Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 133

Tue, 12 Jul 2011

• 1. Re: Women and tefillin (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 2. Women and tefillin [and Tzitzis] (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: women and tefillin (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 4. Re: Women and tefillin [and Tzitzis] (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 5. Re: Women and tefillin [and Tzitzis] (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Reincarnation (was Women and Tefillin) (T6...@aol.com)
• 7. Re: ben ploni le--- (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. speaking to women (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: soup (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 10. Re: women and tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Women and tefillin [and Tzitzis] (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: women and tefillin (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: soup (David Riceman)
• 14. Re: women and tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Should you go to the best surgeon? (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: R. Hirsch as a Modern Orthodox Leader (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Consumer alert:minhog scams on the rise! (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: Consumer alert:minhog scams on the rise! (Micha Berger)
• 19. Re: Should you go to the best surgeon? (Rich, Joel)

Rav Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: Indeed? Many women fulfill the mitzva of arba'a minim. How many
: of them fulfill the mitzvos of tzitzis and t'fillin?

R' Micha Berger pointed out:
> In both of REMT's cases, there is actually strong reason for a
> woman /not/ to fulfill those particular mitzvos:
>
> Tzitzis are clothing, and once it wasn't in style for women to
> wear tzitzis, for them to do so would violate "beged ish" ("Lo
> yihyeh keli gever al ishah..." Dev 22:5)

Okay, fine, here's a better example: Many women fulfill the mitzva of arba'a minim. How many of them say Shema at two specific times every day?

BTW, can anyone point me to a complete list of all the Mitzvos Aseh
Shehazman Graman? Thanks. It might be worth a separate thread, if there are
disputes about it.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e1c456a8bd1f338392st01vuc

At 08:51 AM 7/12/2011, REMT wrote:

>      The comment was made
>
> >Of course, women can't pick and choose. If they decide to m'kayem the
>mitzvos she-ha-z'man g'rama, they must fulfill all of them (perhaps with
>some necessary exceptions). <
>
>      Indeed? Many women fulfill the mitzva of arba'a minim.  How 
> many of them fulfill the mitzvos of tzitzis and t'fillin?

R. Micha wrote:

>In both of REMT's cases, there is actually strong reason for a woman
>/not/ to fulfill those particular mitzvos:
>
>Tzitzis are clothing, and once it wasn't in style for women to wear
>tzitzis, for them to do so would violate "beged ish" ("Lo yihyeh keli
>gever al ishah..." Dev 22:5)


Have a look at https://tzitzitforwomen.com/tzitzitforwomen.html  and, 
in particular, at https://tzitzitforwomen.com/Our_Purpose_and_Perspective.html

At https://tzitzitforwomen.com/What_the_Scriptures_say.html  you will 
find 
<https://tzitzitforwomen.com/uploads/Insights_from_Rabbi_Hirsch.pdf>2. 
Insights gleaned from Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch.

There are even pictures of women wearing tzitzis at 
https://tzitzitforwomen.com/Creative_Applications.php

Caveat. I know nothing about who Michael Daniel is and I am a bit 
wary of him given that in the above essay about insights from RSRH he writes

While Rabbi Samson is referring to 'natural-born' Israel here, his 
words speak true in the deepest
'Revelation' sense of what will occur for those who hold true to the 
vine (Messiah) and His
Torah ways in particular in the 'last days.' Even now, the 'great 
lie' spoken of by Rabbi Shaul, I
believe is the lie that Torah is not for the believer. It is for 
everyone who loves God and is a son
of God through Messiah Yeshua. It is the road of the righteous.

Are these the words of a Jew for J?  I do not know.

See also http://www.tallit-for-women.com/

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110712/d3a3e551/attachment-0001.htm>

RMicha Berger wrote, "Tzitzis are clothing, and once it wasn't in style for women to wear tzitzis, for them to do so would violate "beged ish" ("Lo yihyeh keli
gever al ishah..." Dev 22:5)"

     How many women wera tzitzis on a four-cornered women's garment?  Tzitzis is more than a tallis and a tallis katan.

