Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 32

Tue, 26 Feb 2013

• 1. Re: Haman and Amaleik (Poppers, Michael)
• 2. Re: question on megillah (Poppers, Michael)
• 3. Date of Purim (Allan Engel)
• 4. Re: Date of Purim (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Date of Purim (Liron Kopinsky)
• 6. Re: Date of Purim (harchinam)
• 7. Re: Date of Purim (Simon Montagu)
• 8. Re: Date of Purim (Micha Berger)
• 9. re costumes on Purim (martin brody)
• 10. Re: Haman and Amaleik (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Haman and Amalek (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 12. Re: Date of Purim (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Date of Purim (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Date of Purim (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: partnership minyanim (Kenneth Miller)
• 16. partnership minyanim (Joseph Kaplan)
• 17. Re: partnership minyanim (Lisa Liel)

In Avodah V31n30, RZS wrote:
> IMHO, the chiyuv is to wipe out the memory of Amalek, and that has
> already been done.  There is no identifiable Amalek any more.  I don't
> think the fact (if it is one) that there are physical descendants
> still alive matters. There's no such nation any more; nobody remembers
> them except, ironically, from the Torah. <
Yet we're still bidden "zachor...al tishkach" (and, presumably, "keis-Kah"
has not yet been made whole, and "milchamah laH' baAmaleiq" still is
occurring "midor dor")! which implies that Amaleiq is still present among
us in some form (e.g. in the guise of those "b'chal-dor vador" who are
"omdim aleinu l'chaloseinu"), no?

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

In Avodah V31n30, RET wrote:
> We are all familar with the gemara that Mordecai was really Eshther's husband
> 1) The megillah stresses that they gathered Betulot
> 2) It seems inconceivable that the king would start taking wives from husbands - would led to a revolt
> 3) The search was in all 127 provinces - must have been millions of eligible women
> If so why was Esther in the competition? <
Who says they evidently lived as husband and wife?  Did they have a child? 
Perhaps they didn't publicize their relationship -- certainly one wouldn't
know of it from the M'gilah -- and so she was part of the qibbutz b'sulos. 

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

Does anyone address the issue of why Purim was instituted on the 14th (and
15th) of Adar, rather than the 13th, which was the proposed date (via the
Pur) of the planned destruction, and subsequently the date 'Asher Yishlettu
HaYehudim BeSon'eihem'?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130226/f95584d2/attachment-0001.htm>

On 25/02/2013 7:18 PM, Allan Engel wrote:
> Does anyone address the issue of why Purim was instituted on the 14th
> (and 15th) of Adar, rather than the 13th, which was the proposed date
> (via the Pur) of the planned destruction, and subsequently the date
> 'Asher Yishlettu HaYehudim BeSon'eihem'?

Yes, the megillah addresses it!  It's the day they celebrated, which was
after the war, not during it.  On the day of the war they fasted (or would
have, had they not been forbidden to because of pikuach nefesh); the next
day they feasted.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013, Allan Engel wrote:

> Does anyone address the issue of why Purim was instituted on the 14th (and
> 15th) of Adar, rather than the 13th, which was the proposed date (via the
> Pur) of the planned destruction, and subsequently the date 'Asher Yishlettu
> HaYehudim BeSon'eihem'?


Maybe if achashveiros had annulled the decree entirely, we would celebrate
the date of vnahafoch hu, but since we were forced to go to battle, we
celebrate the victory, not the battle itself. Maybe akin to the idea of not
saying Shira for kriyat yam sum?

Kol tuv,
Liron


-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130226/866deb66/attachment-0001.htm>

I'm not positive that I understand your question. It says right in the
megillah that the Jews fought on the 13th [14th in walled cities] and
rested the day after the battle. We are not celebrating the fighting, but
the fact that the Jews had wiped out their enemies [for the moment]. It
seems from what I have read in commentary on the Megillah that feasting
after a battle [won] was a common thing in ancient times.

*** Harchinam



On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Allan Engel <allan.en...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does anyone address the issue of why Purim was instituted on the 14th (and
> 15th) of Adar, rather than the 13th, which was the proposed date (via the
> Pur) of the planned destruction, and subsequently the date 'Asher Yishlettu
> HaYehudim BeSon'eihem'?
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130226/e17ee5fa/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Allan Engel <allan.en...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does anyone address the issue of why Purim was instituted on the 14th (and
> 15th) of Adar, rather than the 13th, which was the proposed date (via the
> Pur) of the planned destruction, and subsequently the date 'Asher Yishlettu
> HaYehudim BeSon'eihem'?
>
>
Isn't this explicit in the Megilla? "Kayamim asher *nahu* bahem hayehudim
meoy'vehem"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130226/7f77cd99/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:18:12AM +0000, Allan Engel wrote:
: Does anyone address the issue of why Purim was instituted on the 14th (and
: 15th) of Adar, rather than the 13th, which was the proposed date (via the
: Pur) of the planned destruction, and subsequently the date 'Asher Yishlettu
: HaYehudim BeSon'eihem'?

