Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 189

Sun, 31 Oct 2010

• 1. HOW MUCH FOR THE MAYO? (Richie Wolberg)
• 2. Rashbi and full time learning (Micha Berger)
• 3. Avoiding Terumah (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: How much for the mayo? (Gil Winokur)
• 5. Re: How much for the mayo? (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 6. The Story of Sarah Imeinu and Hagar (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 7. Translation/Interpretation (Rich, Joel)
• 8. shekein derech bnei melachim (David Riceman)
• 9. Gemilas Chassodim (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: Fwd: Re: Truth and the Rambam (David Riceman)
• 11. Re: How much for the mayo? (David W. Eisen)
• 12. Marriage and Love (Prof. Levine)

> A few days later my neighbor asked me if I could spare a couple of spoons
> of mayo for her kids' lunch, as she was out of mayo.  I told her I could do
> better, I had a whole extra unopened jar of mayonnaise  on the shelf, which
> I happily gave her.  She asked me how much she owed me for it, and this
> left me with a question.

I believe something is being missed here. The scenario clearly says "which
I happily gave her."  The clear implication is that it was GIVEN not sold.
The word "GIFT" and "GIVE" are related. In addition, you would be showing
Jewish care and compassion by saying that she owes you nothing, even if you
didn't get it for free. Also, there is an issue of maaris
ayin. Let's say you charged her and the next day she went to the
supermarket and saw the same mayo and sale. She would then think how cheap
of this woman who got that jar of mayo for free to make x amount of dollars
and sold it to me.  This is a perfect example of not seeing the trees for
the forest.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101027/bf21bc75/attachment-0001.htm>

WRT the famous machloqes R' Shimon bar Yochai and R' Yishmael about
getting a job (Berashos 35b)...

The Y-mi Maaseros 2:4 (vilna 11a) has: Tani R' Shim'on bar Yochai says:
See how much the Torah was diqdiqah in gezel, that it requires [WRT lo
sachsom] that he only eat while he is still swinging the sickle. From this
-- great is work for the dor hamabul was only destroyed because of gezel.

RYGB in his MP3 daf yomi shiur cites the Sedei Chemed, vav #15, who
comments on this setirah. (Or, as the Y-mi would phrase it, "Machlefah
shitasei deR' Shimon ben Yochai".) I found it in II pg 289, but the
whole machloqes gets richer when you see the kelal in its entirety.
R' Yishmael also requires resolution with other quotes, etc..

The SC says that Rashbi only held of Torah only when he left the cave the
first time. Then he looked up, killed someone, went back in for a year --
where he learned a derekh of fusing Torah into olam hazeh. The gemara
in Berakhos is quoting Rashbi after the first departure from the case,
but the Y-mi has Rashbi after the 2nd departure from the cave. And thus
Rashbi's final masqanah is the same as R' Yishma'el's -- go get a job!

While dealing with this sugya and setiros, here's another one.

R' Meir says in the mishnah on Qiddushin 82a that a person must teach his
son umenus neqiyah veqalah. The gemara on that mishnah quotes R' Nehorai,
"I put to rest all the professions of the world, and I do not teach my
son anything but Torah."

However, we know from Eruvin 13b that R' Meir was a complementary
nickname for being "meir einei chakhamim", and that his real name was R'
Nehorai. Both quotes are from the same tanna!

The Brisker Rav (heard third hand) explains this based on the machloqes
Rashbi and R' Yishmael. The rabbim can't live like Rashbi, Torah only.
Therefore as a kelal, R' Meir says that "le'olam yilmod adam". However,
R' Nehorai's own son was one of the yechidei segulah for whom Torah only
is appropriate.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Another thought from the Y-mi, Maaseros 3:1 (vilna 13b, toda's daf).
It's apropos to a discussion we had about us in chu"l avoiding the
dangers of eating tevel by not buying Israeli imports:

