Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 12

Wed, 03 Feb 2016

• 1. Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: 2 maariv minyans due to the snowstorm ( (Joel Schnur)
• 3. Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Sholom Simon)
• 4. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Akiva Miller)
• 6. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Ben Waxman)
• 7. Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Zev Sero)
• 13. : Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Chana Luntz)

At 02:52 PM 2/2/2016, R. Ben Waxman wrote:

>What is this based on? The Rambam makes no differentiation between male
>and female prophets in Yesodei Hatorah, Chapter 7.
>
>Ben
>
>On 2/1/2016 11:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> > A woman can even have prophecy - the closest
> > possible relationship to /Hakadosh Baruch /Hu - without learning Torah.

I do not understand your question.  Does the RAMBAM say that a 
prophet must be a talmud chocham?

According to the Gaon, it is better to daven bizmana b'yichidus then 
with a tzibur after the zaman. I know that some may find this shocking 
but that is how he paskens. A zman is a zman and it must be adhered to.

In addition to the Beur HaGra and the MR already cited in the back and 
forth Avodah emails, look in the biur halacha at the end of Siman 46 
where the Gra on saying Krias shema with birchoseha is discussed. Both 
the Gaon in Imrei Noam on maseches brachos 29: and the MB both in 
hilchos mincha and hilchos maariv concur that davening bizmana is more 
impt than with a minyan. The Gaon holds that if you will not be able to 
finish all of shemone esra before shkiya then just dont start and 
instead say 2 SEs by the next tefila.

As for mincha just before shkiya followed by maariv right after, well 
that doesn't fly according the the Gaon, either. You must wait for 
tzais. Yes that does mean no such thing as "early shabbos" but the 
Gaon's zman in NYC for tzais ranges from 17-22/23 minutes after shkiya 
so it isn't that big a job to wait and be yotze.


-- 
___________________________
Joel Schnur, Senior VP
Government Affairs/Public Relations
Schnur Associates, Inc.
25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405
New York, NY 10036

Tel. 212-489-0600 x204
Fax. 212-489-0203
j...@schnurassociates.com
www.schnurassociates.com
http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160202/eb854fa8/attachment-0001.htm>

>What is this based on?

I was going to ask the same question

>The Rambam makes no differentiation between male and female prophets 
>in Yesodei Hatorah, Chapter 7.

I didn't have a source, just (small) sevarah:  it seems that R Schwab 
is saying that "know H' in all of his ways" really means: "know H' in 
all of His ways, except if a way was given to men as a mitzvah."  I 
find that leap a bit difficult.  Is R Schwab saying that it is, by 
definition, impossible for a women to increase her emunah by learning 
gemara?  (Or that it's possible but assur?)  Or helps her appreciate 
Chazal or the entire halachic enterprise?

Further, how far does this go?  Didn't Tzena Urena include Medrash as 
well as aggadita from the gemara . . . how does R Schwab permit women 
learning that?  (I'm reluctant to ask that, because the ikkar of my 
thoughts are not this question, but the questions in the prior paragraph)

-- Sholom 

On 02/02/2016 04:11 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> I do not understand your question.  Does the RAMBAM say that a prophet must be a talmud chocham?

The most basic requirement to be capable of prophecy is to be a chacham,
gadol bechochma [...] baal deah rechava nechona ad me'od [...] yikanes
lapardes [...]

There's no specific mention of Torah, but since Torah is Hashem's chochma
how can one be a chacham without it?


-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

R' Yitzchok Levine quoted:

> The following is from pages 274-275 of Rav Schwab on Chumash.
>
> Learning for the sake of learning, just to occupy one's mind
> with the intricacies of the Torah, even if the practical
> application of the law is already known, is limited to men.
>
> A woman who learns Torah does not become greater in yiras
> Shamayim because of it. True, she may become very learned
> in Torah, but this is not the object of talmud Torah.

