Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 100

Sun, 22 Jul 2012

• 1. Nacheim (Ben Waxman)
• 2. Re: Yael [was: The Main Idea of Judaism] (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Showering During the Nine Days (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: O(n^2) algorithm for matrix multiplication (Akiva Miller)
• 5. R Elyashiv (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (hankman)
• 7. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: Yael [was: The Main Idea of Judaism] (Chana Luntz)

What is the halachic objection to changing the text of Necheim on Tisha 
B'Av?

Ben

 

From: "Chana Luntz" _Ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk_ 
(mailto:Ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk) 


>>  Thus my reading of the situation is that she willingly accepted upon  
herself
a detriment, zuhuma, not the usual benefit that comes with the act  of
relations.  But the only reason she was even aware of zuhuma was  because 
she
was such a tzadekes (as the gemora and midrash makes clear when  discussing
it in relation to her).  That is, for somebody on her  spiritual level, it
was an additional disincentive to have relations, and  hence part of what
made the act so clearly lishma - because there was and  could be no ulterior
motive in Yael's mind, knowing that she would get no  benefit from the
encounter 

....And so similarly is this in Yael's  head - if she had intended to have
pleasure/benefit from Sisera, she would  have been guilty of an averah
b'mazid.  But her act was not shogeg (she  did not forget that adultery was
assur, or have it happen thinking that he  was her husband when he wasn't),
nor was it mesasek, she intended the act to  occur.  Thus the gemora
characterised it as an averah, but an averah  lishma.  <<
 

Shavuah Tov

Chana

 
 
>>>>>
 
I would like to point out a couple of things here that may be  relevant:
 
[1] First of all, the text does not say that Yael had relations with  
Sisra.  Maybe that's implied in the pesukim but it is not stated.  I  think that 
there are differing opinions about whether she did or did not.   The fact 
that it is not explicit might argue in favor of saying that the navi  wanted 
to cover up what she did because her intention was good and the end  result 
(the demise of Sisra) was good, so her aveira -- if she did actually  have 
relations with Sisra -- is covered up.  Could be not to shame  her, since she 
was a tzadekes, or could be because it really was a sin and  normatively, 
the navi did not want people to read this story and conclude that  it is 
halachically permissible for a married woman to "give" herself to a  man in order 
to save Klal Yisrael.   (It may be for similar  reasons that Esther's 
marriage to Mordechai is not mentioned in the megillah, if  in fact she was 
married to him -- about which there seems to be some  dispute.)
 
 
[2] Second of all, there is disagreement as to whether Yael was even Jewish 
 or not.  She was a descendant of Yisro and there are meforshim that say  
Yisro's descendants were Jewish (they're called gerim even though in modern  
parlance we wouldn't refer to the descendants of gerim as gerim).  Others  
say his descendants were not Jews but were allied with the Jews.  And some  
say that some of Yisro's descendants were Jews and some were not.  So  Yael's 
Jewish status is a matter of doubt.   If she was not Jewish,  she was still 
a tzadekes -- everybody agrees about that.  Bnai Noach are  forbidden to 
commit adultery, but it is possible that the halacha is less strict  for bnai 
Noach who commit an aveira lishma, as Yael did.  (If she  did.  See [1])
 

--Toby  Katz
=============
Romney -- good  values, good family, good  hair


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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120722/d8db216d/attachment-0001.htm>

Here is a link to this article: 
"<http://ohr.edu/holidays/tisha_bav/law_and_ritual/5228>Showering 
During the 9 
Days?!"  (http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4851 ) by 
Rabbi Yehuda Spitz.

For any questions, comments or for the full Mareh Mekomos / sources, 
please email me at <mailto:ysp...@ohr.edu>ysp...@ohr.edu.


YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120722/2eebe0e3/attachment-0001.htm>

R' David Cohen wrote:
> Yishuvo shel olam aside, I also see inherent value in
> learning math: it is truth.  We learn Torah because it is
> revealed truth, and some of us study science because it is
> another reflection of the ways of Hashem, who is truth. The
> laws of math are objectively true, independent of their
> mapping onto the physical world.

R' Daniel Israel added:
> Certainly this would then apply to the sciences ... I'm
> curious if you would say this about humanities. The truths
> they expose are of an altogether different type.  And art,
> which doesn't generate truth, does help "fill out" all the
> potentialities of HaShem's creation.