    R' Ula bar Yishmael besheim R' Lazer: Rebbi and R' Yosi bei R'
    Yehudah would bring in their produce from behind the roofs. [They
    would take a circuitous route to avoid bringing them into a chatzeir
    and becoming obligated in terumah umaaser.] R' Yudah bei R' Ilai saw
    them. He said to them, "Look at what a difference there is between
    you and the early ones! R Aqivah would buy three kinds [of food] with
    a perutah in order to [have an excuse to give] maaser from each and
    every species. And you bring in your produce from behind the roofs!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Your neighbor initially asked you for a couple of spoons of mayo, 
presumably not expecting you to charge her for them.  You chose instead 
to hand her a whole jar, placing her in the position of receiving 
something of value, when she had requested an amount whose value would 
have been too small an amount to trifle with.  From a social 
perspective, she now felt obligated to ask if you wanted reimbursement, 
which she would not have done had you simply honored her request.  IMHO, 
an appropriate response would have been "don't worry about it, I got it 
for free."  Alternatively, you could have explained the 2-for-1 special, 
which is no different than buying a 2-pack, and given her the option of 
buying the jar for $2 or taking the spoons.

BTW, how do you know whether you gave her the jar you paid for, or the 
jar you got for free?

Gil Winokur
gilwino...@usa.net

 The following dialogue took place between RZev Sero and RMicha Berger:

RZS: First of all, it would be $5.00; the shtus is milgav, not milbar.

RMB: The mishnah's case (BM 49b) is someone who pays an extra 4 maneh on
something worth (or priced) 1 se'ah (=24 maneh). That comes to adding
1/6 to the list price, ie milebar. Similarly, the Rambam (Mekhirah 2:12)
discusses paying 5 or 7 for something that costs 6.

RZS: Second, mayo is a condiment, not a food, so IIRC (haven't got seforim
> to check) the permitted profit margin is actually 100%.

RMB: This is the first I heard that ona'as mamon is different for food than
non-food. I looked at the sugya on BM 49b - 50b, and Hil' Mekhirah
12. Didn't see any such chiluq being made.

     Two different topics are being conflated here.  One is ona'a, charging
     more or less than the going market price.	One is not permitted to
     charge more than that price if the buyer is unaware of the overcharge;
     one is not permitted to pay less if the seller is unaware of the
     undercharge.  In this case, there are three distinctions: if the
     difference between the charged price and the market price is greater
     than one-sixth, the deal is void unless the cheated party wants it to
     remain valid, in which case the over- or undercharge must be returned.
      If it is exactly one-sixth, the deal is valid and the difference is
     returned.	If it is less than one-sixth, there is tacit m'chila, and
     the deal is valid with no obligation to make good the difference. 
     This does not mean that it is permitted to overcharge less than a
     sixth or take advantage of an inadvertent undercharge of such an
     amount; according to many rishonim, the cheating party violates the
     issur of ona'a even in that case
 , but there is no obligation to make good the amount cheated.	If both
 parties are aware of the true value, but agree on a price which is either
 higher or lower, there is not only no obligation to repay -- there is no
 ona'a to begin with, since no one was cheated.  Thus, e.g., if a person
 has an object whose market value is $100, and someone wants to buy it from
 him, he can say "It's only worth $100, but I won't part with it for less
 than $500, because (e.g.) it has sentimental value to me," and if the
 buyer agrees, there is nothing wrong.

     Then there is a din against profiteering in d'varim sheyeish bahem
     chayei nefesh.  That is, in such matters the din assesses a maximum
     allowed profit, which is a one-sixth markup.  As the g'mara states in
     Bava Basra 90a, "hamistakeir al yistakeir yoseir mish'tus." To the
     best of my knowledge, this means one-sixth mil'bar, what the seller
     paid for it, and not one-sixth mil'gav, what the buyer buys it for. 
     (This is unlike ona'a, where if it's a sixth either mil'gav or
     mil'bar, the din of "kana, umachazir ona'a" applies.)  If the seller
     does charge more, he is not guilty of ona'a; he has violated a
     takkanas chachamim.

     As R. Micha noted, there is nothing in the dinim of ona'a, as listed
     by the Rambam in Hilchos M'chira Perek 12, distinguishing between food
     and other items.  However, the profiteering din, which is in 14:1,
     does make that distinction.

