Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 12

Tue, 21 Jan 2014

• 1. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Daf Yomi raises doubts about the mesora (Kenneth Miller)
• 3. Re: Daf Yomi raises doubts about the mesora (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Kenneth Miller)
• 5. Sotah 8:6 (j...@m5.chicago.il.us)
• 6. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Sotah 8:6 (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Sotah 8:6 (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Lisa Liel)
• 11. FIL is a kashrut expert (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Lisa Liel)
• 13. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Ben Waxman)
• 14. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Lisa Liel)
• 15. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: [Areivim] Modern Orthodox High School in New York Allows Girls to Wear Tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 17. Admin: [Areivim] Modern Orthodox High School in New York Allows Girls to Wear Tefillin (Micha Berger)

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:27:21AM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
: Arei sfar yochichu. If they even demand hay from border communities,
: we go out to fight them. It's milchemet mitzvah without any immediate
: threat against the lives of anyone on our side.
...
: What makes you think milchemet mitzvah only applies in Eretz Yisrael?

So you're arguing that outlying towns in Bavel are protected on Jewish
national survival grounds, divorced from piquach nefesh to individuals?

I though we enforce law, even hay pillaging in border towns because the
decay in our ability to keep the barbarian tribes out IS piquach nefesh.
If not today, then tomorrow.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

R' Marty Bluke wrote:
> Matan Torah happened 3500 years ago and Bnei Yisrael got the
> Torah including the Oral Torah and presumably at that point
> it was revealed to them how the halachic system worked...

R' Micha Berger responded:
> Again, you ask based on a "presumably".

By focusing on R' Marty's use of the word "presumably", it appears that R'
Micha thinks that it might be possible that at the time of Matan Torah, it
was NOT revealed to them how the halachic system worked.

R' Micha, am I understanding you correctly? Do you think that it is
possible the poskim of Yehoshua's day were unsure as to whether Moshe
Rabenu had received all the details or not?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Do THIS before eating carbs (every time)
1 EASY tip to increase fat-burning, lower blood sugar & decrease fat storage
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/52ddbb2574e193b252c13st02vuc

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:10:58AM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: R' Micha, am I understanding you correctly? Do you think that it is
: possible the poskim of Yehoshua's day were unsure as to whether Moshe
: Rabenu had received all the details or not?

Well, more that it's not too important or shocking to me if we forgot
whether anyone else knew whether MRAH received those details explicitly,
implicitely, or was constructing them given the halachic toolset.

For that matter, think how many machloqesin and pesaqim are in
derabbanans, which Moshe presumably did not recieve. (Even those
he himself legislated.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

R' Micha Berger asked:

> I am leaving Lisa's question of whether a milkhemes mitzvah is
> distinctly for national survival until I can think of a case of
> national destruction that wouldn't involve piquach nefesh. Can
> you attack *a* people without attacking *its* people?

It's an interesting question. Let me just throw out the first idea that
popped into my head (even though it will probably be shot down very
easily): Chanuka. Suppose the enemy is bent on attacking our soul, but has
no desire to attack our bodies. Depending on their tactics, is it possible
that our rebellion might constitute a milchemes mitzvah, without being a
pikuach nefesh situation?

Or, perhaps this case will be even simpler: Suppose the enemy doesn't want
our bodies, and doesn't want our souls either, but wants only our politics.
Imagine a genuinely benign foreigner who wants to merely take over the
government. Imagine that this is the sort of person whose reputation is so
golden that even the most extreme Jews are not at all worried about any
changes that he might institute. The strongest argument anyone can come up
with is, "But we don't want a non-Jewish ruler." Perhaps this would count
as a milchemes mitzvah with zero pikuach nefesh?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Do THIS before eating carbs (every time)
1 EASY tip to increase fat-burning, lower blood sugar & decrease fat storage
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/52ddbfac710e13fac0cc6st04vuc

Someone who has not read Sotah 8:6 (or 8:7, depending on whether you
split the first long Mishna into two pieces), or has read it but does
not believe that we pasqn according to it, posted the following:

>
> However, as I learned from a human encyclopedia whom I consulted,
> Targum had previously made a statement on the same subject.  Targum
> wrote that Yael killed Sisra with a tent peg and not with a weapon,
> "in order to fulfill what is written in Toras Moshe, 'A male utensil
> shall not be on a woman.'"
> 

There was more, but it was written in a tone of snarkiness that does
not do credit to the original poster, so we shall cut off the quote
with the above, so we can more easily pretend that the original poster
was engaged in a respectful and scholarly discussion.