In strong support of both of these views, I cannot help but quote the words
of Rav Joseph B Soloveitchik in "The Lonely Man Of Faith". (For those who
are unfamiliar with this work, I will give a too-brief introduction to two
terms he uses throughout it: "Adam the first" and "Adam the second" --
mankind as described by Bereishis 1 and Bereishis 2 respectively.)

--- the last three paragraphs of Chapter 1 begin here ---

Hence, Adam the first is aggressive, bold, and victory-minded. His motto is
success, triumph over the cosmic forces. He engages in creative work,
trying to imitate his Maker (imitatio Dei). The most characteristic
representative of Adam the first is the mathematical scientist who whisks
us away from the array of tangible things, from color and sound, from heat,
touch, and smell which are the only phenomena accessible to our senses,
into a formal relational world of thought constructs, the product of his
"arbitrary" postulating and spontaneous positing and deducing. This world,
woven out of human thought processes, functions with amazing precision and
runs parallel to the workings of the real multifarious world of our senses.
The modern scientist does not try to explain nature. He only duplicates it.
In his full resplendent glory as a creative agent of God, he constructs his
own world and in mysterious fashion succeeds in controlling his environment
through manipulating his ow
 n mathematical constructs and creations.

Adam the first is not only a creative theoretician. He is also a creative
aesthete. He fashions ideas with his mind, and beauty with his heart. He
enjoys both his intellectual and his aesthetic creativity and takes pride
in it. He also displays creativity in the world of the norm: he legislates
for himself norms and laws because a dignified existence is an orderly one.
Anarchy and dignity are mutually exclusive. He is this-worldly-minded,
finitude-oriented, beauty-centered. Adam the first is always an aesthete,
whether engaged in an intellectual or in an ethical performance. His
conscience is energized not by the idea of the good, but by that of the
beautiful. His mind is questing not for the true, but for the pleasant and
functional, which are rooted in the aesthetical, not the noetic-ethical,
sphere.

In doing all this, Adam the first is trying to carry out the mandate
entrusted to him by his Maker who, at dawn of the sixth mysterious day of
creation, addressed Himself to man and summoned him to "fill the earth and
subdue it." It is God who decreed that the story of Adam the first be the
great saga of freedom of man-slave who gradually transforms himself into
man-master. While pursuing this goal, driven by an urge which he cannot but
obey, Adam the first transcends the limits of the reasonable and probable
and ventures into the open spaces of a boundless universe. Even this
longing for vastness, no matter how adventurous and fantastic, is
legitimate. Man reaching for the distant stars is acting in harmony with
his nature which was created, willed, and directed by his Maker. It is a
manifestation of obedience to rather than rebellion against God. Thus, in
sum, we have obtained the following triple equation: humanity = dignity =
responsibility = majesty. 

--- end of excerpt from "The Lonely Man Of Faith" ---

It seems clear to me that Rav Soloveitchik puts great value in our study of
the sciences, and even of the arts, as RDC and RDI wrote above. The part
that is not so clear to me is *how much* value it has, and the *nature* of
that value.

Specifically, I think that the Rav could be understood as simply describing
human nature, that is, the drives which we innately have, and which were
put into us as part of Creation. But it could be more: When we exercise
those drives, we fulfill the command to (as he translated it) "fill the
earth and subdue it."

If so, then the search for an "O(n^2) algorithm for matrix multiplication"
is not merely an enjoyable and stimulating pastime, but it is (or can be) a
fulfillment of our role in creation. My remaining questions are:

- whether "our role" in this context refers to humanity in general or Jews in particular,
- whether this fulfillment is of a chiyuv or a mitzvah,
- whether one has accomplished this even when done for personal reasons, or whether one needs to have higher kavanos in mind.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/500c07d4920d7d34113st51vuc

the best zchut for a TC is to quote something in his name.
I saw something in "Alenu LeShabeach" that is appropriate also for this
season

In a certain class one boy had a stutter and the other boys(no age given)
 continually made fun of him. He begged them to stop but the hazing
continued (R Zilberstein wondered where were the rabbeim). It got so bad
that eventually the boy was admitted to a mental institution with no hope
of recovery. At this stage the other boys felt bad and went to R. Elyashiv
with the question of what they could do now. R. Elyashiv answered that it
was too late and the only thing to be done was to wait until after 120
years and ask for mewchilla at his kever (he said that there can be no
mechilla while he is alive). Thus, the boys will have to carry this on
their conscience all their lives.

