Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 33

Wed, 27 Feb 2013

• 1. Re: Haman and Amaleik (Lisa Liel)
• 2. Re: Haman and Amaleik (Kenneth Miller)
• 3. Re: hilchot firecrackers (Kenneth Miller)
• 4. nashim and betulot (Simi Peters)
• 5. Re: How do Chabad deal with the Amen of Krias Shema (Kenneth Miller)
• 6. Re: nashim and betulot (Gershon Dubin)
• 7. Re: Haman and Amaleik (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: nashim and betulot (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: nashim and betulot (Gershon Dubin)
• 10. Re: Haman and Amaleik (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Haman and Amaleik (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Amen of Krias Shema (Jonathan Baker)
• 13. Re: partnership minyanim (Chana Luntz)
• 14. Re: nashim and betulot (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 15. Re: partnership minyanim (Kenneth Miller)

On 2/25/2013 10:34 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> 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.

I think that if Shaul had done his job properly, then yes, it would have 
been enough.

Lisa

Someone asked:
> if Eliyahu haNavi were to see a baby that happened to
> be from Amaleiq, he would be mechayev to kill her?

R' Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter answered:
> The mitzva is to destroy the entire nation.  He would not be
> obliged ... to kill him/her, unless, in so doing, he would be
> completing the destruction of the entire nation.

You seem to be saying that those who killed Haman, and those who killed his
sons, and those who killed other Amalekim of the day, did not fulfill a
mitzvah thereby, because there were other Amalekim still alive, and the
destruction of the nation was only partial.

If so, I'm curious where you get this. My guess is that you might be
getting it from the haftara about Shaul, who supposedly ignored the mitzvah
by allowing Agag to stay alive. But I would have thought that each Amaleki
is a separate mitzvah, and that Shaul DID fulfill the mitzvah with the
others he killed, but that he was m'vatel this one other mitzva.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/512cc1b145f3241b16c08st01vuc

R' Saul Newman wrote:

> http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-halacha-of
> -firecrackers-and.html
> i think every school across all denominational lines sends
> out warnings that  kids  will be expelled for use of
> products near/on school grounds etc.  i don't recall them
> emphasizing that an issur tora is involved

I am saddened to hear that anyone needs to emphasize that an issur tora is involved

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/512cc3202feff431f1101st02vuc

While it is clear that the original plan called for taking just betulot
(Esther 2:2-3), it seems from a later reference that the 'pekidim' who
circulated around grabbing women for the palace, did not hesitate to take
married women as well (Esther 2:17)--'mikol hanashim...umikol
habetulot...'.	Ahashverosh had absolute power and absolutely no scruples. 
In a society which viewed people as essentially dispensable, it's not hard
to see how one of his officers might hear about a beautiful woman and
simply take her in to the palace without worrying too much about her
status.  Consider that in the flood of women being shlepped to the harem,
Esther had no difficulty concealing her identity--it's not like they were
checking people's personal information on a computerized data base. 
Ahashverosh's paranoia about enemies may have been grounded partially in
the fact that he was taking women indiscriminately, married or not. 

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130226/77bf766d/attachment-0001.htm>

I asked:
> ... ,,, I'm just trying to understand those who say that Chazal
> established a Birkas Hamitzvah for Mitzvas Krias Shema, and
> that this bracha is known as Ahava Rabba (and Ahavas Olam).

R' Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter responded:
> The author of the above-quoted passage is probably not aware
> that Ovadia Yosef pasqns that women should not recite the
> full text of the benedictions preceding and following the Shma`
> (i.e., with God's name).  This implies that those benedictions
> are -- at least, according to Ovadia Yosef -- similar in nature
> to the benedictions attendant upon performing a mitzva (which,
> as we know, Sfardiyoth do not recite, when they perform mitzvoth
> -- like, e.g., reading the shma` -- that they are not obliged
> to perform).

Without me seeing Rav Yosef's reasoning, it is difficult to comment.
However, working just from what has been presented here -- namely, that ALL
of these benedictions are in the same category, and he does not seem to be
singling out the last one just prior to the Sh'ma -- I would suspect that
the problem has nothing to do with the Sefardic reluctance for women to say
a bracha on a mitzvah that they're exempt from, but to the larger Sefardic
reluctance about ANY bracha which is not a clear and direct obligation. The
most famous example of this might be their not saying Hagefen on the second
and fourth cups at the Seder. Similarly, if Rav Yosef is saying that women
should not say ANY of the brachos between Barchu and Amidah, then it is
more likely related to whether or not those brachos constitute a required
tefila, and less likely related to Shma itself.

