Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 13

Thu, 04 Feb 2016

• 1. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Akiva Miller)
• 2. Re: Vayichad Yisro - Disparaging Non-Jews (Michael Orr)
• 3. Re: 2 maariv minyans due to the snowstorm ( (Akiva Miller)
• 4. Re: Vayichad Yisro - Disparaging Non-Jews (Zev Sero)

Rav Schwab wrote several things that I did not understand. If Rav Schab's
logic had something to do with women being incapable of certain things that
men can acheive, then R' Micha Berger's explanation would have been
helpful. But my problem is in the juxtaposition of these two paragraphs,
the first two that R' Yitzchok Levine cited:

> 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.

To me, the implication here is that men are obligated in Talmud Torah, and
therefore Talmud Torah will cause men to because greater in Yiras Shamayim.
And in contrast, women are *not* obligated in Talmud Torah, and therefore
Talmud Torah will *not* cause women to because greater in Yiras Shamayim.

My confusion is two-fold: (1) I see growth in Yiras Shamayim as a function
of how one relates to G-d in any of a variety of methods, Talmud Torah
being only one of them. (2) Even if one would posit a direct
cause-and-effect relationship between Talmud Torah Lishmah and Yiras
Hashem, I don't know why there would be any difference between a Metzuveh
V'Oseh and an Ayno Metzuveh V'Oseh.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160203/aaae8b53/attachment-0001.htm>

On 01/27/2016 10:49 AM, Michael Orr via Avodah wrote:

>Rashi brings another interpretation of "vayichadYisro" from the gemara
>(Sanhedrin 94a) where Shmuel says it meansthat Yisro's flesh "pricked
>up" in discomfort, with goosebumps, onhearing of the suffering and
>destruction of the Egyptians. The gemara, asquoted by Rashi, immediately
>explains and extends this idea: "As Rav[or more likely Rav Pappa --
>per Gra and Torah Temimah] stated, this isas the popular saying has it:
'>Do not disparage a non-Jew [Aramai] beforea ger [convert] unto the
>tenth generation'."

> Rav Steinsaltz in his notes on Sanhedrin94a cites the Gra who explains
> that only after the tenth generation ofdescendants is the non-Jewish
> blood less than a one thousandth, which isthe most stringent standard for
> bitul/nullification.

Zev Sero:? ? ? ? ?? ? This doesn't seem tenable to me, because if his non-Jewish"blood"
is less than 100% then he is no longer ager.? The proverb must refer
to a tenth-generation ger, i.e. all of hisancestors for the last
ten generations were gerim.? 


?
MO:? It is notnecessary to resort to such a far-fetched interpretation.? 

A much more natural meaning is that the term ?ger... untilthe 10th generation? includes the issue/zera of the actual ger "upuntil the 10th generation."


?

> MO:? Nowadays,almost any Jewish audience of a significant size, (whether at a shiur orlecture, in a shul, or any class in a Jewish school)
> is quite likely to have gerim or childrenor grandchildren of gerim
> among it. Certainly when we extend thosewho we must be concerned not
> to offend to include all who have any gerforebear within the previous
> ten generations, it would have to beassumed that this principle should
> be applied when addressing virtually anyJewish setting.

ZS:? Ifthis is the case today then surely it must have been even more so
in Chazal's day, when giyur was so popular thathistorians tell us at
one point 10% of the Roman empire wasJewish.? And yet they limited the
proverb to the presence of a known ger.?Kal vachomer nowadays.



MO:? As per my previous point, they do not limit thisprinciple of proper
speech to an actual known ger but include speech to theissue/zera of a ger
up to the 10th generation.

> But speaking disparagingly about non-Jewsis not just likely to hurt the
> feelings of gerim and their descendants.Making negative generalizations
> about a large class of people (in this casealmost the entire human
> race!) is also unlikely to be true, andlikely to sound crude, not just to
> gerim and their descendants, but also toanyone who is uncomfortable with
> painting all non-Jews with the samenegative brush.

ZS:? Andyet Chazal had no problem with doing so, and did so all the time.
They didn't worry that there might be a ger inthe audience.? It also
seems to me that it doesn't apply at all todivrei torah, i.e. passing
on Chazal's worldview, because gerim need tohear that too.? Nor did
it apply to a conversation such as Moshe's withYisro; he must have
known that Yisro would not rejoice at hearingwhat happened, but he
didn't refrain from telling him.

So when does it apply?? Perhaps only to acasual conversation with no
to'eles, i.e. when one wouldn't be allowed tosay loshon hora about a Jew.
In such a case, if one is talking to a ger, thenthe rules of loshon hora
should be extended to goyim as well, indeference not to their reputations
but to his feelings.

MO:? I agree that where there is alegitimate to?eles, that may well
override the prescribed sensitivity, to theextent necessary.?? But I think
we alsoneed to be careful about how we interpret what Chazal say about
non-Jews.? It may not always be as categorically anduniversally negative as
it sounds on its surface.? We have to interpret this in light of theoverall
purpose of Torah in bringing about the geula of the whole world, as
discussed below.


?

MO: > But it is difficult to see how this cancome about, and why Hashem
> would even want it to come about, if itwere correct that non-Jews
> are by their nature irredeemable,(incapable of participating fully
> in the ge'ula to come).

ZS:? Whatdo you mean by "participate fully"?? The nevi'inm tell us what
the goyim's role will be in the geulah:"And strangers will rise and
tend your sheep", "And kings will beyour nannies and their princesses
your wetnurses".? Their role in thegeulah will be as support staff
so that we can learn Torah all day.? Andgiyur will no longer be
available to them.? I don't know if thatfits your definition of
"full participation".


