Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 135

Thu, 14 Jul 2011

• 1. Reincarnation (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: soup (Zev Sero)
• 3. women and tefillin (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 4. Re: women and tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Women and tefillin (Danny Schoemann)
• 6. Re: Women and tefillin (garry)
• 7. Re: Women and tefillin (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Soup (Arie Folger)
• 9. Re: Women and tefillin (Meir Shinnar)
• 10. Re: Women and tefillin (garry vs. Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Women and tefillin (Garry vs. Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Women and tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Women and tefillin (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 14. Re: Women and tefillin (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Women and tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Women and tefillin (Lisa Liel)
• 17. Re: Women and tefillin (Zev Sero)
• 18. Re: Women and tefillin (garry)

At 01:17 PM 7/13/2011, R Micha wrote:

>"Pinchas zeh Eliyahu" is said by Reish Laqish, but the earliest source
>I could find for this quote is Yalqut Shim'oni. So, those in favor of
>gilgul could simply argue that RSG didn't have that quote. But to say
>a gaon didn't know all of shas be'al peh???

RSRH writes the following in his commentary on Bamidbar 25:13

13 And to him and to his descendants after him [this covenant] will 
be a covenant of everlasting priesthood, because he brought to
bear the rights of his God and effected atonement for the Children of Israel.

Pinchas himself was granted a very long life. As late as the time of
pelegish b'givah  (Shoftim 20:28) we find Pinchas ben Elazar ben 
Aharon serving as the
Kohein Godol before the Ark of God's Covenant. Moreover, according to one
opinion, Pinchas was identical with Eliyahu (Yalkut Shimoni ad loc.),
whose zeal for God's Word was imbued with the spirit of Pinchas. In
the future, Eliyahu will heal the brokenness of his people, which will
be divided by a generation gap, and thereby he will pave the way for
the realization of the bris sholom on earth. For the future will be detached
from the past, and Eliyahu's task will be to bridge the generation gap
by restoring the Chorev spirit of God's Torah.

Note that Rav Hirsch says that Pinchas being identical with Eliyahu 
is according to *one* opinion.   YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110713/874e7bce/attachment-0001.htm>

On 13/07/2011 10:37 AM, David Riceman wrote:
>
>>It seems that when people talk about "the meal", what they often
>>mean is "the main course". And "the main course" refers to what is
>>in the plate, not what is in the glass.>>
>
> But then the category fits our style of eating quite well.  Soup,
> fruit cups, the fish course, desert (not made of mezonos) all fit the
> category of "not part of the meal".

The fish course too?!  Don't you see where you've gone wrong, if that's
where it leads you?  How can you imagine that the fish is not an intrinsic
part of the meal?

The underlying problem in this whole discussion is, as several people
have noted, that our eating patterns have changed so that bread is no
longer the ikkar of almost any meal, but rather it's almost always a
liftan.   Even in a sandwich, we no longer think of it as bread with
a shmear of something to make it go down, but as some food with bread
1) to hold it, 2) to complement it, 3) to make it more substantial;
pick any or all.  It seems clear to me that we need someone or some
beis din with the breitkait to thoroughly revamp hilchos birchos
hanehenin.  But even such a person would, I suspect, make soup
subordinate to the main course, unless it's a hearty soup and is a
meal on its own.



-- 
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

                    
                

"So no, I'm not insisting that the cape is transformed into a keli gever,
just that wearing it that say is a violation of the issur if women
generally don't and men generally do."

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this.  A woman would violate the
issur of kli gever by wearing a cloak that is not a kli gever??  And what
about a man; i.e., could a man wear this cloak that has tzitzit on it, or
could no one wear it?

Joseph Kaplan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110713/6ce8691a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 01:46:57PM -0400, Joseph C. Kaplan wrote:
: I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. A woman would violate
: the issur of kli gever by wearing a cloak that is not a kli gever??

We still have a pardigm gap.

Simlas ishah can be violated by dying one's hair, plucking, etc.. It is
not an issur cheftzah.

Wearing tzitzis, when such is only done by men, could well be a violation
of keli gever. I said nothing about the cloak in that statement.

: And what about a man; i.e., could a man wear this cloak that has tzitzit
: on it, or could no one wear it?

Perhaps no one.