     As for the mayonnaise, it is, as R. Zev noted, a condiment, so that
     there is no limit on a markup, so long as both parties are aware of
     the true value.   I believe that even if it would be a staple, the
     limit does not require one who made a windfall purchase to charge less
     that the market value.  It would seem that the proper price to charge
     would be its replacement cost to the seller, $4 -- unless the sale is
     still going on.

EMT
____________________________________________________________
$13/Month Car Insurance?
Insurance deal just passed now allows you to get car insurance for $13
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4cc8c73a1dcd1493982st06vuc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101028/73f8f84b/attachment-0001.htm>

Note: Much of the following is based on a Parshat HaShavu'a lesson given by
R' Micha HaLevy, Rabbi of Nachalat Yitzchak, Tel- Aviv.

For years, I've heard people cringe when discussing the story of Sarah
Imeinu and Hagar. The angel's instruction "Shuvi El Gevirtech VeHit'ani
Tachat Yadah" has raised many questions. There are midrashim that go so far
as to blame Sarah Imeinu's interaction with Hagar for our present day ills
(see for example sources brought in
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/samet/b3-2.htm ).

But what if the story is actually slightly different.

Avraham and Sarah are in the middle of a cultural revolution. They are
introducing a belief in a single, non-physical Creator who is the god of
EVERYTHING. If we examine the tale of Hagar from this point of view, we find
that things may be different.

The facts as we are told them in the Torah is that Sarah has no child. She
suggests that Hagar bear Avraham's child. But she uses an interesting term:
"Ulai IBaneh MiMena".  Some explain that perhaps Hashem will have mercy on
her and she will also have a child. But there is another, simpler meaning -
surrogacy.

If Hagar was intended to be a surrogate for Sara (there were no egg or sperm
banks back then) that would mean that in fact at birth Hagar would hand the
child, who is Avraham Avinu's biological son, to Sarah who would then raise
him as her proper SON, in the culture of belief in Hashem, shared by Avraham
and Sarah. Hagar, according to the Torah, came from Egypt, perhaps
(according to Chazal) from the royal house, and had a different culture.

But Hagar goes back on the deal once she is pregnant. VaTeiKal Gvirta
BeEineha. Hagar wants to keep her child - and perhaps become a true wife to
Avraham, a wealthy and important man in Canaan of those days. Instead of
preparing to hand over the child - she makes it clear that she will be the
newborn child's true mother - and she will raise him in her, Egyptian
culture.

I'm going to insert a subtopic here. The connection will shortly become
clear. 

One of the most difficult things people who come on Aliyah face is the
cultural change. The differences between American (for example) and Israeli
societies are many. Some find the differences so hard to take, they truly
suffer - and in the end choose to leave Israel and return to the States. In
general, joining a different culture can be extremely difficult.

Back in Canaan, Sarah is probably heartbroken upon realizing that her dream
is being smashed, that she is losing her chance at a child. But she is
Avraham's partner in life (Hu MeGayer Et HaAnashim VeHi Et HaNashim), and
she probably takes it upon herself to educate Hagar so that the child,
Avraham's true son, will be raised in his biological father's beliefs.
Nobody has ever said this would be easy for Hagar to take. As the Torah
states: VaTe'aneha Sara. Not physically - but in attempting to force Hagar
to accept Avraham's culture, Hagar suffered greatly. The result: She runs
away.

Looking at the situation from this viewpoint, the angel's words become
understandable: "Shuvi El Gevirtech VeHit'ani Tachat Yadah".  The angel is
telling her that the surrogacy agreement is cancelled, the child will be
raised by Hagar - this is the meaning of the angel's name suggestion -
Yishma'el. You Hagar will keep your son - but Hagar must follow Sarah's
instruction in custom and education so that the child will be raised in his
father Avraham's belief system. It also explains the continued use of the
word "shifcha" - Hagar is supposed to be subordinate to Sarah. The cultural
shift is torture to Hagar. But looking at the tale as a cultural event, also
clarifies the discussions between Avraham, Sarah and HKB"H surrounding these
events.

We know the result. Hagar won it all: she kept her son, and she managed to
ignore Sarah and raised her son in her own culture. 