R. Zilberstein explains that it is similar to one who puts his hand in a
fire and tells the doctor it wasnt done on purpose - doesnt matter.
Similarly the damage they did by their taunts cannot be forgiven and the
motive is immaterial. R. Zilberstein stresses that we see from this the
great importance of not insulting someone else and treating everyone no
matter what his faults with dignity

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120722/7d9fea2f/attachment-0001.htm>

: Why should there be a central message? The Abarbanel (in Rosh 
: Amana IIRC) denies that Judaism has ikkarim, and I think one can argue 
: plausibly that Western ethical theorists have gone wrong partly because 
: they spend too much effort looking for single unifying principles.

CM notes:
If memory serves, the Abarbanel?s point is that every part of Torah is
important in the sense that even disbelief in one letter makes you an
apikores. In this sense each letter is equally ?important? but this does
not need to contradict the notion that there is a central theme to Judaism.

The above unnecessarily conflates the notion of ?main theme? with most important ? not necessarily the same.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120722/dacdd936/attachment-0001.htm>

RCL:
> if such an explanation was normative, then you would have expected a 
> qualification of this nature to be included in the Tur, Beis Yosef, 
> Shulchan Aruch etc, but they are not. 

Really? See BY YD 157 s.v. "Kasvu haTosafos V'haRan" (p. 346 in the Arba 
Turim HaShalem edition) and Hagahos Mayymoniyos Yesodei HaTorah 5 S.K. 2.

[Email #2. -micha]

RCL:
> <<The gemora states, point blank, that a husband is responsible for 
> physical injury to his wife during tashmish because he does the act, 
> not her. No ifs not buts, nor maybes.>>

Again, I point you to Rabbi Heller, who translates "d'ihu" as "if he alone".

> <<And that is how it is brought down in the codes>>

See the citations (fruit of about ten minutes search) in my previous 
post.  "divrei Torah aniyyim b'makom ehad v'ashirim b'makom aher"; they 
would not necessarily make the same point multiple times.

For simplicity I'll repeat myself:

See BY YD 157 s.v. "Kasvu haTosafos V'haRan" (p. 346 in the Arba Turim 
HaShalem edition) and Hagahos Mayymoniyos Yesodei HaTorah 5 S.K. 2.

> <<My understanding of what the gemora is saying is that women do not, 
> as a matter of fact, do an act in the course of tashmish, as the 
> gemora understands the term act ie ma'aseh. Ie it is *not possible* 
> for a woman to do an act in the course of tashmish.>>

And this leads you into incredible contortions.  How can a woman be 
guilty of adultery without doing a ma'aseh? You claim it depends on her 
state of mind.  Whereas if under normal circumstances she does a 
ma'aseh, it's easy to define adultery, and only the exceptional cases 
are hard.

<<no[t] the Tosphos on the page in Baba Kama (32a) d"h ihu k'avid 
ma'aseh: "v'mahu l'inyan chatas ul'inyan malkos chayaves d'rachmana 
achshive l'hana'ah ma'aseh" Not that it really is a ma'aseh, but that it 
is equated for the purpose of chatas and malkos etc>>

Well, yes; it fits perfectly well under R. Heller's translation of 
"d'ihu" as "if he alone".

<<But if there are two independent loopholes, that would seem to mean 
that not only is a woman not liable if she is coerced, she is not liable 
if she is passive (whatever that means) even if not coerced.  So if you 
take this ukimta, assuming that I have understood it correctly, and 
differentiate between a woman who decides to lie back and think of 
England, and one who takes physical pleasure from the act, you appear to 
end up with the startling proposal that a woman who is caught in the act 
of adultery, where it is agreed by all that she was not coerced, can 
exempt herself from the death penalty by demonstrating (or perhaps even 
merely asserting) that she was passive and didn't find the act 
pleasurable.>>

It's very easy to exempt oneself from the death penalty.  When the eidim 
give hasra'ah you just say: "I don't believe that this is a capital 
crime", or, alternatively, you go off and do something else so there's a 
hefsek between the hasra'ah and the ma'aseh.  It is a general feature of 
halacha that death penalties are practically impossible to implement 
except against a suicidal criminal.