As a side point, but very relevant: What does Rav Yosef say for a woman who
chooses to say Pesukei Dzimra? Does she say or omit Baruch Sheamar and
Yishtabach? Any why?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Banks Forced to Forgive Credit Card Debt
See how much of your debt could be settled!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/512cb73f94336373f0a3est04vuc

I was wondering something else.  How is it that Ahashverosh apparently
limited himself to one wife at a time;	his other appetites would have me
thinking that Vashti and then Esther were only "reishis ha 'harem' if
you'll excuse a Purim pun but that there were plenty more where they came
from? Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/512ce368a483b636859ccst02vuc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130226/6715743a/attachment-0001.htm>

You seem to be saying that those who killed Haman, and those who killed his
sons, and those who killed other Amalekim of the day, did not fulfill a
mitzvah thereby, because there were other Amalekim still alive, and the
destruction of the nation was only partial.

If so, I'm curious where you get this. My guess is that you might be
getting it from the haftara about Shaul, who supposedly ignored the mitzvah
by allowing Agag to stay alive. But I would have thought that each Amaleki
is a separate mitzvah, and that Shaul DID fulfill the mitzvah with the
others he killed, but that he was m'vatel this one other mitzva.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
IIRC R'YBS differentiated between a communal mitzvah to defend the Jewish
people and an individual mitzvah to wipe out descendants, but others said
that the whole mitzvah is only a communal one so I suppose then the
question is does some subset of the Jewish people in the diaspora with no
king qualify as a community for this purpose and does only having the
ability to wipe out some subset qualify as an attainment.
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.

On 26/02/2013 11:30 AM, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> I was wondering something else.  How is it that Ahashverosh apparently
> limited himself to one wife at a time;  his other appetites would have
> me thinking that Vashti and then Esther were only "reishis ha 'harem'
> if you'll excuse a Purim pun but that there were plenty more where they
> came from?


Of course.  That's explicit in the pasuk:  "Lo tavo od el hamelech,
*ki im chafetz bah hamelech venikre'ah veshem*".  And I don't think anyone
imagines that in the 30 days since he had last summoned Esther he had been
sleeping alone.


-- 
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 26/02/2013 11:30 AM, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> I was wondering something else.  How is it that Ahashverosh apparently
> limited himself to one wife at a time;  his other appetites would have
> me thinking that Vashti and then Esther were only "reishis ha 'harem'
> if you'll excuse a Purim pun but that there were plenty more where they
> came from?

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:40:12 -0500, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> Of course.  That's explicit in the pasuk:  "Lo tavo od el hamelech,
> *ki im chafetz bah hamelech venikre'ah veshem*".  And I don't think anyone
> imagines that in the 30 days since he had last summoned Esther he had been
> sleeping alone.

Lo savo od el hamelech is in context of the beauty contest. And my
imagination or anyone else's is not the issue; it's the mashma'us of
the pesukim that now that he had one killed he had to replace her.
He could have promoted from within; how do we know beyond what we
imagine what the situation was?

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:06:07PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: You seem to be saying that those who killed Haman, and those who killed
: his sons, and those who killed other Amalekim of the day, did not fulfill
: a mitzvah thereby, because there were other Amalekim still alive, and
: the destruction of the nation was only partial.

The Rambam (Melakhim 5:5) says the mitzvah is le'abeid zera Amaleiq.
And in Seifer haMitzvos (188), "lehakhris zera Amaleiq" alone from amongs
all the other descendents of Eisav, and he places it in the context of
yishuv EY and having a king. There he points us to Peirus haMishnayos
(Sotah 8) -- also about milkhemes mitzvah.

The Rambam doesn't seem to say there is a mitzvah outside the context of
war. But perhaps not all-or-nothing. (Between ibud via killing and ibud
of their Amaleiq identity via making geirei toshav and geirei tzedaq.)


: If so, I'm curious where you get this. My guess is that you might
: be getting it from the haftara about Shaul, who supposedly ignored the
: mitzvah by allowing Agag to stay alive. But I would have thought that
: each Amaleki is a separate mitzvah, and that Shaul DID fulfill the mitzvah
: with the others he killed, but that he was m'vatel this one other mitzva.

R' Reuvein Zeigler adapted an address by RALichtenstein to the YU Rabbanic
Alumni at <http://vbm-torah.org/archive/develop/06develop.htm>. This quote
is roughly what I remember seeing in Leaves of Faith vol II, perhaps someone
who owns a copy can compare. RAL argues that sparing Agag showed that Shaul
thought killing Amaleiq was moral, rather than an incomprehensible command
one must obey. And a king who thinks he can justify genocide is too dangerous
to keep in power. To quote the adaptation:

    after the massacre at Sabra and Shatila, I published an open letter
    to the Prime Minister.Among other things, this letter dealt with the
    use of force and the motivation behind it. I asked: Why was it that
    King Shaul was punished for not killing Agag, King of Amalek? Was it
    simply for not having killed the last remaining Amalekite? I suggested
    that he was punished not just for sparing Agag, but because the fact
    that he refused to kill Agag placed in a totally different light
    his killing of all the other Amalekites beforehand.