In response to the legal point raised by this unattributed "Targum"
(parenthetically, attributing something to "Targum" is like
attributing something to "the Rebbe" -- unless prior context has
established which Targum, or which Rebbe, you are talking about, you
really should make it clear) a second poster wrote the following:

> 
> Was Yael eishes Chever haQeini even Jewish?
> 
> It may have been that she was overzealous, not being all that
> educated in halakhah.  It may have been lifnim mishuras hadin.
> 

There was more, but this will suffice.

Now, as to whether Ya`el was Jewish, if you look at Rashi (and others
-- his is not a da`ath yaxid) on Judges 5:6, which presumably the
second poster, at least, has already read at some point in his life,
you will see the assertion that not only was Ya`el Jewish, but also,
she was a shofeteth.  So you can definitely make an argument, albeit
an argumentum ad hominem, for learning halakha from her behavior.

And yet, I suspect that the original poster will not thank me for
having thus defended her position.  I suspect that the notion that you
can have a woman presiding over a beyth din vexes her more than the
notion that maybe we pasqn according to a clear mishna in Sotah.
Personally I don't see why it should vex people any more than the fact
that Shma`ya and Avtalyon were nasi and av beth din of the Sanhedrin.
But people get excited about all sorts of strange things.


                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 N Whipple St
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784   landline
                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

On 20/01/2014 7:29 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> Or, perhaps this case will be even simpler: Suppose the enemy doesn't
> want our bodies, and doesn't want our souls either, but wants only
> our politics. Imagine a genuinely benign foreigner who wants to
> merely take over the government. Imagine that this is the sort of
> person whose reputation is so golden that even the most extreme Jews
> are not at all worried about any changes that he might institute. The
> strongest argument anyone can come up with is, "But we don't want a
> non-Jewish ruler." Perhaps this would count as a milchemes mitzvah
> with zero pikuach nefesh?

Who says this would be a bad thing, let alone that fighting it would be
a milchemes mitzvah?  All the years of the 2nd bayis we did not fight
for independence, and no chachomim suggested that we should (and in fact
we welcomed the conqueror Alexander and regarded him as a hero) until the
rulers, first Antiochus and then Nero, started interfering with our
yiddishkeit.

True, ideally there must be a situation of complete independence, where
even the friendly presence of foreign troops on our soil is not allowed,
but look what happened when Yoshiyahu tried to enforce that pasuk.  Hashem
told him not to, because we were not in a spiritual state to deserve it,
and he should swallow his pride and allow the incursion.  So even a king
of Beis David, who is a tzadik, is not necessarily meant to fight such a
war, kol shekein a government that is neither righteous nor from Beis David.

-- 
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 20/01/2014 6:17 PM, j...@m5.chicago.il.us wrote:
>
> Someone who has not read Sotah 8:6 (or 8:7, depending on whether you
> split the first long Mishna into two pieces), or has read it but does
> not believe that we pasqn according to it, posted the following:

Though it would surprise me if RTK had learned that mishnah, or the
Rambam who quotes it, that conclusion doesn't actually follow from her
post.  It's obvious that neither the mishnah nor the Rambam mean that
women actually go to war.  The Torah makes it clear in many places that
it is not the way of women to make war, so much so that we even derive
unrelated halachos from it, such as that women are not commanded in
piryah verivyah.  What the mishneh and Rambam do mean by this formula
is unclear, but it's clear that whatever they mean it's not that.  So
someone who had read them could still have posted as RTK did.


>> However, as I learned from a human encyclopedia whom I consulted,
>> Targum had previously made a statement on the same subject.  Targum
>> wrote that Yael killed Sisra with a tent peg and not with a weapon,
>> "in order to fulfill what is written in Toras Moshe, 'A male utensil
>> shall not be on a woman.'"

> In response to the legal point raised by this unattributed "Targum"
> (parenthetically, attributing something to "Targum" is like
> attributing something to "the Rebbe" -- unless prior context has
> established which Targum, or which Rebbe, you are talking about, you
> really should make it clear) a second poster wrote the following:

Stam Targum on Torah is Unkelus, and on Nevi'im it's Yonasan ben Uziel.
Both say that "keli gever" means weapons, and RYBE explicitly says
exactly what RTK's informant said he did.  Incidentally, at least in
this edition RYBE is labelled simply "Targum".
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14264&;pgnum=219

Rashi also writes the same thing in Nazir 59a.  He doesn't give his
source; perhaps it's RYBE, or perhaps this is so well-known that he
doesn't need a specific source.
http://images.e-daf.com/DafImg.asp?ID=2340&;size=2



> Now, as to whether Ya`el was Jewish, if you look at Rashi (and others
> -- his is not a da`ath yaxid) on Judges 5:6, which presumably the
> second poster, at least, has already read at some point in his life,
> you will see the assertion that not only was Ya`el Jewish, but also,
> she was a shofeteth.  So you can definitely make an argument, albeit
> an argumentum ad hominem, for learning halakha from her behavior.
>
> And yet, I suspect that the original poster will not thank me for
> having thus defended her position.  I suspect that the notion that you
> can have a woman presiding over a beyth din vexes her more than the
> notion that maybe we pasqn according to a clear mishna in Sotah.