I was taught that we must avoid saying that such-and-such ***IS*** the
reason for a certain mitzvah. Not only is it presumptuous to imagine that
we can fathom Hashem's intentions, but more than that: Once one declares
the reason for a mitzvah, he will draw false conclusions based on that
mistaken premise.

I fear that this quote is an example of this. It seems that Rav Schwab
claims to know that "the object of talmud Torah" is to "become greater in
yiras Shamayim", and he concludes that a woman would *not* become greater
in yiras Shamayim even if she learns Torah. I cannot understand how someone
can reach that conclusion.

> If a woman were to learn and know Gemara just as well as a
> man, it still would not make her one iota better than she
> is. It would have no influence on her relationship with
> Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

Not one iota? Seriously? How is that possible?

You can tell me that because a woman is an Ayno Metzuveh, she will get less
s'char for her learning than a man would get. But that it has zero
influence on her relationship with Hashem? Can someone please explain this
to me?

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160202/21e695da/attachment-0001.htm>

In addition to everything that Reb Sero wrote (with which I agree), the 
Rambam writes that a navi has to have mastered his middot and overcome 
his desires. Does Rav Schwab believe that a woman can do these without 
learning Torah? That would be a huge chiddush.

Ben


On 2/2/2016 11:30 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> The most basic requirement to be capable of prophecy is to be a chacham,
> gadol bechochma [...] baal deah rechava nechona ad me'od [...] yikanes
> lapardes [...]
>
> There's no specific mention of Torah, but since Torah is Hashem's chochma
> how can one be a chacham without it?
>
>

At 10:42 PM 2/2/2016, Ben Waxman wrote:
>In addition to everything that Reb Sero wrote 
>(with which I agree), the Rambam writes that a 
>navi has to have mastered his middot and 
>overcome his desires. Does Rav Schwab believe 
>that a woman can do these without learning 
>Torah? That would be a huge chiddush.
>
>Ben
>
>
>On 2/2/2016 11:30 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
>>The most basic requirement to be capable of prophecy is to be a chacham,
>>gadol bechochma [...] baal deah rechava nechona ad me'od [...] yikanes
>>lapardes [...]
>>
>>There's no specific mention of Torah, but since Torah is Hashem's chochma
>>how can one be a chacham without it?

First of all, I must say that I find it somewhat 
bizarre that you think that I have to defend or 
am capable of defending  anything that Rav Shimon 
Schwab, ZT"L, wrote. He was a first rate talmud 
chacham and surely knew what he was writing and 
had a firm basis in Torah hashkafa for what he 
wrote.  If he were alive today,  then you could 
ask him about what he wrote,  but, sadly, he is not.

However,  let me add what RSRH wrote about prophecy.

 From the Commentary of RSRH on Parshas Vayera

18: 2 He looked up and saw that three men were 
standing there, turned toward him. When he saw 
this, he ran from the door of the tent
to meet them, and bowed down to the ground;

Many confuse prophecy ? Jewish prophecy ? with delirium and
divination, ecstasy and clairvoyance. As a result, ecstasy is thought
to lead to prophecy, and prophecy is considered merely a higher
stage of ecstasy.

Even Jewish philosophers are not free of the notion that prophecy
requires Hisbodidus ? spatial and spiritual abstraction, physical and
mental isolation. Yet a vast gulf separates all these from true prophecy.
What leads to God?s nearness is not abstract contemplation, but, rather,
a life of vitality, flowing from the Source of life. Jewish prophecy is not
the product of a morbid imagination, of an agitated abnormal condition;
rather, it is part of healthy life, a product of wakefulness and
joyful creativity. As our Sages say: ?Prophecy does not come when there
is sorrow or sloth, frivolity or levity, chatter or foolishness; it comes
as a result of joy in the performance of a mitzvah? (Shabbos 30b).

I see no mention of mastery of Torah in the above.

YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160203/1723c1e1/attachment-0001.htm>

On 02/03/2016 08:55 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> However,  let me add what RSRH wrote about prophecy.
>
>  [...]
>
> /*Many confuse prophecy ? /Jewish /prophecy ? with delirium and
> divination, ecstasy and clairvoyance. As a result, ecstasy is thought
> to lead to prophecy, and prophecy is considered merely a higher
> stage of ecstasy.
>
> Even Jewish philosophers are not free of the notion that prophecy
> requires /Hisbodidus/ ? spatial and spiritual abstraction, physical and
> mental isolation. Yet a vast gulf separates all these from true prophecy.
> What leads to God?s nearness is not abstract contemplation, but, rather,
> a life of vitality, flowing from the Source of life. Jewish prophecy is not
> the product of a morbid imagination, of an agitated abnormal condition;
> rather, it is part of healthy life, a product of wakefulness and
> joyful creativity. As our Sages say: ?Prophecy does not come when there
> is sorrow or sloth, frivolity or levity, chatter or foolishness; it comes
> as a result of joy in the performance of a mitzvah? (/Shabbos /30b).
>
> I see no mention of mastery of Torah in the above.



So what makes you think he was right? RSRH against the Rambam is not
a source.


-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

At 02:32 PM 2/3/2016, Zev Sero wrote:
>>I see no mention of mastery of Torah in the above.

>So what makes you think he was right? RSRH against the Rambam is not
>a source.

Dare one suggest that RSRH understood the RAMBAM 
better than you or me, and that you are 
misinterpreting or misreading the RAMBAM?

YL

On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 02:42:22PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
: Dare one suggest that RSRH understood the RAMBAM 
: better than you or me, and that you are 
: misinterpreting or misreading the RAMBAM?

I am inclined to agree. Our default assumption should be that 128 years
of peer review would not have raised RSRH to be RSRH if he weren't far
more capable of understanding a classic source than anyone on-list is.

That said, the point of Avodah discussion is to have shaqla vetarya to
get to the truth(s). Invoking authority really doesn't serve the point;
it shuts down exploration of Torah rather than foster it. We need to
understand the authority, and to ask a question when his statement
or premise looks wrong to us. With the assumption that an answer
exists. (Again, because otherwise RSRH wouldn't be RSRH.) But we do need
to know the answer. And besides, when looking at a machloqes, it's fair
and within emunas chakhamim to find Y's question stronger than X's answer.

That said... RSRH does not agree with central pieces of the Rambam's
hashkafah (as he discusses in Letter 18); and in that he is arguably
firmly in the majority. This gets back to another thread, R/Dr Avi
Kadish's comparison of explanations of the Bira Doleqes, and the Rambam's
centralization of abstract theological knowledge.

Of course the Rambam places learning as a precondiction to nevu'ah.
But is this agreed upon, or part of that basic machloqes?

For example, I think the Rambam's words (Moreh 2:38) require a huge
burden of proof and are in general not accepted by other baalei mesorah:
    It is through the intellect that the influence reaches the imaginative
    faculty. How then could the latter be so perfect as to be able to
    represent things not previously perceived by the senses, if the
    same degree of perfection were withheld from the intellect, and the
    latter could not comprehend things otherwise than in the usual manner,
    namely, by means of premiss, conclusion, and inference? This is the
    true characteristic of prophecy, and of the disciplines to which
    the preparation for prophecy must exclusively be devoted.

The prep for prophecy is "exclusively" about developing one's reason?
Nothing about internalizing a set of middos that embody vehalakhta
bidrakhav? Nothing about having the anavah to hear His Voice rather than
one's own?

Anything like that in Chazal?

Between the two, I would think RSSchwab's hashkafah is far closer to
what most of us actually believe and follow. For all of the Rambam being
The Rambam.