    Shaul had been commanded to take a whole people and kill them --
    and this is, morally, a frightful thing. The only justification lies
    in it being a response to an unequivocal divine command. Therefore,
    if Shaul had been motivated in his actions purely by fear of God,
    by obedience to the tzav, then he should have followed the command
    to the letter. God didn't say, "Kill Amalek but spare Agag." Now,
    if he didn't kill Agag but killed everybody else, what does that
    indicate? It indicates that what motivated him in killing the
    others was not the tzav of God, but rather some baser impulse, some
    instinctive violence. And the proof is that he killed everyone, but
    spared his peer, his royal comrade. If that is the case, then Shaul
    was not punished for sparing Agag: rather, he had to be punished
    because of the Amalekites he did kill! Why? Because he killed them
    not purely due to a divine command (which is the only thing that
    can overcome the moral consideration), but rather out of military,
    diplomatic or political considerations.

    Subsequently, I heard that a leading Religious Zionist rabbi in
    a prominent yeshiva had taken thirty minutes out of his Gemara
    shiur in order to attack what I had said. I called and asked him,
    "What did I say that merits this great wrath?" He replied, "I think
    it is a terrible thing to speak in this way, describing the divine
    command to destroy Amalek as asking a person to do something which
    ordinarily is not moral. This poses an ethical problem."

    I said to him, "Wiping out Amalek does not conform to what we would
    normally expect a person to do. Normally, you should not be killing
    'from child to suckling babe.' But I'm not saying, God forbid, that
    it is immoral in our case, where God has specifically commanded
    the destruction of Amalek -- 'A faithful God, without iniquity,
    righteous and upright is He' (Devarim 32:4). Although generally
    such an act would be considered immoral, it assumes a different
    character when God, from His perception and perspective, commands
    it. The same holds true of the akeida -- it demanded that Avraham
    do something which normally is immoral. But in the context of the
    divine command, surely it partakes of the goodness and morality of
    God. We must admit, though, that there is a conflict in this case
    between the usual moral norm and the immediate tzav given here."


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:36:36AM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: IIRC R'YBS differentiated between a communal mitzvah to defend the
: Jewish people and an individual mitzvah to wipe out descendants...

I would think that non-genetic, ie ideological Amaleiqim, are by
definition only the adults who actually promote that ideology. It wouldn't
become a command related to an entire ethnic group.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
> A number of times we've had repeats on list of the answering 
> or not answering Amen after ga'al Yisrael and before kri'at 
> sh'ma'.  
> =====================================
> Might like this brief audio summary

Ha, found what I was looking for.

From the Shabbat Echod, Lincoln Square Synagogue, 5 June 2010

MUSICAL NOTE by Cantor Sherwood Goffin
Amein Before Shema

Recently we have noticed that people are starting to say the bracha of
Habocher B'Amo Yisroel B'ahavah (before the recitation of the Shma)
together with the chazzan. This is actually the minhag of Sefardim and
some Ashkenazim who daven nusach Sefard - to complete the bracha with
the Chazzan, in order to avoid a dispute of the Rishonim about interrup-
ting between Birchos Krias Shema to answer Amein. Most Ashkenazim however,
as well as here at LSS, do finish before the Chazzan as usual, and answer
Amein to the Chazzan's bracha, which is the proper approach according
to the Arizal. Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Berurah 59:4, 61:3, Hagahos
Chasam Sofer, Shulchan Hatahor 60:2, Mishmeres Shalom Minhagim 11. One
should be aware that this is the preferred custom for our Ashkenazic
congregation - to finish the bracha before the chazzan does and answer
Amein to the bracha.

(Based on "Daily Halacha")

DAVEN WELL, DON'T TALK, BUT SING ALONG!

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjba...@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

RAE writes:

>Pesukei D'zimrah is not part of Tefilla BeTzibur. That starts either at
Yishtabach, or just after.

That is what Rabbi Barry Freundel disputes in the articles cited in the post
to which I responded, and uses this as his argument that partnership
minyanim are assur (partnership minyanim apparently have women leading
psukei d'zimra and kabbalat Shabbat).  As mentioned, in the process he
therefore has to assur common Sephardi minhagim relating to psukei d'zimra.