He can't wear the cloak, she can't wear the tzitzis.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

> Also, the ancient ruling that we lack the kevana to wear tefillin except
> when absolutely necessary was made regarding men.  Is there any
> authority that modern women are similarly disqualified?  I don't think
> this can be assumed, especially because women are on a higher  madrega
> than we are.

For a fascinating reason why women are except from various Mitzvos -
especially Tefillin, see the Hago'os Maimonyos on Hil. Tzitzis Ch.
3:9:[30]:

"Michal bas Shaul put on Tefillin... I also  found in the name of a
gadol that ... [women should not wear] Tefillin because of Erva -
because hair of a woman is Erva... so where ever there is a
possibility of doing an averia [while doing a Mitzva the women are
exempt] we don't let the women do the mitzva"

See there for the rest. It's in in Rambam in Vol 1. page 101 (2nd page 101)

- Danny


Danny Schoemann
Goldknopf 41/6, Ramat Shlomo, Jerusalem
++972-2-571 0181
LinkedIn profile: http://linkedin.com/in/doniels
The End Game: http://expertpjm.blogspot.com/

On 7/13/2011 6:02 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 12/07/2011 11:37 PM, garry wrote:
>> Since we know that women's understanding and so forth are superior to 
>> men's,
>
> What is this "and so forth"?  We know that women are (in principle and
> on average) superior to men in binah, but inferior in chochmah and da'at.
>
Superiority in Binah was the only item I could readily find a reference 
for.  I have read many times, though, that
women are naturally more modest than men are (in connection with Kavod 
hatzibur, for example) and that
they are on a higher madrega in general, hence requiring fewer rituals.

On 13/07/2011 3:13 PM, garry wrote:
> On 7/13/2011 6:02 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 12/07/2011 11:37 PM, garry wrote:
>>> Since we know that women's understanding and so forth are superior to men's,
>>
>> What is this "and so forth"? We know that women are (in principle and
>> on average) superior to men in binah, but inferior in chochmah and da'at.
>>
> Superiority in Binah was the only item I could readily find a reference for. I have read many times, though, that
> women are naturally more modest than men are (in connection with Kavod hatzibur, for example) and that
> they are on a higher madrega in general, hence requiring fewer rituals.

But what has that got to do with ability to concentrate, or to have a
guf naki?


-- 
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

                    
                

RDR wrote:
> I don't know of any experimental evidence, and I certainly don't think
> that people can eat more when they start the meal with fruit; in fact,
> since one of the cues the body uses to indicate satiety is the volume of
> food contained in the stomach, I would expect that fresh fruit make you
> eat less.

On the contrary, fruits will definitely stimulate the appetite. See
"Sugar triggers our reward-system. Sweets release opiates which
stimulates the appetite ..." at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15962882 , for example.

By the way, one answer to your natata devarekha leshi?rin is that we
perhaps follow rov people of today, but that means standards can
change from generation to generation. Ask the cook, he?l tell you what
is 'iqar and what is tafeil.

You also mentioned how you recognize that we eat differently nowadays.
So, tell me, how is a main dish of meat and potatoes and gravy ba
lelafeit et hapat? Should the main dish - according to your definition
- not also require a set of berakhot? Or perhaps this is evidence that
we do use a different definition, perhaps closer to RAM's?

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Meditating on the Tragedy in Japan
* Ode an das Pessachfest und den Fr?hling
* Denkmal an den deportierten l?rracher Juden
* Holiday Art
* Will the Judge of the Entire World Not Do Justice?
* When Theodicy Is No Theodicy

> Message-ID: <B219281258B84C96AD8692151AE97252@JKAPLAN>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> "> RZS: Are you suggesting that the mere presence of tzitzis on a garment, no
>> matter how feminine, is enough to render it "kli gever"?
>
> RMB: Why not? If my plucking gray hairs could be beged ishah..."
>
>
> Me: IOW, if a woman was wearing a cape that was clearly made for, and
> worn by, women only such that it would be an issur for men to wear it,
> if it was altered to have four corners it would still be a women's
> garment unless she put tzitzit on it which would then transform it
> into a beged ish which neither she nor a man could wear? Sounds
> strange to me.
>
> Joseph Kaplan
>
Several issues with RMB's point:
1) First, my understanding is that kli gever and kli isha only applies
to what is visible - eg, does not apply to undergarments, etc - the
essence of kli gever and kli isha is the public appearance as the
other sex.
Therefore, a talit katan with the tzitzit tucked in should not have
any issue of kli gever - which then  implies that the it is not the
tzitzit itself that is the problem.