If we reject that idea that intellectual perfection is of a higher
kind than moral perfection, we have no reason to accept the Rambam's
assumption that nev'uah requires some set of knowledge, and thus that
a woman would have to have learned Torah to become a nevi'ah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:57:00PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: I fear that this quote is an example of this. It seems that Rav Schwab
: claims to know that "the object of talmud Torah" is to "become greater in
: yiras Shamayim", and he concludes that a woman would *not* become greater
: in yiras Shamayim even if she learns Torah. I cannot understand how someone
: can reach that conclusion.

Maybe he finds it in "reishis chokhmah yir'as Hashem"?

Or "vayomer le'adam: hein yir'as H' he chokhmah..." (Iyov 28:12)

And quoting that pasuq in Iyov, Bamidbar Rabba 10:1 says "chokhmah
hi yir'as Hashem".

Or maybe DE Zutah 5 "hadar Torah chokhmah, hadar chokhmah anavah,
hadar anavah yir'ah". (Then mitzvah then tzeni'us. See
<http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/toshba/makor/zuta/5-2.htm>.)

"Im ein chokhmah, ein yir'ah; im ein yir'ah, ein chokhmah" (R' Elezar ben
Azarah, Avos 3:21) But if this really meant some kind of equivalence,
the mishnah would also be ending by saying the point of food is Torah
and the point of Torah is food.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What you get by achieving your goals
mi...@aishdas.org        is not as important as
http://www.aishdas.org   what you become by achieving your goals.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Henry David Thoreau

On 02/03/2016 02:42 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> At 02:32 PM 2/3/2016, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> >>I see no mention of mastery of Torah in the above.
>> >So what makes you think he was right? RSRH against the Rambam is not
>> >a source.
> Dare one suggest that RSRH understood the RAMBAM
> better than you or me, and that you are
> misinterpreting or misreading the RAMBAM?

The Rambam's meaning is plain and obvious, and RSRH clearly disagrees
with him.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

RYL writes:

>The following is from pages 274 - 275 of Rav Schwab on Chumash.

>Learning for the sake of learning, just to occupy one's mind with the
intricacies of the Torah, even if the practical application of the law is
already known, is limited to men.

>A woman who learns Torah does not become greater in yiras Shamayim because
of it. True, she may become very learned in Torah, but this is not the
object of talmud Torah. A woman may become a great philosopher or scientist,
but Torah is not >philosophy or science. Torah is the way Hakadosh Baruch Hu
communicates with us.

>Only because talmud Torah is a mitzvah, a positive commandment for man, can
it be a means to connect to Hashem and thereby increase his yiras Shamayim.
Because a woman has no specific mitzvah of talmud Torah, she cannot utilize
it as a means to >increase her many ways of connection to Hashem. If a man
is a great talmid chacham, having learned the entire Talmud, and has not
become a greater yerei Shamayim this learning has not achieved its purpose.
If a woman were to learn and know >Gemara just as well as a man, it still
would not make her one iota better than she is. It would have no influence
on her relationship with Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Shehasani kirtzono - He has
made me according to his will, means that a woman does not need >talmud
Torah to come close to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. A woman can even have prophecy -
the closest possible relationship to Hakadosh Baruch Hu - without learning
Torah.

It would appear that Rav Schwab did not hold like the Ran (Chiddushei HaRan
Rosh Hashana (daf 33a or 9b in the pages of the Rif)):

????? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?"? ???? ??' ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????
????? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????
?? ???????. 

"and since it is placed on them reward since behold Rabbi Yosi b?Rabbi
Chanina said greater is one who is commanded and does, and from the language
of greater we see that one who is not commanded and does gets reward
therefore they are in the category of commanded and they bless. "

In other words - what the Ran is saying (and others appear to say this also,
it is just that IMHO amongst the Rishonim the Ran is the clearest), is that
it is not that there is no reward for a woman performing a mitzvah in which
she is not commanded, it is just less than that of a man - the language of
"greater" implying that indeed there is a "lesser" reward.  And due to this
a woman may make  brachos on mitzvos aseh shehazman grama.  Rav Moshe (in
Shut Igeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 3 siman 94) uses this understanding
that mitzvos that women are not commanded in but do are still characterised
fundamentally as mitzvos, with reward, to justify the common practice of men
bringing a lulav through reshus harabim in order to allow their womenfolk to
shake (in the face of the Shagas Ariyeh's objection that this violates not
just an issur d'rabbanan, but an issur d'orisa).