Why would this bother anyone more than Devorah, whom the Tanach itself
says was "shofetes"?  Whatever it means with regard to Devorah (and it
*can't* mean that she sat on an actual beis din, since it is an undisputed
de'oraisa law that women are pesulos le'eidus and therefore also ledayanus)
it will mean the same for Yael.


> Personally I don't see why it should vex people any more than the fact
> that Shma`ya and Avtalyon were nasi and av beth din of the Sanhedrin.

That's completely different.  "Mikerev achecha" can be waived if necessary,
and presumably so can "melech velo malka", but there's no *way* to "waive"
someone's being passul ledayanus.   Shmaya and Avtalyon were capable of
being judges, and Shlomtziyon was competent to rule, all that stood in their
way was a prohibition, and a prohibition can be waived for sufficient reason.
But Devorah and Yael weren't *not allowed* to be dayanim, they *couldn't* be.
A woman can no more be a judge than she can be a witness, or than she can fly.
No emergency or need of the hour can change that.  And yet the Tanach says
explicitly that Devorah was "shofetah es Yisrael", so we must find another
meaning for this phrase that is possible, and the meforshim do find various
such meanings.  Whichever one you prefer for Devorah will apply to Yael too.


-- 
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 Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:18:47PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> Who says this would be a bad thing, let alone that fighting it would be
> a milchemes mitzvah?  All the years of the 2nd bayis we did not fight
> for independence, and no chachomim suggested that we should (and in fact
> we welcomed the conqueror Alexander and regarded him as a hero) until the
> rulers, first Antiochus and then Nero, started interfering with our
> yiddishkeit.
...

And if it were grounds for a milkhemes mitzvah for national-survival
reasons, why would there be a separate mitzvah of driving out the 7 amim?

It seems to me that we're crossing the line from milkhemes mitzvah for
the sake of survival and milkhemes mitzvah for kibush haaretz -- something
that (like national survival) wouldn't apply to border towns in Bavel.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:46:53PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> Why would this bother anyone more than Devorah, whom the Tanach itself
> says was "shofetes"?  Whatever it means with regard to Devorah (and it
> *can't* mean that she sat on an actual beis din, since it is an undisputed
> de'oraisa law that women are pesulos le'eidus and therefore also ledayanus)
> it will mean the same for Yael.

>> Personally I don't see why it should vex people any more than the fact
>> that Shma`ya and Avtalyon were nasi and av beth din of the Sanhedrin.

> That's completely different...

I'm not so sure it is. It is quite likely that the nasi and ABD were
non-voting members of the Sanhedrin in that generation. Others suggest
that they were both children of converst, which is why Hillel's rebbe
still had the accent of saying "'in" instead of "hin". But in any
case, not everyone assumes they were exceptions to the rule made in
a time of great need (or public acceptance of their leadership, an
answer the vaaleo Tosafos give for Devorah).

Although putting Devorah or Yael in non-voting seats in the Sanhedrin
would also shock many people today.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 1/20/2014 9:18 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 20/01/2014 7:29 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
>> Or, perhaps this case will be even simpler: Suppose the enemy doesn't
>> want our bodies, and doesn't want our souls either, but wants only
>> our politics. Imagine a genuinely benign foreigner who wants to
>> merely take over the government....

> Who says this would be a bad thing, let alone that fighting it would be
> a milchemes mitzvah? All the years of the 2nd bayis we did not fight
> for independence, and no chachomim suggested that we should (and in
> fact we welcomed the conqueror Alexander and regarded him as a hero)
> until the rulers, first Antiochus and then Nero, started interfering
> with our yiddishkeit.

That's not a great example. It's not like we were independent and
Alexander conquered us. We were conquered, and he conquered the ones
(Persians) who had conquered those (the Babylonians) who had conquered us.
Not exactly the same thing. Not fighting to get independence when we
don't have it is one thing. Fighting to keep it when we do have it is
something entirely different.

Lisa

Rav Melamed had an interesting psak for someone whose (new) father in 
law (FIL) is a rav and an expert in kashrut supervision. The FIL is very 
machmir about what foods he'll eat (presumably because of what he has 
seen n the field) and only buys Badatz (I assume Eida). The husband 
wants to know if he should accept what his father in law says.