This is clear from what follows: VaTeireh Sarah Et Ben Hagar HaMitzrit.
Hagar maintains her Egyptian culture, and raises her son in that way.
Sarah's conclusion: Garesh Et Ben Ha'Amma HaZote VeEt BeNa".  As they are
not following the culture and belief in Hashem that will be the essence of
the nation of Israel, they should not inherit with the Israeli nation. In a
future that is intended to introduce and announce Hashem as King of the
World - Yishmael, who does not follow in Avraham's footpath, has no part. Ki
BeYitzchak YiKare Lecha Zera - Yitzchak is the true follower of Avraham's
ways, and through him the Nation of Israel will come to be.

Shabbat Shalom,

Shoshana L. Boublil

Tehilim 116:16 contains the phrase: "ani avdecha ben amatecha"
Rashi says "eino domeh tarbut eved halakuach min hashuk l'ylud mishpacha shebabayit"


In this context how would you translate tarbut?

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/20101028/53881f15/attachment-0001.htm>

The mishna in Berachos knows that we have until 3 hours to say morning 
Shma because that's when princes get up.  Nowadays there are whole 
groups of people who awake later than that: night shift workers and 
Bertie Wooster/Auntie Mame types, to name two groups.  So why is the 
normative halacha 3 hours rather than whatever local practice admits?

David Riceman

The following, which is taken from RSRH's 
commentary on Bereishis 24: 17 - 20 gives insight 
into what Gemilas Chassodim is all about.

17 The servant ran toward her and said: Let me 
please sip a little water from your pitcher.

18 She replied: Drink, my lord! And she hurried 
and let down her pitcher upon her hand and gave him drink.

19 When she had finished giving him drink, she 
said: I will draw for your camels also, until they have finished drinking.

20 And she hurried and emptied her pitcher into 
the watering trough and ran again to the well to 
draw, and drew for all his camels.

17 -  20 It is not as Eliezer, but as ?the servant,? in the demeanor of
a servant, that he runs to meet Rivkah. He asks her for ?a little water?
to ?sip.? She, however, replies, ?Drink,? and addresses him as ?my lord,?
even though he stands before her as a servant. Then she proceeds, step
by step, to reveal herself as the woman who ? because her spirit is
akin to Avraham?s spirit ? is worthy of becoming the successor to
Sarah.

Eliezer hopes that she will add: ?. . . and I will give your camels
drink also? (see v. 14). At first, however, she says nothing about the
camels. Only after she has completely quenched his thirst does she say:
?I will also draw water for your camels until they have finished drinking.?
Here we have a demonstration of one of the characteristic traits of
the true Gomel Chesed, a sure sign of the Jewish Aishes Chayil. Had Rivkah said
immediately what she had in mind to do ultimately, she would have
shown herself to be a chatterbox who boasts of her good deeds. Rather,
only after the servant has finished drinking does she offer to draw water
for his camels, too. And she offers not only to give them a drink (this,
too, is quite a tiresome task: giving just one pitcherful of water to each
camel entails making ten trips down to the well and drawing the bucket
ten times), but to draw water and fill up the watering trough again and
again until all ten camels have drunk their fill! (A camel drinks enough
at a time to enable it to go a long while without drinking, which may
account for its name, ?Gamal,? to wean, make self-sufficient.)

With it all, how quick and eager she is: va't'maher va'taratz. She does not
hesitate and is not slow to move when given an opportunity to perform
an act of kindness.

Note, too, that she empties into the watering trough whatever water
Eliezer has left in the pitcher. She could have left it in the pitcher or
poured it out on the ground. But the way of a Gomel Chesed is to be sparing
in the use of goods and resources, just as he can be extravagant in
lavishing them upon others. Precisely because he views everything ?
even things of the slightest value ? as a means for performing a mitzvah,
for fulfilling one?s duty, everything is sacred in his sight. He will
not waste any of his resources, not even a drop of water. At the same
time, there is no end and there are no bounds to his willingness to give
of himself and of his substance for the sake of a good cause.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101029/6a5876e8/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB:
  : I never intended to propose that "according to the Rambam, halacha is
> : an alternative to metaphysics."
But then, a little bit later, he wrote:

: Just as the Rambam sets the ideal, the Adam qodem hacheit, as being
: about truth vs falsehood, and similarly ends the Moreh as giving a
: hierarchy of perfections - property, bodily, moral and finally "the
: highest, intellectual faculties; the possession of such notions which
: lead to true metaphysical opinions as regards G-d."