As others already answered, even from year one we chose the day we rested
after fighting, not the war. But I think RAE was asking for a sevara,
not a source.

The Ohr Sameiach (MC, Shemos 12:16, "yeveyom) finds this significant,
and he notes something similar about the date of Chanukah. "Binfol
oyivkha al tismach" and "maasei Yadai tov'im bayam" mean that we do not
make holidays celebrating war or their victories. Only the salvation we
gained in their aftermath.

R' Shelomo Al-Qabetz (Manor haLevi 9:20, "vayikhtov Mordekhai") writes
similarly -- Purim is on the day of deliverance, not the day of the war,
because "HQBH does not rejoice in the destruction of evil people."

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

"My granddaughter asked me yesterday where the use of costumes came to
be a MInhag on Purim. I  did not know the basis of the Purim custom.
Any suggestions?"

Yup. Probably Mardi Gras or the Italian version of it.1500's.

-- 
Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130225/85a00873/attachment-0001.htm>

On 25/02/2013 9:57 PM, Poppers, Michael wrote:
> In Avodah V31n30, RZS wrote:
>> IMHO, the chiyuv is to wipe out the memory of Amalek, and that has
>> already been done.  There is no identifiable Amalek any more.	I
>> don't think the fact (if it is one) that there are physical
>> descendants still alive matters. There's no such nation any more;
>> nobody remembers them except, ironically, from the Torah. <
> Yet we're still bidden "zachor...al tishkach" (and, presumably,
> "keis-Kah" has not yet been made whole, and "milchamah laH' baAmaleiq"
> still is occurring "midor dor")! which implies that Amaleiq is still
> present among us in some form (e.g. in the guise of those "b'chal-dor
> vador" who are "omdim aleinu l'chaloseinu"), no?

I don't think it really has that implication.  If Shaul or Yoav had done
their jobs properly, would that have been enough to make "keis kah" complete?
I don't think that's all it would have taken.  It's a necessary but insufficient
condition.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

The following claim was made: 

> The mitzva is to destroy the entire nation.  He would not be obliged
(assuming, arguendo, that he is alive, and thus obligated in mitzvoth)
to kill him/her, unless, in so doing, he would be completing the
destruction of the entire nation.<

     If the claim were true, fulfillment of the mitzva would never have
     been possible.  How could we ever have undertaken the task -- how
     could we have been  sure that there was no Amalekite surviving
     somewhere in the world?   

     However, it is not necessary to argue from reason.  The Chinuch
     explicitly states, "v'oveir al ze uva l'yado echad mizera Amalek,
     v'yeish sipeik b'yado l'horgo v'lo harago, biteil asei ze."

EMT

 .

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 04:28:47AM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
: The Ohr Sameiach (MC, Shemos 12:16, "[uvayom]") finds this significant,
: and he notes something similar about the date of Chanukah. "Binfol
: oyivkha al tismach" and "maasei Yadai tov'im bayam" mean that we do not
: make holidays celebrating war or their victories. Only the salvation we
: gained in their aftermath.

Back in May 2006, RJF wrote (I'm limiting myself to the part about the
MC on Purim and Chanukah, not the general recurring binfol debate)
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol17/v17n028.shtml#08>:

> I came across this shtickl in Meshekh Hakhmah [Shemos 12:16 sv. U'vayom
> Harishon Miqra Kodesh vGo'] who states the following: [paraphrased -jf]

>     ...That while other nations create a holiday and celebrate on the
>     day their enemies fell, it is not like that with Yisrael, for they
>     will not rejoce in the downfall of their enemies or celebrate a
>     holiday for that purpose, as it says Binfol Oyivkha al Tismakh vGo'
>     pen Yireh Hashem V'ra B'einav vGo', that a person who has refined
>     himself does not rejoice in the downfall of his enemies, because such
>     happiness is evil in the eyes of God, and this is the reason we don't
>     celebrate Pessah for on that day God punished the Egyptians, rather we
>     celebrate Pessah because on that day God took us out of Egypt, as for
>     the downfall of our enemies their is no Holiday and day for rejoicing.

>     ...And that is why on Hanukah the Holiday is celebrated for the
>     miracle of the oil and the reinstallation of the services in the Beis
>     HaMiqdash... and as the Military leaders were the kohanim, and to
>     avoid the possibility of their attributing the military victory to
>     their own strength rather than to divine providence, God performed
>     a miracle in the Heikhal, an area that was limited to the Kohanim,
>     so that they could clearly see his involvement in the miracles that
>     transpired, that these were not of natural causes.

