back and forward to the camels (hardly very tzniusdik, all that
exertion - not to mention that drawing up water generally involves
bending down and walking in front of etc etc)!  Ok, she was three!  But
a) Tznius applies from three and b) what kind of training was she being
given in how to behave!

B) Not to mention all the other women at the well, Rachel and Zipporah.

C) how about the Shunamite woman, from who we learn that
one is to go and visit one's Rebbe on shabbas and rosh chodesh.
Given that we are talking about shabbas this would seem to be a violation of
the Rambam.

D) How about Chana?  OK, Eli had a problem with her appearing to be drunk,
but what about the fact that she davka chose to daven in the mishkan,
rather than at home.  Is that not a violation of "kol kavuda"?

E) And even on the case where kol kavuda is used in Yevamos as a legitimate
justification for what the Moabite women did (or failed to do), because they
could not be faulted for not going out and providing food and drink (and
hence allowing Rut to be married into the congregation), you have, as a
counterpoint, Avigayil who did go out to David with an abundance of food and
drink.  Is this saying that what Avigail haNevia did was wrong and a
violation of kol kavuda? I have never seen such criticism. 

You see the problem with taking kol kavuda the way you are understanding the
Rambam - you end up
possulling most of our foremothers!  

Now there is another way of understanding a number of these references which
makes them more than descriptive, but less than normative for today, which
is to use the same understanding that is often applied when discussing daas
yehudis - namely, that there is a prohibition on any individual woman going
beyond what is considered appropriate for a woman in that time and place.
This is perhaps more frequently discussed with respect to dress, ie if the
custom in the particular place is to cover the ankles, then a woman is
obligated to cover her ankles, or be seen as in violation of daas yehudis.
On the other hand, despite daas yehudis being understood by the poskim to be
very much linked to time and place, it also appears important that the
fundamentals of the behaviour have some root in Nach - hence we get a whole
list of asmachtos to Shir HaShirim etc in Brochos.

It seems to me that a similar thing is going on here.  The issue for the
Rambam was that modest women of his time and place (amongst the Muslim in
Spain and Egypt) did not go out (in fact one of the striking things we saw
when we visited Malta last year was the enclosed balconies, which were built
under Muslim influence so that their women could sit outside and see but not
be seen).  But it would not have been appropriate to ban something just
because the Muslim women did it, if there was no asmachta to rely on from
our sources, but if it could be considered something with some roots in our
sources, then it is acceptable to expect Jewish women to act similarly and
not breach the boundries.

And note particularly that when The Chatam Sofer is discussing the question,
he is discussing it in the context of trying to legitimise the giving of a
get to a woman, without having recourse to the heter meah rabonim, in a
situation where there were clearly significant issues in the marriage
(inability to have relations, in any event) , but no financial resources to
go collect the meah rabonim.  And one of the bases that justify the giving
of a get is, according to the mishna, a violation of daas yehudis.  He seems
to me to be thinking along these lines in order to raise a similar kind of
concern.  And it seems clear that whatever this woman was doing, it was not
normal behaviour amongst women of that time.  Within the delicate fabric of
married life, there appears to be a halachic understanding that it is
problematic if a woman does things that might be considered to be scandalous
and shameful to the husband.  That seems to be the thrust of the Rambam and
that seems to be the thrust of the Chatam Sofer. 

An interesting question though might be asked - if today it is normative for
women not to be in the home, would a woman who insisted on staying in the
home be regarded as equally problematic?  I would have thought not, and
that, it seems to me is where kol kavuda does contain its force.  Because of
the pasuk, this is a legitimate choice for women (although one might argue
the gemora in Gitten to the contrary).

> Yitzhak

Regards

Chana

 


It seems to me that a similar thing is going on here.  The issue for the
Rambam was that modest women of his time and place (amongst the Muslim in
Spain and Egypt) did not go out (in fact one of the striking things we saw
when we visited Malta last year was the enclosed balconies, which were
built under Muslim influence so that their women could sit outside and see
but not be seen).  But it would not have been appropriate to ban something
just because the Muslim women did it, if there was no asmachta to rely on
from our sources, but if it could be considered something with some roots
in our sources, then it is acceptable to expect Jewish women to act
similarly and not breach the boundries.



Regards

Chana

_______________________________________________
So you are saying that if the entire outside world decided  that a woman's 
pinkie finger  were considered the ultimate female ervah, that Jewish women
would not have to cover their pinkies?
KT&ST
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.