EMT

____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4e1c499a6dbd6338f10st04vuc

R' YL:
Caveat. I know nothing about who Michael Daniel is and I am a bit wary of
him given that in the above essay about insights from RSRH he writes

While Rabbi Samson is referring to ?natural-born? Israel here, his words
speak true in the deepest
?Revelation? sense of what will occur for those who hold true to the vine
(Messiah) and His
Torah ways in particular in the ?last days.? Even now, the ?great lie?
spoken of by Rabbi Shaul, I
believe is the lie that Torah is not for the believer. It is for everyone
who loves God and is a son
of God through Messiah Yeshua. It is the road of the righteous.

Are these the words of a Jew for J?? I do not know.
--------------------------



KT,
MYG

My friend and former listmember R' Chaim Markozitz wrote
about "Tefillin as a Kli Gever" a couple of years ago at
<http://nefeshchaim.blogspot.com/2009/09/tefillin-as-kli-gever.html>. He
opens:

    My father [who many of you may know from mail-jewish, R' Hillel
    Markowitz] pointed out to me that the Targum Yonason Ben Uziel writes
    that tzitzis and tefillin are considered bigdei ish and are part
    of the issur of "Kli Gever". Most of us are aware of the claim that
    Rashi's daughter's wore tefillin. However, even if this is not true
    we do find in teh gemara that Michal bas Shaul wore tefillin and the
    chachamim did not protest. Furthermore, the Rambam paskens (Tzitzis
    3:9) that women are allowed to wear tzitzis if they deisre. It would
    seem that the gemara and the Rambam argue on the Targum Yonason
    Ben Uziel.

    Perhaps the machlokes is based on how to view tefillin...

BTW, in the Yerushalmi's version of the gemara Eiruvin 59a (which the
RBSO pointed me to by making it today's daf), R' Chizqiyah besheim R'
Avohu disagrees and says the chakhamim DID protest Mikhal's wearing
tefillin and eishes Yonah was sent back when she tried to be olah regel!

On the amud, the Qorban haEidah suggests that Mrs Yonah's problem
was trying to bring a qorban re'iyah which is "mecezei kemeivi chulin
la'azrah", or it was her "re'iyas panim ba'azarah shelo letzorekh".

As for nidon didan, the QhE writes that their objecting to Michal would
indicate that since women aren't mechuyavos, there is no motivation to
risk a woman wearing them without a guf naqi.


On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 09:16:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Caveat. I know nothing about who Michael Daniel is and I am a bit wary of 
> him ...

Looking at the web site <https://tzitzitforwomen.com/Common_Objections.html>
shows a distinct ignorance of what the petur of mitzvos asei shehazman
gerama is about, as it is handwaved away with something about women keeping
mo'adim. Also, the author suggests that a tallis that was decorated in
a feminine way wouldn't be keli gever.

After looking it over, I am not sure the site is relevent to a
Torah discussion. My apologies for not catching it during moderation.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
>> Rabbi  Avigdor Miller would not talk about reincarnation, since it is 
not mentioned  even once in the entire Talmud Bavli. Personally, I do 
not think that he  believed in gilgul, but he never said this to me  
explicitly.<<



Yitzchok Levine 

 
 
>>>>>
 
The Talmud may have talked about reincarnation, but not explicitly.   
Sometimes the Talmud says that such and such a person in Tanach was really  this 
other person -- e.g., Eliyahu Hanavi was Pinchas -- and the two lived  
centuries apart.  Another example is the "wise woman" who advised handing  over 
Sheva ben Bichri to Yoav in Dovid's time (Shmuel II 20:16) rather  than allow 
the whole city to be destroyed -- she is identified as Serach bas  Asher.  
It is at least a plausible inference in such cases that  the person who 
lived later is a reincarnation of the earlier person or in some  sense shares 
the earlier person's soul or a spark of the former's  soul.
 