<<As is mesasek - if the person never intended to do the act at all. But 
at least one understanding is that the act it still a form of averah, 
that of being mechalel shabbas, but the person is completely patur, 
because they never intended the act.>>

I'm unfamiliar with this opinion.  What's the source? How does he deal 
with "m'leches mahsheves asrah Torah"?

<<And so similarly is this in Yael's head - if she had intended to have 
pleasure/benefit from Sisera, she would have been guilty of an averah 
b'mazid. But her act was not shogeg (she did not forget that adultery 
was assur, or have it happen thinking that he was her husband when he 
wasn't), nor was it mesasek, she intended the act to occur. Thus the 
gemora characterised it as an averah, but an averah lishma.>>

I haven't said this explicitly before, but I think you are translating 
"aveirah" incorrectly.  In the context of our gemara it means, not sin, 
but sex outside of marriage.  For example, the gemara uses it for Zimri, 
and while there's an issur hasnus for the 7 nations, is there an issur 
b'ilah for a Moabite (who is not even one of the seven nations)? Unless, 
of course, you hold like the Rambam that any extramarital relation 
constitutes an issur of znus.

<<But it is all about intent, it is the intent that in circumstances 
where two halachic principles clash which makes the overriding of one 
for the sake of the other mutar.>>

I think this is the confusion you get into by denying that women 
normally do a ma'aseh during tashmish.

David Riceman

RTK writes:

 

>I would like to point out a couple of things here that may be relevant:

 

>[1] First of all, the text does not say that Yael had relations with Sisra.

 

I think it is also important, in order to follow the conversation between
myself and RDR, to understand that we are not commenting on the actual Nach
text at all, but solely on three gemoras, which for completeness I reproduce
below:

 

????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ? ???? ?

??? ?? ???? ?? ????: ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????, ?????:
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500000021500000000100240000%22)> +?????? ?+
????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????, ??? ????? ???? ????? ???,
????, ??? ????. ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??:
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0301900002500000000500000000,030190000530000
0000500000000,0302500094300000002100000000%22)> ????? ????? ??? ????? ??????
????? ??? ????, ????? ??? ???? ?? ????! ????: ????? ??? ????. ??? ??? ?????:
??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???, ?????:
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500000021500000000100270000%22)> +?????? ?+
??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???'. ??? ?? ??????? ??????! ??? ??? ????? ???? ???
????? ?? ?????: ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??????

Talmud Bavli Horayos 10b

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: greater is an averah lishma than a mitzvah
shelo lishma as it says  (Shoftim 5:24) ?blessed above women is Yael wife of
Chaver HaKini above women are in the tent she shall be blessed?, Who are
these women who are in the tent Sarah, Rivkah, Rochel and Leah.  And is this
so,  Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, indeed a person should engage in
Torah and mitzvos even shelo lishma, and through this lo lishma he will come
to lishma. So say, [an averah lishma] is like a mitzvah which is lo lishma.
Rav Yochanan said: seven beilos boel that rasha in that hour as it says
(Shoftim 5:27) between her legs he bent, he fell, he lay etc.  But she
benefited/derived pleasure from the averah?  Rav Yochanan said in the name
of Rav Shimon ben Yochai even the good of the rashaim is bad to the
tzadikim.

 

????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?

??? ?"? ?? ????: ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????. ????? ?? ????? ??? ??:
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0301900005300000000500000000%22)> ?????
????? ??? ????? ?????? ???' ??? ????, ????? ??? ???? ?? ????! ??? ????:
????? ??? ????, ?????:
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500000021500000000100240000%22)> +?????? ?+
????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ?????? ???, ????,
??? ????. ?"? ?????: ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???, ?????:
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500000021500000000100270000%22)> +?????? ?+
??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???'. ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????! ?"? ?????: ?? ?????
?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??????, ?????:
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500000003000000000100290000%22)> +??????
??+ ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??, ????? ?? - ????, ??? ??? ???? ??? ???
??? ?"?: ????? ??? ???, ?"?. 