Rav Schwab however seems from this piece to hold that learning  does not
constitute any form of mitzvah for a woman.  In this regard, however, there
is no reason to make a distinction between learning and any of the other
mitzvos from which women are exempt, such as shofar and lulav,  and hence he
would presumably hold,  against Rav Moshe and the others who follow the Ran
etc that there is nothing of value in women performing lulav or shofar
either.  And if he allowed women to make brachos at all on mitzvos aseh
shehazman grama (which presumably he did, given that it would go against the
whole Ashekenazi tradition not to), it would therefore have presumably to be
on the basis of nachas ruach - ie women will feel bad - and not because it
is something intrinsically good for a woman to do; so that none of these
actions, such as taking a lulav or listening to shofar, would have any
influence on a woman's relationship with HaKadosh Baruch Hu.  Shehasani
kirtzono includes lulav and shofar as much as it includes talmud torah.

>Rav Schwab on Prayer, page 33

>Women are also obligated to say Birkas ha Torah. While patur (exempt) from
talmud Torah purely for the sake of learning, women are, nevertheless.
>obligated to learn the halachos of the mitzvos so they can properly fulfill
them. With the exception of the few time-bound mitzvos, women have the same
obligation as men to know and keep the vast majority of the mitzvos of the
Torah. It is therefore >incumbent upon women to learn the details of these
mitzvos in order to observe them properly. How can women keep Shabbos or
Yorn Tov properly without knowing the applicable halachos?

>How can a woman conduct a business if she is not familiar with the dinim
(laws) of ribbis (interest), ona'ah (misrepresentation or price fraud), or
gezel (outright theft).  The difference is only in the goal of the learning.
>For a man, in addition to the need to know the practical halachos in order
to apply them, it is also a mitzvah to occupy himself with talmud Torah as a
form of avodas Hashem, serving Hashem. This is so even if there is no
immediate need for this >knowledge in practice, either because he already
knows  the dinim, or because his immediate circumstances do not require the
application of what he is learning. However, for a woman, the purpose of the
learning is to gain the knowledge in order to >put it into practice.

Note that the Gra's explanation for  why women are able to make birchas
hatorah is due women generally being able to make brachos upon mitzvos that
she is exempt from, such as shofar and lulav.  The problem of course with
this Gra, is that while it explains the Ashkenazi tradition, it is not a
useful explanation for the Shulchan Aruch, who generally rules that women
may not make brachos on mitzvos aseh shehazman grama, but nevertheless holds
that women should make birchas hatorah. (Note that the Shulchan Aruch is not
necessarily  disagreeing with the Ran that there is some form of intrinsic
mitzvah in a woman performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama, just that as he
holds that it is an issur d'orisa to say a bracha when not strictly
instituted by the Chachamim, so therefore performance of mitzvos aseh
should, in his view, be without the bracha).  In order to explain the
Shulchan Aruch, one needs to come up with some form of chiyuv for learning
Torah, which is what this "tzvei dinnim" in talmud torah  that Rav Schwarb
articulates here achieves (I believe it is actually sourced in the Nefesh
HaChaim).  

However in articulating the opinion the way he does, Rav Shwab would seem to
deny the existence of any form of mitzvah value to any of the non-commanded
mitzvos - and in doing so, would seem to be putting himself into conflict
with the position of most achronim, and siding with those rishonim (rejected
by the Shulchan Aruch and Rema) who took a negative view of women performing
mitzvos aseh shehazman grama at all.

Regards

Chana

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20160203/bcae915c/attachment.htm>

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



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


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


**************************************

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.)