>     ...And so by the Neis of Purim, the Holiday was established neither
>     on the day of Haman's hanging nor on the day that their enemies were
>     killed, as this is not a time for rejoicing for Yisrael, rather the
>     holiday of Purim was established on the day that they rested from
>     their enemies...

>     ...The Egyptians drowned on the 7th day of Pessah. Had God commanded
>     us later to keep the 7th day Miqra Kodesh, people may have thought
>     that this holiday was instituted in remembrance of the downfall of
>     evildoers, and in truth we find the opposite, that the angels did
>     not say Shirah, because HQBH is not happy in the downfall of the
>     evildoers. That is why it was specifically in Eretz Mitzrayim that
>     the 7th day was decreed to be Miqra Kodesh, prior to Qriyas Yam Suf,
>     to show that this holiday is not to celebrate their demise. And this
>     is clear in the Yalqut, that we don't recite Hallel after the first
>     day of Pessah because of Binfol Oyivkha al Tismah.

> AD KAHN DIVREI BA'AL HaMESHEKH HAKHMAH [paraphrased.]

> The Yad L'Hakhmah [notes printed on the MH in the MH Hashaleim] quotes
> the Divrei Sha'ul [RYS Natanzon ZT"L] who asks on the Meshekh Hakhmah and
> on the aforementioned Yalqut from the Gemara in Megilah where Mordechai
> told Haman that Binfol Oyivkha was only for Yisrael, and replies that
> perhaps there is a difference between a Yisrael and a non-Yisrael, when
> it is an individual. Should it be a group, Binfol Oyivkha al Tismakh
> would still apply [this Teirutz is the Yad L'Hakhmah's -jf].

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 26/02/2013 12:27 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> Maybe akin to the idea of not saying Shira for kriyat yam sum?

This again?  We *did* and *do* say shira for kriyat yam suf, and there is
no hava amina not to.  And we celebrate it on the day it happened, as they
did.   We celebrate Purim on the day our ancestors did, which is on the
day that the danger was past and they were *able* to celebrate; not while
the battle was raging and nobody knew who would win.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 04:42:28AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 26/02/2013 12:27 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
>> Maybe akin to the idea of not saying Shira for kriyat yam sum?

> This again?  We *did* and *do* say shira for kriyat yam suf, and there is
> no hava amina not to...

We do not say Hallel, which was clearly what was intended.

Arguing with the Meshekh Chokhmah and the author of Lekha Dodi (just
to name the two I already cited) requires more than a rhetorical "this
again?" to make your point.

Again, there is a list of mar'eh meqomos culled from previous iterations
at <
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/07/compassion-for-our-enemies.shtml>
.
What you take as self-evident is against the Pesiqta deR' Kaahane, against
the Yalqut who quotes it, against the Perishah, against the Shibolei
haLeqet, the BY, the Taz, the Kaf haChaim, the Netziv, and others.

No matter how tightly you cherish your understanding, it is NOT the one
that we actually found in the sources. Repeating it again in a tone
as though someone is wrong to ignore your preference in favor of the
well-established doesn't actually prove your point.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Meir Shinnar wrote:

> One could devise specific public roles for women as distinct
> from men, but the most natural (and conservative) one is to
> adopt those public roles for men for which there is no
> halachic impediment - and that is what Partnership minyanim
> aim to do. ... the need that drives it is not a rejection of
> gender roles per se - but a commitment to halacha as
> something more than meaningless rules ...

I agree that there is no deliberate and conscious rejection of gender
roles, but this is only because it is a fait accompli. Our society has
(almost) completely rejected gender roles. It is my opinion that when a
person asks, "Why can't I do that?" it is not meant as a *deliberate*
rebellion, but the question reveals the inner emotions: The starting point
was a declarative "I ought to be able to do that", rather than an
inquisitive "Should I want to do that?"

Culture is insidious. It hijacks our attitudes and colors our emotions, and
we don't even realize it. I have previously remarked that the modern age
has so thoroughly demonized slavery that it is difficult for us to imagine
what the authentic Torah views on it were.

Gender is not the only area where Bnei Yisrael has been divided, and given
specific roles. I have often read and heard that it is the role of the
Leviim (and their elite, the Kohanim) to be the teachers. When did this
change?

That may sound like a Purim question, but I mean it quite seriously. The
gemara allows all the shevatim to learn Torah, and even to achieve great
heights in Torah, to the point where a mamzer talmid chacham gets more
kavod than a Kohen Gadol am haaretz. But that only concerns personal
achievement (not unlike a woman who can learn as much as she wants.) When
did it become acceptable for non-Leviim to be the *teachers*? Was there any
discussion about it at the time?