: And in such a worldview, halakhah being fact-finding rather than
: law-interpreting would be more noble.

: As I wrote, I understand the Rambam as placing following halakhah as a
: /tool/ for allowing the obtaining truths about G-d.

So I don't understand his opinion about this.  What is the place of the 
study of halacha in human telos?

There are two bits of evidence concerning  the place of machlokes in the 
Rambam's thought: (i) the Rambam was exceedingly troubled, as we see in 
the Hakdamah to the PhM, at the existence of machlokes in traditional 
sources: how could Moshe Rabbeinu not know the precise halacha? (ii) the 
Rambam chose to excise machlokes from the MT (though not completely: see 
Rabbi Twersky's "Introduction to the Code of Maimonides" pp. 121 ff. for 
a large list of counterexamples).

RMB, if I understand him correctly, views these as two phenomena 
motivated by a single attitude.  I, on the other hand, see them as 
distinct; the first is a historical problem (made more severe because of 
Moslem anti-Jewish polemics), the second is a pedagogical concern.

The third general point I want to make really ought to be made by 
someone better versed in history (RRW, this is a hint!!).  Just as Rashi 
is the culmination of an older tradition of scholarship, and the Baalei 
HaTosafos started a new tradition of scholarship, so also the Rambam is 
the culmination of an older tradition of scholarship, with a new 
tradition begun in Spain by the Ramban and Rabbeinu Yonah.  I'm told the 
Sefer haEshkol did the same for Provence, with R Zerahiah HaLevi 
representing the innovators, but I have not yet taken the time to study 
Sefer HaEshkol, so I'm just passing along rumors.

When I was young I was taught that it's much easier to study halachos 
about which there is a machlokes; that is a clear principle of Tosafos's 
school.  I'm not at all sure the Rambam would agree.  He had other 
methods for elucidating the meaning of halachos: see Rabbi Twersky's 
book pp.143 ff., especially pp.155-162, and recall the Rogachover's 
description of the Rambam as "Rabbeinu hagadol ham'lamed osanu da'as", 
reflecting what one can learn about legal principles from the Rambam.

So when RMB says that one can't do Talmud based on the MT, I suspect 
he's reflecting the school of the Ba'alei HaTosafos, of whom we are all 
students but the Rambam wasn't.

Now for some nitpicking.

: Notice how Hil' Mamrim never mentions the word "pesaq" or some other
> : language that would speak to the interpretation of law.
H. Talmud Torah 3:3.
> : Another lacuna from Hil' Mamrim is the concept of sevara.
H. Sanhedrin 10:5.
> : What I see is what boils down to a claim that the MT replaces the study
> : of mishnah -- in the sense of settled halakhah, the "shelish bemishnah".
> : (And note the name of the work itself, although that's not muchrach.)
> : I do not see anything that says that someone capable on focusing on
> : talmud, should stop there. And it would seem from his advice to Luneil
> : that he didn't hold it should.
This is true, but it bears excessive emphaisis that shlish beTalmud DOES 
NOT MEAN STUDYING A TEXT.  It means analyzing Mishna.  So why can't it 
be done based exclusively on MT (see my comments above about schools of 
thought)?
> : But all of this is somewhat tangential. Whether the Rambam had a different
> : plan for his own talmidim than for Luneil, what I wrote above is still
> : a description of how the Rambam himself "did halakhah".
>
> : Which I find both (1) very different from that of other rishonim, or
> : of acharonim down through the various derakhim we follow today, and (2)
> : blatantly Aristotilian in tenor.
What is so very different from the way other rishonim "did halakhah"? 
The main difference is how he recorded his results.  As I said above, I 
still don't understand how you relate this to Aristotle.