RMB then responds to RAE:

>I am not sure I get this "either"... The berakhah after Pesuqei deZimra
can't be more part of Tefillah beTzibbur than PdZ itself.

It's not, but see the Beis Yosef there in Orech Chaim siman 53 - bringing
those who say there needs not to be a hefsek between Yishtabach and the
kaddish afterwards and hence the Shach needs to get into position and say
Yishtabach to avoid any hefsek.

> Getting back to the original conversation... I assume those supporting
Partnership Minyanim would fully agree. They aren't talking about trying to
>change halakhah, but to put women at the amud for those parts of the siddur
that don't need a real chazan. In that sense, PdZ is less problematic than
>Maariv -- Maariv was minhag Yisrael and thus effectively not really a
reshus even before chasimas haShas.

>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?

It depends how seriously you are prepared to take the gemora's concept of
nachas ruach d'nashim.  Today's tendency is to trivialise and discount it -
but I don't think that is the gemora's approach or that of many rishonim.

But let?s start from the very beginning.

The gemora in Chagiga 16b is discussing the question whether [a man] when
doing smicha on a korban [as a man is clearly obligated to do] must do this
smicha with all his strength, or whether he should not.  And in the course
of that discussion a ma'aseh rav is brought where there was a korban to be
offered, and it was brought to the women's courtyard so the women could do
smicha on it ...

?? ???? ?????? ????? - ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????. ??? ???? ???? ????? ???
??? ????? - ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ????: ??
????? ??? ???. - ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???. ???? ???: ???? ??????. - ??
??? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???! ??? ??? ???: ??? ????
????; ??? - ????? ?????? ???, ????: ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????.

"not because leaning is obligatory for women but in order to give ?nachas
ruach? to the women. And if you would think that one needs leaning with all
one?s strength because of nachas ruach for the women would we [allow them to
do] work with kodshim [working with kodshim being a prohibition from the
Torah]?  Rather, derive from this that we do not [in the case of a man] need
with all one?s strength ? no, I can say to that we do need with all one?s
strength, and they said to them float your hands [ie they told the women not
to do leaning with all their strength, even though that is what the men were
doing]  - if so, [it was not necessary to explain that] it was not because
of leaning for women.  Let him [Rabbi Abba Elazar], explain that they did
not do leaning at all.  Rav Ami said, one and another thing, one, that they
did not do leaning at all and further, it was done to give nachas ruach to
women,"  

Now Tosphos's understanding of this is that while we posken like Rabbi
Yosi/Rabbi Shimon in the machlokus between them and Rabbi Meir/Rabbi Yehuda
whether or not women are permitted to do postive mitzvos dependent upon
time, this is only if allowing women to so do such mitzvos only involves (at
most) a breach of a d'rabbanan - as it does in the case of shofar, but not
if it involves a breach of a d'orisa - as it does in the case of doing
smicha on a korban.  Hence, while when it comes to shofar, a man will blow
solely for women (or allow women to blow solely for themselves) if they
haven't heard shofar on Rosh Hashana even if the man has himself fulfilled
the mitzvah and likewise he will carry a shofar to wherever a woman is so
she can hear it, even if he has heard it already  - even though all of these
actions involve breaching an issur d'rabbanan - all (according to Tosphos)
based on the concept of nachas ruach d'nashim - when it comes to something
that will involve a breach of a d'orisa, such as doing smicha with full
strength on a korban, then nachas ruach d'nashim does not go so far - but
what it does require/allow is for women to do something that approximates
the mitzvah, such as floating their hands on it, even though this is by no
means the mitzvah itself.

Now the Ra'avid at the beginning of Toras Kohanim has a different
understanding of this gemora.  While he ultimately poskens like Rabbi
Meir/Rabbi Yehuda that women *may not* do positive mitzvos dependent upon
time (ie clearly not the way we posken) based on other gemoras he explains
that this gemora indeed supports Rabbi Yosi/Rabbi Shimon ie:  According to
Rabbi Yosi/Rabbi Shimon who permit women to do smicha - that means full
smicha just like the men, and that has nothing to do with the concept of
nachas ruach d'nashim.  The second case in the gemora in Chagiga, where the
women were told to float their hands on the korban, was a case where it was
not their korban at all, it was their husband's korban, so that they really
had no shaychas to the korban, and no entitlement to get involved in it.
But because they felt connected to the korban, and felt it was kind of like
their korban, because of nachas ruach d'nashim it was important enough to
cause the Chachamim to bring the korban to the woman's courtyard (if the
korban had really been the woman's then she would have gone into the ezras
yisrael to to the smicha, so the bringing it out to the woman's courtyard is
another clue) and to have the women to float their hands on it.  