Another data point: Yehuda is supposed to be the leadership, and I recall
some cases where others took leadership and were sharply criticized for it.
(Chanukah comes to mind, but I must apologize for lack of details. History
is my weak point, and I hope others can fill in the blanks.)

I would add here that anyone can be a navi. But the role of a navi is quite
distinct from politics. I would concede that his role is similar to
teaching, but I'd suggest that if the Levi's world is what we would call
book-learning, then that frees up real-world learning for the Navi to
teach.

I'd like to see some discussion from those many listmembers whose grasp of history is stronger than mine, about these other role divisions.

When I see a non-Levi teaching Torah, has he usurped the Levi's role?
If he has NOT usurped the Levi's role, then what is the distinction?
If he HAS usurped the Levi, what is the justification for doing so?
If there is a justification, is it something that might be relevant for women vis-a-vis men's roles?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/512cb3e9b584e33e94e8ast03vuc

"Which then makes me wonder if and why this structure really satisfies
anyone's religious needs. To be told: Yes, you can participate, but only if
we can prove your participation is in something that doesn't count?"

 

The "if" is answered by the growing popularity of such minyanim, especially
on college campuses.  The "why"?  Well, you'd have to ask the participants.
I have.  And some have answered that while it "might not count" from a
strict halachic analysis (though I think the wording "not count" doesn't
really capture the actual concept), it "counts" as far as participating in
an active way in shul davening which, together with layning, aliyot, giving
drashot and having a mechitzah down the middle of the shul, has turned them
observers into participants.  (Which is why I enjoyed the comment in the
Jewish Week's Purim edition about  Agudah upgrading the status of women to
non-member observers.)

 

Joseph 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130226/1ac9fd37/attachment-0001.htm>

On 2/26/2013 7:07 AM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> R' Meir Shinnar wrote:
>    
>> One could devise specific public roles for women as distinct
>> from men, but the most natural (and conservative) one is to
>> adopt those public roles for men for which there is no
>> halachic impediment - and that is what Partnership minyanim
>> aim to do. ... the need that drives it is not a rejection of
>> gender roles per se - but a commitment to halacha as
>> something more than meaningless rules ...
>>      
> I agree that there is no deliberate and conscious rejection of gender
> roles, but this is only because it is a fait accompli. Our society has
> (almost) completely rejected gender roles. It is my opinion that when
> a person asks, "Why can't I do that?" it is not meant as a
> *deliberate* rebellion, but the question reveals the inner emotions:
> The starting point was a declarative "I ought to be able to do that",
> rather than an inquisitive "Should I want to do that?"
>    

Yes and no.  It's kind of like driving under the influence.  If you do 
and you hit something, you may have hit it without volition, but you got 
drunk voluntarily.  In this case, a person who accepts outside cultural 
norms as being more important than Jewish ones will naturally, without 
deliberation, think, "I ought to be able to do that."  But choosing 
those norms over Jewish ones is a choice.  Certainly for those who have 
any sort of Torah upbringing.  I'm not speaking of tinokot she'nishb'u, 
if that's what Conservative and Reform Jews are, but of people who are 
raised Orthodox and opt for so-called partnership minyanim anyway.

> That may sound like a Purim question, but I mean it quite seriously.
> The gemara allows all the shevatim to learn Torah, and even to achieve
> great heights in Torah, to the point where a mamzer talmid chacham
> gets more kavod than a Kohen Gadol am haaretz. But that only concerns
> personal achievement (not unlike a woman who can learn as much as she
> wants.) When did it become acceptable for non-Leviim to be the
> *teachers*? Was there any discussion about it at the time?
>    

I would assume that since Moshe Rabbenu's first talmid, who received the 
Torah directly from him, was from Shevet Ephrayim, that this was never a 
question at all.

> Another data point: Yehuda is supposed to be the leadership, and I
> recall some cases where others took leadership and were sharply
> criticized for it. (Chanukah comes to mind, but I must apologize for
> lack of details. History is my weak point, and I hope others can fill
> in the blanks.)
>    

Yehuda is the king.  There are different forms of leadership, and 
kingship is only one of those.  Yosef had a form of leadership as well.


> When I see a non-Levi teaching Torah, has he usurped the Levi's role?
> If he has NOT usurped the Levi's role, then what is the distinction?
> If he HAS usurped the Levi, what is the justification for doing so?
> If there is a justification, is it something that might be relevant for women vis-a-vis men's roles?
>    

I can't see how it would be, since no justification was ever required 
for non-Levi'im teaching Torah.  And ultimately, there's nothing wrong 
with women teaching Torah either.  That's not even at issue here.  The 
issues are serara (which I don't think is an insuperable problem) and 
eidut (which is a bit more of one) and being poretz geder in the 
acceptance of external norms, particularly at a time when they are 
aggressively trying to replace ours.

Lisa


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 32
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)