 

Talmud Bavli Nazir 23b

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: greater is an averah lishma than a mitzvah
shelo lishma. But did not Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, indeed a
person should engage in Torah and mitzvos even shelo lishma, and through
this lo lishma he will come to lishma. So say, [an averah lishma] is like a
mitzvah which is lo lishma, like it is written (Shoftim 5:24) ?blessed above
women is Yael wife of Chaver HaKini above women are in the tent she shall be
blessed?, Who are these women who are in the tent Sarah, Rivkah Rochel and
Leah.  Rav Yochanan said: seven beilos boel that rasha in that hour as it
says (Shoftim 5:27) between her legs he bent, he fell, he lay etc.  But she
benefited/derived pleasure from his beila?  Rav Yochanan said even the good
of the rashaim is bad to the tzadikim as it says (Breishis 31:29) guard
yourself from speaking with Ya?akov either good or bad, bad is understood,
but good, why not? Rather derive from this, his good is bad, indeed derive
it.

????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?-?

??? ??? ?????: ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????, ?????: +
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500000021500000000100270000%22)> ?????? ?'+
??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????. ??? ?? ??????
??????! ??? ??? ????? ???? ?"? ?? ????: ?? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ??????,
???': + <javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500000003000000000100240000%22)>
?????? ?"?+ ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??, ????? ?? ????, ??? ??? ????
??? ??? ?"?: ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??????. ????? ??? - ???? ???? ???
??? ?????? ??????, ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?????, ??"? ?????: ????
??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????, ????? ????? ?? ?? ???? - ???? ??????, ?????
?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? - ?? ???? ??????. 

 

 Talmud Bavli Yevamos 103a-b

Rav Yochanan said: seven beilos boel that rasha in that hour as it says
(Shoftim 5:27) between her legs he bent, he fell, he lay, between her feet
he bent, he fell where he bent there where he fell he lay.  But she
benefited/derived pleasure from the averah? Rav Yochanan said in the name of
Rav Shimon ben Yochai even the good of the rashaim is bad to the tzadikim as
it says (Breishis 31:29) guard yourself from speaking with Ya?akov either
good or bad, bad is fine, but good, why not? Rather derive from this, the
good of the rashaim are bad to the tzadikim, it is fine there because
perhaps [Lavan] would mention to him the name of his idol, but here, what
bad is here?  Because he sent into her zuhuma, as Rav Yochanan said:  in the
hour in which the nachas came on Chava, he put into her zuhuma, when Israel
stood at Har Sinai ? their zuhuma finished, ovdei cochavim who did not stand
at Har Sinai ? their zuhuma did not finish

 

>  Maybe that's implied in the pesukim but it is not stated.  I think that
there are differing opinions about whether she did or did not. ... Second of
all, there is disagreement as to whether Yael was even Jewish or not. 

 

So what is in the actual text of the Nach is irrelevant, as is the other
opinions (which indeed RDR brought from the Yalkut Shimoni).

 

The key thing we are discussing is that the gemora, in three places, defines
there as being a concept of ?averah lishma?, and then goes on to bring Yael,
as understood by Rav Yochanan (ie the opinion that indeed she did have
relations with Sisera), as being the example par excellence of somebody who
did an averah lishma.  So whether or not Yael actually did have relations is
basically irrelevant to the attempt to understand the concept the gemora
brings of an averah lishma.   What we have is a definition of an averah
lishma, a prime example of which is somebody behaving like a Jewish Yael
like character having relations with a non Jewish Sisera like character? and
from there the gemora believes we can best understand what is being meant by
an averah lishma.    

 

So the question of whether or not the Navi covered something up is
irrelevant to the discussion, as is any question as to whether Yael was
Jewish or not.  The gemora is trying to teach the concept of an averah
lishma.  Now when RDR argued that there could not be a forbidden act, that
with intention could be turned into a permitted act, I said to him, how
about the concept of an averah lishma?  And he argued that this did not fit
the category of a forbidden act which with intention could be turned into a
permitted act (for reasons that I still fail to understand).  But in order
to argue the case, we have needed to argue the parameters of what is really
an averah lishma, and that means we have to discuss Yael, but only in the
form that the gemora, in discussing averah lishma assumes her to have acted,
otherwise we are not fleshing out the concept of an averah lishma.  You can
quite happily believe Yael never touched Sisera, and indeed was not Jewish,
but that belief will not help you understand what the gemora means by the
concept of an averah lishma.

 

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



Regards



Chana

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120722/c351f545/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 100
***************************************

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..."