Ie  both Tosphos' and the Ra'avid's understanding of nachas ruach d'nashim
involves, as RMB puts it: "Yes, you can participate, but only if we can
prove your participation is in something that doesn't count?" - by floating
the hands in the women's courtyard, rather than by doing smicha in the ezras
Yisrael - and yet the Chachamim (possibly only, according to the Ra'avid,
Rabbi Yosi/Rabbis Shimon, whom we posken like, but perhaps even according to
everybody) clearly appear to believe that "this structure really satisfies
anyone's religious needs" - ie genuinely gave women something classified as
nachas ruach d'nashim and this was significant enough to disrupt the natural
course of the avodah.  Ie is only the circumstances in which this needs to
be invoked that changes.  According to Tosphos, if you only violate a
d'rabbanan by doing the "real thing" then that is what you do, and that is
the best form of nachas ruach d'nashim - while you only do these pseudo
rituals where otherwise you will trip over a d'orisa.  According to the
Ra'avid, nachas ruach d'nashim is where women have no shayches to the
mitzvah, and only then it is legitimate and appropriate to make up some sort
of pseudo ritual that will keep them happy.  The Ra'avid is concerned, given
that he poskens like Rabbi Meir/Rabbi Yehuda, to make sure there is no
zilzul or kilkul in the mitzvah - but even he holds that in circumstances
where there is no possibility of such zilzul or kilkul (the two cases he
brings are lulav and sukkah, without brochos) - even though such actions are
meaningless imitations of what the men do (since if you posken like Rabbi
Yehuda/Rabbi Meir there is no intrinsic value at all in any of these
actions), then there is no problem allowing these.

But both acknowledge, as would seem pretty straightforward from the gemora
(certainly if you do posken like Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon), that nachas
ruach d'nashim is a legitimate and genuine concept and that just because RMB
cannot understand how this "really satisfies anyone's religious needs" (as
yes, I understand a true Brisker would seem to struggle, but maybe this
shows some of the weaknesses of Brisk - that the fullest expression of the
Brisk position cannot in fact be reconciled with the gemora).  Ie the fact
that there might be more in heaven and earth than would appear to be dreamed
of in Brisk philosophy does not necessarily mean that such concepts do not
exist, but maybe rather points to some inherent errors in that philosophy.

>Tir'u baTov!
>-Micha

Regards

Chana

R? GD:
I was wondering something else.? How is it that Ahashverosh apparently
limited himself to one wife at a time;? his other appetites would have me
thinking that Vashti and then Esther were only "reishis ha 'harem' if you'll
excuse a Purim pun but that there were plenty more where they came from?
------------------------


Zeresh Ishto about his Rov Banav...

KT,
MYG

R"n Lisa Liel wrote:
> 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's exactly the thought I tried to disagree with when I wrote:
> Culture is insidious. It hijacks our attitudes and colors our
> emotions, and we don't even realize it.

I feel that RLL's analogy is flawed. A person got drunk voluntarily, and
then drove voluntarily. Those choices are one-shot events. In Rav Dessler's
terms, we might say that that average person's bechira-point is such that
he is expected to be able to make the right choice. But RLL speaks about "a
person who accepts outside cultural norms as being more important than
Jewish ones", while I maintain that most such people never made a conscious
decision about which norms are more important than the other. It happens
slowly, over a long time. Cultural influences pervade one's thoughts and
feelings, and a person gravitates towards certain ideas without even
realizing it, never deliberately choosing one over the other.

The idea of gender roles in Torah is very fuzzy. The genders have specific
obligations and prohibitions, and those are relatively easy to teach and to
learn, but attitudes and goals are much more difficult. Thus, even a person
who does accept Jewish norms as more important than those of the outside
culture, will be at a loss for what to do when these questions arise. So
when a person sees something generally done by the other gender, and
honestly wonders, "Can I do that?", the question does NOT automatically
demonstrate a disregard for Jewish values. It can be a real question,
asking to be educated about what Jewish values consider to be proper.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that the question is usually asked at a point
in life when this educational void is so large that it cannot be filled
easily or quickly. The question may be genuine, but the answer will usually
be too little and too late. It took years to learn about the outside
society's views on gender roles, and it will take even longer to learn the
Torah's views. The result is usually that people will accept whatever
halacha insists on, but for the rest they'll go their own way rather than
investigate what it is that the Torah would *prefer*. And thus are the
partnership minyanim born. Not from rebellion, and not from accepting
outside cultural norms. But from lack of knowledge of the Torah's norms.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/512d7a50b66047a506b00st03vuc


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


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 33
**************************************

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.)