2) RJK's example relates to a different example - in the discussion of
pants,some of the poskim who were mattir wearing pants - if the only
issue was kli gever, held that wearing specifically women's pants
removed the issue of kli gever.  The question is, for most things, not
the general category of garment - but the specific garment.

3)The issue of plucking grey hairs is an interesting example - and the
other one would be weapons, according to some.  The issue there,
however, isn't epidemiology - that they are used primarily by one sex
- but that intrinsic value of them is thought gender specific.  The
fact that the rambam discusses women wearing tzitzit shows that this
is not the case- and we are left only with epidemiology - and that has
very different rules.

Meir Shinnar

R' "garry" (hereafter: RG; who really owes us his last name, hint hint)
and R' Zev Sero (RZS) had a 10 part back and forth since I last moderated. I'm
trying to fold it into a single email, for space conservation reasons.

-micha

RG #1:

On 7/13/2011 12:34 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Superiority in Binah was the only item I could readily find a 
>> reference for. I have read many times, though, that
>> women are naturally more modest than men are (in connection with 
>> Kavod hatzibur, for example) and that
>> they are on a higher madrega in general, hence requiring fewer rituals.

> But what has that got to do with ability to concentrate, or to have a
> guf naki?

Wouldn't a higher madrega indicate a greater ability to concentrate on 
kedusha?  The guf naki is a different issue; that presumably was the 
same for Rashi's daughters as for women today.

RZS #1:

And who says Rashi's daughters ever put on tefillin.  We know of no woman
since Michal who did, and the chachamim didn't approve of her doing so.

RG #2:

Huh? I thought Eruvin says ??? ???? ?? ?????

RZS #2:

Yes, exactly.

RG #3:

You've lost me.  It says "v'lo".

RZS #3:

Yes.  That's my point.  What do you think it means?

RG #4:

They did not protest. What do you think it means?

RZS #4:

Just what it says.  They did not protest, which by definition means
there was something to protest over, i.e. they did not approve.

RG #5:

The fact that they did not protest shows that there was something to 
protest?  That seems quite a leap to me.  I would read it as "for those 
of you who think this is inappropriate, note that they did not protest."

What you're saying seems to be that it was wrong but they did not speak 
out about it?  Isn't that a severe failing that you're ascribing to the 
chachamim?

RZS #5:

If the chachamim approved it would have said so.

I fired off that compilation too soon!
-micha



On 7/13/2011 3:22 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> If the chachamim approved it would have said so.

RG #6:

So you are saying that the chachamim sinned. They saw an aveira and said 
nothing.

RZS #6:

Huh?  Now you're making no sense at all.  What aveira?

> RG #4:
> They did not protest. What do you think it means?

> RZS #4:
> Just what it says.  They did not protest, which by definition means
> there was something to protest over, i.e. they did not approve.

"Velo michu" is usually taken to mean that there was a hava amina
that something wrong was done, but the lack of actually protest
disproves it.

I gotta go with R' Garry on this -- the gemara is saying that the
chakhamim of David's generation did not find Mikhal bas Shaul's
tefillin wearing objectionable.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R' MS:
Several issues with RMB's point:
1) First, my understanding is that kli gever and kli isha only applies
to what is visible - eg, does not apply to undergarments, etc - the
essence of kli gever and kli isha is the public appearance as the
other sex.
<SNIP>
-------------------


to shave his body hair in an area in which it's a feminine thing to do, and
that, presumably, is even though he keeps his body covered in public.


KT,
MYG

On 13/07/2011 10:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> RG #4:
>> They did not protest. What do you think it means?
>
>> RZS #4:
>> Just what it says.  They did not protest, which by definition means
>> there was something to protest over, i.e. they did not approve.
>
> "Velo michu" is usually taken to mean that there was a hava amina
> that something wrong was done, but the lack of actually protest
> disproves it.