--Toby Katz
================






_____________________ 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110712/d85bf3a5/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Saul Newman asked about "ben ploni le---":

> is that medrash literal?
> if so, there must be exceptions, right?  like when either the
> boy or girl will either not survive nor ever marry...

I've found that the simplest way to answer these (and many other similar)
questions, and still accept that the medrash might be literal, is to
understand that the two parties are ideal mates, but not that they will
necessarily marry each other.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e1c4f3b6d85e339e5cst01vuc

<<Based on this, some say that where one does not recognize
the woman, such as on the telephone, saying Shalom is permitted>>

Since only some permit this, I would suggest that men and women not be
on the same internet list
as it may lead to all types of wrong things

-- 
Eli Turkel

(This post is from the perspective of current practices among Americans. It may not apply to other cultures.)

When I suggested that soup is a liptan, R' David Riceman responded:

> No one, if you cut him a slice of bread, asks for soup to go
> with it, but, if you give someone some soup, he might ask for
> bread to go with it.  Liftan is something you use to accompany
> bread, not something you use bread to accompany.

It is very difficult for me to respond to this, precisely becuase our style
of eating is so very different than that which the seforim describe. Bread
has nothing remotely near the status and importance it used to have, and is
not considered that mainstay of the meal anymore.

If you give someone some soup, he might indeed ask for some bread to go
with it, the same way that if you gave him a salad he would ask for some
dressing. But just as one would not put salad dressing on the table without
already planning to have a salad, one would also not say, "Here's some
bread. What would you like with it? We have some peanut butter, or perhaps
you'd prefer a steak or some eggplant parmigiana."

Very few people today, when they are planning a meal, ask themselves, "What
would go well with the bread?" Rather, they decide on the kind of food they
want, and *then* they will add bread to the menu if it is a sort of food
that goes well with bread, or if halacha/minhag requires bread at the meal.
There are also cases where the ambience of the meal is enhanced by serving
bread, but again, that bread is servicing the food, not the other way
around.

Then I suggested that soup is an appetizer, and RDR responded:

> But why is soup different from fruit?

Excellent point. I suggest that soup is NOT different from fruit. When
eaten as a dessert, let both get a bracha. When eaten as an appetizer, let
both be covered by hamotzi.

> Over Shabbos I looked at Hayyei Adam Klal 43, and I was intrigued
> to find that EVERY example he gave of something that's not part
> of the meal is fruit.  The impression I came away with is that
> he, like you, really wanted to say that everything you eat during
> a meal is part of a meal, but he was stuck because of precedent,
> so rather than redefining his concept of a meal he simply decided
> that fruit is a unique case.

The odd thing, as I see it, is that soup is not mentioned anywhere in these
simanim. It is true, as you say, that no one specifically mentions soup as
a food which is not part of the meal. But they also don't mention it as
being a food which *is* part of the meal. Isn't that odd? (We do know that
soup is not a recent invention, because they taught us about the Bracha
Rishona on vegetable broth.) Why didn't they mention how/whether soup fits
into the meal?

Actually, as I look at the list of foods which they tell us are or are not
part of the meal, I see another glaring omission: Cake. The entire category
of Pas Habaa B'kisnin is omitted. (Or maybe I just don't remember where it
appears.) And thus the debate over whether to say a bracha on cake as
dessert.

My guess is that they never intended to give a complete list of all foods,
telling us which are meal-foods and which are not. And the reason why they
never bothered to tell us, I suggest, is because it is something which
depends on the eating habits in each time and place. So they gave a few
clear examples, and let us figure out the rest. If so, then we are free to
look at our own practices, and judge soup accordingly.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e1c53852921633aadbst03vuc

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 01:17:45PM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: RMicha Berger wrote, "Tzitzis are clothing, and once it wasn't in style
: for women to wear tzitzis, for them to do so would violate "beged ish"
: ("Lo yihyeh keli gever al ishah..." Dev 22:5)"

: How many women wera tzitzis on a four-cornered women's garment?
: Tzitzis is more than a tallis and a tallis katan.