?
MO: ?This is a keyquestion you are raising here and I really should have developed the answer tothis question further as a foundational point.


?
The mere fact that the entire Jewish people will return tothe land of
Israel in the geulah seems like an important key to understanding anumber
of things.? ?First, it helps us understand that the non-Jewishnations will
not become Jewish, (since if they did they would need to go to EYalso).?
Second, it seems to show that thenon-Jewish nations will continue to be the
overwhelming majority of the earth?spopulation, (unless you make the
depressing assumption that the rest of theworld will be rendered desolate
in some way, chas vashalom).? Further, it seems to show, from the
merelogistics, that the ?support? role of those nations will generally not
beservile, as real nannies and cleaning help generally have to live close.? 


?
The term ?mamleches kohanim? seems to be a clear key tounderstandinjg the
relationship of Jews and non-Jews in the time of geula.? Within the Jewish
people we have kohanim andhedyotos/laymen, and the kohanim perform certain
functions in enabling thepeople to come close to, and to serve,
Hashem.?Similarly, the entire Jewish people will perform the function of
kohanimwith respect to the other nations in the time of geula.? This is not
a relationship of inferior andsuperior or of overlords and subordinates.?In
the time of geula, the Jewish people and every one of the non-Jewishnations
can be expected, or at least hoped, to reach its full potential inserving
Hashem who created them for this very purpose.??
I am not going to start trying to address thehundred of verses from Tanach
that teach us, not always in a very clear way,about the nature of the
ultimate geula.?But the very verse you cited about Kings being
nursemaids/nurturers(vehayu m?lachim omanayich ? Is. 49:23), for example,
is associated (homiletically)in the gemara (Zev. 19a) with the concept of
the non-Jewish royalty supportingour role as mamleches kohanim, but in a
way that does not undermine the statusor dignity of that non-Jewish
royalty, but that rather suggests that therelationship will be one of
mutual friendship and respect.? That is one of the main chapters mentioning
theJewish people being a light to the nations, which seems possible and
worthwhileonly if ?the non-Jewish nations areactually worthy of redemption,
or can become so.


?




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160204/460c2ade/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Joel Schnur wrote:

> According to the Gaon, it is better to daven bizmana b'yichidus
> than 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.

This sounds so obvious, and indeed it is. Of course one must not go past
the zman! But you speak as if "zman" had one simple meaning, while in our
context it has at least two different meanings: The zman of Krias Shma goes
to the end of three hours, and the zman of Shmoneh Esreh to the end of four
hours. These zmanim must be adhered to, and if someone says a standalone
Shma in the early morning, and a full Shacharis a little later, he *has*
adhered to these zmanim.

> 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.

When I read this in your post, I wondered why you tell us to look at the
Beur Halacha, rather than quoting it. So I looked - "Ki L'faamim" on pg 150
in my edition. It seems that the Beur Halacha was not at all certain of how
the Gra held on this issue: "The Gra holds ... [that] if he sees that the
tzibur will miss the Zman Krias Shma, it is better to have kavana to be
yotzay [with the first Shma after brachos] so that he is not left without
Krias Shma ... OR it is possible that the Gra holds that even in such a
case, it is better to say Shma on time with its brachos and daven without
the minyan... Tzorech Iyun." And the rest of  the Beur Halacha discusses
other difficulties in understanding what the Gra meant.

I guess there were other poskim who were confident that they understood the
Gra's shita to be like RJS described.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160203/25bf97b6/attachment-0001.htm>

On 02/03/2016 09:13 PM, Michael Orr via Avodah wrote:
>> MO:
>>> Nowadays, almost any Jewish audience of a significant size, ...
>>> is quite likely to have gerim or children  or grandchildren of gerim
>>> among it. Certainly when we extend those  who we must be concerned not
>>> to offend to include all who have any ger  forebear within the previous
>>> ten generations...

> ZS:
>> If this is the case today then surely it must have been even more so
>> in Chazal's day, when giyur was so popular that historians tell us at
>> one point 10% of the Roman empire was Jewish.  And yet they limited the
>> proverb to the presence of a known ger. Kal vachomer nowadays.

> As per my previous point, they do not limit this principle of
> proper speech to an actual known ger but include speech to the
> issue/zera of a ger up to the 10^th generation.

You have avoided addressing my objection: if today this must include any
audience, whether it includes a known ger or not, then how much more so
in their day, so why did they limit it in this way? Why did they say
"before a ger", if they meant "before anyone, because you never know
who's a ger"? And if they didn't mean that in their day, then how can
you say that in our day, when we have *fewer* gerim than they did?


> Zev Sero: 
>> This doesn't seem tenable to me, because if his non-Jewish "blood"
>> is less than 100% then he is no longer a ger.  The proverb must refer
>> to a tenth-generation ger, i.e. all of his ancestors for the last
>> ten generations were gerim.

> It is not necessary to resort to such a far-fetched interpretation.
> A much more natural meaning is that the term "ger... until the 10^th
> generation" includes the issue/zera of the actual ger "up until the
> 10^th generation."

What's far-fetched about taking the word they used seriously?  They didn't
say the descendants of a ger, they said a ger.  And we know there is such
a thing as a many-generation ger.  So on what basis do you apply it to
someone who isn't a ger, because one of his parents was a yisrael?


-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name


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



_______________________________________________
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.)