David Riceman

I had a similar incident involving my recent trip to the States. I went
shopping in a certain outlet mall that had a store of a particular brand
that my son's friend had asked if we could purchase there a certain shirt
for him. Neither my son nor I intended on buying anything in that store,
but a particular shirt also caught my eye, and that day the store had a 50%
discount on the price of a shirt when buying an additional shirt at the
full price. Both the shirt my son's friend asked that we buy for him and
the shirt that I ended up being interested in were being sold for the same
price. I bought both shirts with the 50% discount on the second shirt. In
all honesty, I would not have bought the shirt for my self at the retail
price, and it was only the discount that provided the incentive for making
the purchase.

Considered with potential ribbit issues, I asked R. Yuval Cherlow how much
I should ask my son's friend to receive for the purchase of the shirt. In
his response, he noted that no lender-borrower relationship was created by
our agreement to purchase the shirt, and even though one could claim that I
effectively lent him the money for the shirt once it was purchased, this is
not the case since
(i) I did not act as an agent of his,
(ii) he did not become an owner of the shirt upon my purchase at the store as I could have changed my mind and not sold it to him ,and
(iii) if I had lost the shirt on the way, he would have no liability to repay me.

Effectively, the transaction occurred only when he paid for the shirt upon
my return to Israel; accordingly, he rules that it is halachically
permissible to take advantage of the full discount, though he adds a caveat
that if indeed the circumstances were different, and I was acting as his
agent, then this is likely to change his conclusion.

R. Cherlow's teshuva can be accessed at http://www.m
oreshet.co.il/web/shut/shut2.asp?id=133981.

B'virkat HaTorah,
David


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101031/050a0598/attachment-0001.htm>

The song Love and Marriage is one that Frank 
Sinatra made famous. (For the song and its lyrics 
go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwoRMAC461A )

However, it seems that from a Torah standpoint 
the song should have been titled Marriage and 
Love.   Furthermore, I have always found it 
strange to hear someone say "My wedding was the 
best day of my life!" The implication to me is 
that it has been downhill since then! >:-}

I think that RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 24: 
67 on these issues is worth keeping in mind.

  67 Yitzchak brought her (Rivkah) into the tent 
of Sarah, his mother. He married Rivkah, she 
became his wife, and he loved her, and only then 
was Yitzchak comforted for his mother.

This, too, is a characteristic that, thank God, has not vanished from
among the descendants of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah.
The more she became his wife, the more he loved her! Like this marriage
of the first Jewish son, Jewish marriages, most Jewish marriages, are
contracted not on the basis of passion, but on the strength of reason
and judgment. Parents and relatives consider whether the two young
people are suited to each other; therefore, their love increases as they
come to know each other better.

Most non-Jewish marriages are made on the basis of what they call
?love.? But we need only glance at novelistic depictions taken from life,
and we immediately see the vast gulf ? in the non-Jewish world ?
between the ?love? of the partners before marriage and what happens
afterward; how dull and empty everything seems after marriage, how
different from what the two partners had imagined beforehand. This
sort of ?love? is blind; each step into the future brings new disillusionment.

Not so is Jewish marriage, of which it says:  Vayekach es Rivkah vat'he
lo l'eshah! Here the wedding is not the culmination, but only the beginning
of true love.

And now four more words, which, since God led Eve to Adam, until
the end of time, have remained and will remain unsurpassed in beauty
and glory: vayenacam  Yitzchok achrei  Imo . A 
forty-year old man, inconsolable over the
death of his aged mother, finds consolation in his wife! This is the position
of the Jewish woman as wife! What nonsense to identify Jewish married
life with oriental sensuality and harem conditions! With Sarah?s death,
the feminine spirit and feeling departed from the home. Yitzchak then
found his mother again in his wife (hence, ?When he brought Rivkah
into the tent, to him it was as though his mother were again there? ?
see Bereshis Rabbah 60:16). This is the highest tribute that has ever been
paid to the dignity and nobility of woman ? and it is in the ancient
history of Judaism.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20101031/a338e2b2/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 189
***************************************

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..."