When? In the days of Tanakh or Chazal? I don't know. However, I feel safe
in my assumption that women didn't do so for centuries, which would be
sufficient to establish keli gever, no?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

On 12/07/2011 9:16 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:

> Caveat. I know nothing about who Michael Daniel is

Michal, not Michael!


> and I am a bit wary of him given that in the above essay about insights
> from RSRH he writes
>
> While Rabbi Samson is referring to ?natural-born? Israel here, his words
> speak true in the deepest ?Revelation? sense of what will occur for those
> who hold true to the vine (Messiah) and His Torah ways in particular in
> the ?last days.? Even now, the ?great lie? spoken of by Rabbi Shaul, I
> believe is the lie that Torah is not for the believer. It is for everyone
> who loves God and is a son of God through Messiah Yeshua. It is the road
> of the righteous.
>
> Are these the words of a Jew for J?  I do not know.

This is absolutely J4J talk.  How could you miss it, especially the
explicit reference to their god himself?  Then there's the talk about
"the vine", and "Rabbi Shaul"; both dead giveaways.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 12/07/2011 12:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 01:17:45PM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
> : RMicha Berger wrote, "Tzitzis are clothing, and once it wasn't in style
> : for women to wear tzitzis, for them to do so would violate "beged ish"
> : ("Lo yihyeh keli gever al ishah..." Dev 22:5)"
>
> : How many women wera tzitzis on a four-cornered women's garment?
> : Tzitzis is more than a tallis and a tallis katan.
>
> When? In the days of Tanakh or Chazal? I don't know. However, I feel safe
> in my assumption that women didn't do so for centuries, which would be
> sufficient to establish keli gever, no?

Are you suggesting that the mere presence of tzitzis on a garment, no
matter how feminine, is enough to render it "kli gever"?

BTW, my great-great-grandmother, Rochel Leah Shagalovich (AKA Rochel
Leah di vaininke, because she sold wine), was widely rumoured to wear
tzitzis; I still hear this rumour occasionally, but my grandmother
(her granddaughter) said it wasn't true.  Still, she was the kind of
woman about whom such rumours could circulate.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

RAM:
Then I suggested that soup is an appetizer, and RDR responded:
>> But why is soup different from fruit?
> Excellent point. I suggest that soup is NOT different from fruit. When
> eaten as a dessert, let both get a bracha. When eaten as an appetizer,
> let both be covered by hamotzi.
What makes you think fruit eaten as an appetizer shouldn't get a bracha? 
See Hayei Adam 43:2.
>  Actually, as I look at the list of foods which they tell us are or 
> are not part of the meal, I see another glaring omission: Cake.
See AhS 177:10 which says that anything of which flour is a primary 
ingredient is mahmas haseudah.

<< If so, then we are free to look at our own practices, and judge soup 
accordingly. >>

What bothers me is that you are proposing that we scrap an entire 
halachic category.

David Riceman

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 01:56:15PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Are you suggesting that the mere presence of tzitzis on a garment, no
> matter how feminine, is enough to render it "kli gever"?

Why not? If my plucking gray hairs could be beged ishah...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:53:28AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote:
: The prevalent hashkafa today is that not even a leaf falls without it being
: a gezera min shamayim and that hishtadlus has no effect, it is just an
: illusion. Hishtadlus is just so that we avoid nisim guyim (see Michtav
: M'Eliyahu, Chazon Ish Emuna UBitachon and others). If so, shouldn't bringing
: the top surgeon be too much hishtadlus and a lack of bitachon? ...

By this line of reasoning, going to work every day is too much hishtadlus.
Instead, I should shnorr a dollar a week and buy a lottery ticket.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 03:51:28PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: I don't think it is 'putting words in is mouth' to say that most
: of his Hashkafos are Modern Orthodox. R' Gil wrote a post on his blog
: yesterday?based on an article by R. Yitzchak Blau. Based on the post and
: the article?- while it may be true that the 2 points we are dwelling on
: are Charedi??most of them are MO...