In a recent issue of Mishpacha which had articles dealing with the Satmar
Rebbe,	the author wrote that the Rebbe insisted on wearing his khassidishe
garb on the street in America, even though the non-Jews (and probably some
Jews) would laugh at him. 

I would argue that when the Rebbe was fighting a tooth and nail battle to establish khasidut in America, different rules applied.

Ben
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dov Kaiser 
   
  See Perek 20, Mesilas Yeshorim, where Ramchal explains that although must
  one perform mitzvos, ie strict obligations, even though people will laugh
  at him, this does not apply to chumros.  In the case of chumros, making
  oneself an object of mockery involves lifnei iver vis-a-vis the mockers. 
  Therefore, it is sometimes inappropriate to go beyond the letter of the
  law in public.
   
  One might easily have adopted the position that we need not be concerned
  with mockers, but this is clearly not the Ramchal's position.  It is
  possible that this would not apply to the mockery of non-Jews, but I
  think that the gist of Ramchal's shita does not make any distinction.
   
  Kol tuv
  Dov Kaiser

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090902/c88d0e2f/attachment-0001.htm>

Gershon Seif wrote:
> My understanding is one may not set up a thermometer on shabbos as it
> falls under the issur of medida.
> 
> But may one read a thermometer that was put in its place before
> shabbos? ie. a large weather thermometer hanging in the backyard 

Why not?  How is it different than reading a clock that has already
been set up to run before Shabbos, or a ruler that is already in
position from before Shabbos?

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

________________________________


In a recent issue of Mishpacha which had articles dealing with the Satmar
Rebbe,	the author wrote that the Rebbe insisted on wearing his khassidishe
garb on the street in America, even though the non-Jews (and probably some
Jews) would laugh at him.

I would argue that when the Rebbe was fighting a tooth and nail battle to establish khasidut in America, different rules applied.

Ben
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I assume that what you mean is that while the Ramchal's rule applied, a
perceived higher  priority rule (survival of chassidut/yiddishkeit) took
priority.  The nafka mina might be - what if the Rebbi "knew" that
yiddishkeit would survive and flourish but chassidut would not?  would that
be sufficient to overcome the ramchal's rule?

KT&ST
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/20090902/b69838e7/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 3:03:39AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: This evening I was reminded of a halacha in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (15:5)
: that one should not answer Kaddish too loudly, because people might laugh
: at him for this, and he'd thereby be causing them to sin. (Mishne Brurah
: 56:5 says the same thing.)

: I soon found myself recalling other examples which support or go
: against this idea: One may wear shoes on Tisha B'Av, if one walks among
: non-Jews who would laugh at us. (Rama 554:17 and Mishne Brurah 554:34)

: But in contrast, the very first Rama in Orach Chaim 1:1 tells us, "Don't
: be embarrassed by people who laugh at someone for his Avodas Hashem."

On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 07:22:10PM +0000, Dov Kaiser wrote:
: See Perek 20, Mesilas Yeshorim, where Ramchal explains that although
: must one perform mitzvos, ie strict obligations, even though people will
: laugh at him, this does not apply to chumros. In the case of chumros,
: making oneself an object of mockery involves lifnei iver vis-a-vis
: the mockers. Therefore, it is sometimes inappropriate to go beyond the
: letter of the law in public.

Shoes on 8 beAv is a derabbanan, not a chumrah. So even without the
issues of lifnei iveir and nachriim, I don't think we can invoke the
Ramchal in that case.

I think there is something specific about these two mitzvos. Not unique
to them, but still, putting them in a subclass.

Answering Qaddish loudly is, I presume, a kavanah tool. If he's going to
be laughed at and self-conscious, not only is there a lifnei iveir issue,
I'm not sure the overall effect would help his kavanah.

Going without shoes is a qiyum of aveilus. Does getting laughed at
qualify as aveilus, or as a distraction from aveilus? If the latter,
it could well be that there is no qiyum in going barefood (or in one's
pool shoes to work).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Rn Chana:
> It seems to me that a similar thing is going on here. The issue for the
> Rambam was that modest women of his time and place (amongst the Muslim
> in Spain and Egypt) did not go out (in fact one of the striking things
> we saw when we visited Malta last year was the enclosed balconies, which
> were built under Muslim influence so that their women could sit outside
> and see but not be seen). But it would not have been appropriate to ban
> something just because the Muslim women did it, if there was no asmachta
> to rely on from our sources, but if it could be considered something
> with some roots in our sources, then it is acceptable to expect Jewish
> women to act similarly and not breach the boundries.