Who "usually" takes it that way?  How about the similar language "Ein
mochin beyadan"?  AFAIK that *always* means the conduct is not approved
of, but is not so bad that one must interfere with those who do it.
Generally it means there is a daas yachid who allows it, so those who
do it are not committing a clear issur, and should therefore be left alone.
It certainly doesn't mean that the objection is only a rejected hava amina!
So why would you think it means that here?


-- 
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 Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:03:59PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> "Velo michu" is usually taken to mean that there was a hava amina
>> that something wrong was done, but the lack of actually protest
>> disproves it.

> Who "usually" takes it that way? ...

It is the only way to understand the next amud (Eruvim 96b) which
uses "ishto shel Yonah haysah olah laregel velo michu bah" as a source
supporting the idea that nashim somekhos reshus. Clearly "velo michu bah"
is being taken as synoynymous with "reshus".

The Maharsha ad loc compares Mikhal's case with sitting in a sukkah,
that both are einah metzuvah ve'osah, but rpermittedeshus.

The Rosh is explicit "'velo michu bah chakhamim' -- peirush: uvirtzon
chakhamim hayah."

Also, I already mentioned the Qorban haEidah on the machloqes om
the Y-mi as to whether or not they stopped here. He explains the
machloqes as arguing about whether there is an issur.

The AhS (OC 38:6) dismisses this Bavli as proof that women in general
may wear tefillin on the grounds that the chakhamim of her time knew
she was a tzadeqes gemurah veyade'ah lehazhir, but as a general rule,
no. According to the AhS the gemara is saying what Mikhal was doing
was permitted -- but only for Mikhal.

R' Tzadoq (Liqutei Ma'amarim pg 129, 2nd par.) also takes the phrase to
mean it's mutar -- but says Mikhal's case was a hora'as sha'ah, and the
heter didn't persist.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 7/13/2011 10:03 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 13/07/2011 10:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> RG #4:
>>> They did not protest. What do you think it means?
>>
>>> RZS #4:
>>> Just what it says. They did not protest, which by definition means
>>> there was something to protest over, i.e. they did not approve.
>>
>> "Velo michu" is usually taken to mean that there was a hava amina
>> that something wrong was done, but the lack of actually protest
>> disproves it.
>
> Who "usually" takes it that way? How about the similar language "Ein
> mochin beyadan"? AFAIK that *always* means the conduct is not approved
> of, but is not so bad that one must interfere with those who do it.
> Generally it means there is a daas yachid who allows it, so those who
> do it are not committing a clear issur, and should therefore be left alone.
> It certainly doesn't mean that the objection is only a rejected hava amina!
> So why would you think it means that here?

What's your basis for equating the two phrases?  Etymology?  I don't 
think that's sufficient.  Seems to me that michu and mochin aren't even 
the same binyan.

In addition, consider Chazal on Chizkiyahu.  He did three things that 
the Sages michu bo and three things that lo michu bo.  And it's 
abundently clear that they didn't just reluctantly go along with the latter.

Lisa

On 13/07/2011 11:39 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>
> What's your basis for equating the two phrases?  Etymology?  I don't
> think that's sufficient.  Seems to me that michu and mochin aren't
> even the same binyan.

Sure they are.  They're the past and present tense forms of the exact
same word.

> In addition, consider Chazal on Chizkiyahu.  He did three things that
> the Sages michu bo and three things that lo michu bo.

Nope.  Check it again.  They didn't protest any of these things; but on
three of them "hodu lo" and on the other three "lo hodu lo", which I contend
means about the same thing as "lo michu"; the lashon "lo hodu" is because
it's contrasted with the other three which "hodu".

-- 
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 7/13/2011 8:20 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 13/07/2011 11:15 PM, garry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> So you are saying that the chachamim sinned. They saw an aveira and 
>>>> said nothing.
>>>>
>>> Huh?  Now you're making no sense at all.  What aveira?
>>>
>> If it was an aveira for a woman to put on tefillin, their silence 
>> would have also been an aveira.  So it seems you're saying (you're a 
>> bit laconic) that it was not an aveira for women to put on tefillin, 
>> but it was "protestable"?  Is that a halachic category?
>
> Whoever said anything about an avera?  I said that the chachamim did
> not approve.  And "velo michu bah" means exactly that.
>
I don't think you answered my question.  And velo michu bah means 
exactly that they did not object.


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 135
***************************************

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..."