And so the question becomes which features of MO we consider defining,
and which we consider mere side attributes. I would not have considered
"analyzing biblical characters as great but flawed human beings" is part
of what makes MO MO, nor do I think RSRH does it all that often. There is
one famous case, Yitzchaq and Rivqa's mis-raising Esav. But as a pattern?

Also, maximalism WRT aggadita or science weren't popular across the board
yet. That RSRH happened to have the same position as many MO Jews do today
doesn't place him any closer to the MO camp than RYS, who shared those views.

Similarly, his universalism.

But let's talk about the one thing I do find defining:
: 6. Believing in the inherent value in secular studies, including the
:    liberal arts

RSRH disagreed about #6. TiDE is about being accultured, a refined human
being, not the "inherent value in secular studies".

As discussed here ad nauseum, TiDE isn't TuM. Touro isn't YU. The Gra and
RSRH's positive attitude toward secular knowledge comes from a different
place than MOs -- with daily and fundamental pragmatic differences.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 09:43:07PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 6/07/2011 9:33 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> I deny the premise, and thus the conclusion. They thought it was worth
>> repeating, which means that they thought the story relays the right
>> message without negative elements

> The message of R Pinchas ben Yair's donkey *depends* on it being true.
> If it didn't really happen, then what possible proof could one bring
> from it?  What possible lesson could one learn from it?

Again you say proof, but you never answered me what you think the medrash
is there to prove. For that matter, fodder bought as fodder can't become
demai -- RPbY's donkey was more frum than halakhah requires. There is
nothing to prove, in a halachic plane.

>> I'm defending the position of rov rishonim, BTW.

> No, you're not.  Name one rishon who says that R Pinchas ben Yair
> didn't really have a frum donkey, or that R Chanina ben Dosa didn't
> really tell his wife to light vinegar.  I don't believe any such
> rishonim exist.

To be exact: I am saying rov rishonim do not insist they are necessarily
historical. Do not conflate a refusal to take a position with taking
a position against.

As RSRH puts it (tr R Mordechai Breuer
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf>), there is
no methodology for knowing what is literal, and what is not.

I already posted my meqoros, as you haven't responded to them, I have
nothing to add.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The thought of happiness that comes from outside
mi...@aishdas.org        the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
http://www.aishdas.org   the value of one's will and the freedom brought
Fax: (270) 514-1507      by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook

Speaking of those mar'eh meqomos, on Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 06:57:12AM
+0000, REMT wrote:
:> ... you repeat what I feel is the wrong half of the Rambam's phrase,
:> yes it's "sheKOL hanimna'os", but the Rambam continues "mechuyavei
:> hametzi'us". What are the "necessities of existence" if not the laws of
:> nature? He doesn't speak of paradoxes and laws of logic..<

: I don't understand "mechuyavei ham'tzius" to mean "necessities
: of existence." I believe it means "must necessarily have happened."...

I really doubt that, in general, and moreso in the Rambam in particular.
To use classical philosophical terms, you're saying "mechuyavei hametzius"
are non-contingent events. However, leshitaso, all of metzi'us is
contingent.

IMHO,
    mechuyavei: necessitated by
    metzi'us: empirical existence

Aside from that, R Dr Shinnar and I finally agree on our understanding
of a point in the Rambam. If that's not proof we found amito shel davar,
what is? Seriously, though, he showed that in Igeres Teiman the Rambam
makes the point more clearly referring to physics.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 


By this line of reasoning, going to work every day is too much hishtadlus.
Instead, I should shnorr a dollar a week and buy a lottery ticket.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
_______________________________________________
Isn't that exactly what the michtav meliyahu says (for a true baal bitachon)? [minus the scnorr part]

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.



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 133
***************************************

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..."