Rav Melamed makes the following points:
* Your FIL is an expert in kashrut - tzachita!
* You should respect his expert knowledge and eat only those products 
with a mehadrin heksher
* However don't listen to your FIL if he tells you that other Badatzim 
or rabbinate mehadrin hekshers are no good because it is assur to pasul 
other rabbanim (and it is assur to accept such a pasul). Rav Melamed 
learns this from the SA YD.
* If your FIL has objections to a particular product having a mehadrin 
heksher from a different agency, you can accept that point.
* Even after accepting said chumrot, you can still eat with your parents 
(who keep a "regular" heksher) (al pi psak of Rav Mordechai Eliyahu).
* If the parents are open to hearing about mehadrin hekshers, speak with 
them, but only if they won't be insulted.

Presumably Rav Melamed's heter for eating out only applies to parent's 
and not anyone else who buys products with a regular heksher.

I found his approach of trying to balance different values (mehadrin vs 
kibud av v'eim/accepting FIL's testimony to a limited extent only) to be 
very praise worthy.

On 1/21/2014 5:20 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> And if it were grounds for a milkhemes mitzvah for national-survival
> reasons, why would there be a separate mitzvah of driving out the 7 amim?

What's the connection? The mitzvah of driving out the 7 amim applies
even if they're just sitting there ignoring us.

Lisa

Only if they ignore our peace offer (conditions).

Ben

On 1/21/2014 6:58 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> What's the connection? The mitzvah of driving out the 7 amim applies 
> even if they're just sitting there ignoring us. Lisa

On 1/21/2014 6:58 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> What's the connection? The mitzvah of driving out the 7 amim applies
> even if they're just sitting there ignoring us.

On 1/21/2014 12:39 PM, Ben Waxman wrote:
> Only if they ignore our peace offer (conditions).

Okay, but still. They ignore our peace offer but aren't belligerent.
They have to go. There's no pikuach nefesh involved. But they still
have to go.

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 02:12:29PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
: Okay, but still. They ignore our peace offer but aren't belligerent.
: They have to go. There's no pikuach nefesh involved. But they still
: have to go.

The 7 amim and Amaleiq are spelled out as milkhamos mitzvah separate
from the whole issue of piquach nefesh and any possibly seperable issue
of national survival. So I'm not sure why we're discussing the 7 amim
as though the milkhamah needs to be justifiable in those terms.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:48:49PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://tinyurl.com/lk7ngto

> Two SAR Students Break Ritual Barriers

30 years ago Ramaz established policy that girls could lay tefilin
by being excused from the school's minyan and davening with Kehillat
Jeshurun (an affiliate; same campus).

Also, these were girls who were already wearing tefillin because they
were from C homes. Quoting

> "(This mitzvah) has been very important to me for a very long time and 
> I'm really glad to be doing it at SAR," Morris ('15 told the Buzz. "I 
> started putting on tefillin after my bat mitzvah. I lay tefillin for 
> three years straight at [Solomon] Schechter...

> Marans ('16) told a similar story, adding that her mother also wore
> tefillin every day....

So the school granted them permission to continue. Does this mean they
approve, or that it's not a battle R' Harcztark wants to fight at this
point in the girls' lifestory?

OTOH, "Ricki Heicklin, a senior at SAR" appears to argue the very line
of reasoning that makes me uncomfortable with Open O:
> "Regardless of my personal choices, I think everyone at SAR should be
> allowed to connect to Hashem in whatever way they find meaningful, as
> long as it falls within the scope of halacha, which this clearly does,"
> Heicklen said.

There is an identification of Judaism with halakhah, and once the
halachic hoops have been jumped through, it is up to the person to
define for themselves what is meaningful. I also think "this clearly
does" shows that SAR inadvertantly taught bias in halachic process.
Yes, I too could argue it's mutar (and therefore likely laudible) for
a woman to wear tefillin. But I could also argue its issur. To say
"clearly", when it isn't, shows a polemical edge.

It's not the impression of Judaism and halakhah that I would want my
child's HS to relay to them. But then, I'm not in SAR's target audience.
OTOH, the child in question shares a last name with Rn Judy Heicklen,
who is described in a different Forward story as president of JOFA and
an SAR parent. So it likely isn't where this particular young man got
this attitude from.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 03:39:27PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
: On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:48:49PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
: > From http://tinyurl.com/lk7ngto
: 
: > Two SAR Students Break Ritual Barriers
: 
: 30 years ago Ramaz established policy that girls could lay tefilin

Misdirected. Reposted to Areivim. Please ignore here.

-Micha


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


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 32, Issue 12
**************************************

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