Begs the question from whom did the Moslems learn Tzniut?

If one presupposes that:
Given Moslems learned rules of tzniut in Mosques from Jewish Practice
within shuls
Therefore the prevailing minhag was already established amongst Jews to
have these standards of tzniut!

Of course, one canargue that:
without a firm Halachic Foundation, such a minhag could evolve w/o
breaching normative Halachah.

One also might argue that such standards of tzniut of Pre-Moslem Jewry
was merely cultural and NOT halachic! Personally, I would find that a
big dochaq to say that.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 11:03:28AM +0100, Rn Chana Luntz wrote:
: Um, I rather suspect that the Rambam, if you asked him, would say that it
: was at most an asmachta, as otherwise he would be going against the
: principle that one does derive halachos from Nach.

It isn't the only case where this question arose.

However, if the question is one of "ought not" rather than out-right
issur, there is no problem deriving it from Nakh.

If the pasuq is to prove a preexisting din already existed by the time
that pasuq was written, one is using it as eidus, not as a maqor. Yes,
this makes the kelal about not deriving halakhah from Nakh to be pretty
close to moot, you can always say that you're brining evidence, not
saying it's the source. However, (1) I did say that this comes up a few
times, so perhaps we need a generalizable answer; and (2) it would still
eliminate the use of derashos on Nakh (if that's what you mean by
"derive").

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:30:45PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
: On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:53:04 -0400 Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
: ...
: > In <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n122.shtml#01> R Mordechai
: > Torczyner writes:
: > > Kol Kevodah, on the other hand, places an emphasis on actually being away
: > > from the sight of others (Rashi Tehillim 45:14, and others there). This
: > > does not necessarily refer to being indoors, but it does mean staying out
: > > of the spotlight, as a general course of behavior (see Avodah Zarah 18a,
: > > Rashi there sv Dikdekah - it is clear that the problem is not with being
: > > in public, it is with being in the spotlight of avoiding the spotlight.
: 
: Rambam and Hasam Sofer (that I keep mentioning in this thread) clearly
: understand the issue to be inside vs. outside the house, and not being
: in vs. avoiding the spotlight (although it should be acknowledged that
: HS is disparaging a woman who wanders off to a remote and dangerous
: location without her husband's knowledge, and he's presumably not
: criticizing a woman who shops locally as per the family arrangements).

I"m wondering why you felt a need to repeat yourself yet again. Does
Rashi's opinion become less authoritative if you repeat the Rambam's
in reply? Nu, I replied to your point with a statement that it's a
machloqes rishonim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

I have 2 questions:
1. are pirkei avos considered by us to be halachot, or just good advice?? (and what were they considered to be in previous generations??) 
2. when it says in pirkei avos to "da ma she tashuv l'apikorus" how do we
rank it in importance when it comes into conflict with the ban on learning
chochma yevanit????
If someone is learned in chochma yevanit, aren't we mechuyav (by pirkei avos) to investigate the matter and answer him/her if we can on his/her own terms??
hb
see:www.atid.org/journal/journal98/einhorn.doc for many mekoros.......
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090903/60a04040/attachment-0001.htm>

AFAIK - It's fairly axiomatic that WRT meis, YT Sheini is like chol,
but in general YT Sheini has virtually all the same dinim of YT Rishon.

There is an early source allowing for dancing on Simchas Torah - davka
because it is ONLY YT Sheini [IIRC this is Rav Hai Gaon]

I just saw Rambam MT Hilchos Lulav 8:9 that states befeirush that various
p"sullim due to Mumim etc. Are waved on YT Sheini and on. Touger quotes
the Ro"sh saying that YT sheini is the same legabei this p'sullim.

Anyone have more resources re: when YT sheini behaves diffrently than
YT Rishon?

Shana Tova
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Hilchos Pesukei D'zimrah

The Nusach of Boruch She'amar was established by the Anshei Kenesses  
Hagedolah after a parchment with the 87 words came down from heaven.  
Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Berurah 51:1

One should stand when saying Boruch She'amar, and hold two tzitzis in  
front, and kiss them after completing the beracha. Shulchan Aruch w/ 
Mishnah Berurah 51:1

Why do we hold 2 tzitzis in front instead of all four?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090904/f8204144/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 179
***************************************

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..."