Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 25

Sun, 26 Feb 2017

• 1. Canceling gzeiros (Moshe Zeldman)
• 2. Re: Choice in mitzvot (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Tfilat nedava (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Canceling gzeiros (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Choice in mitzvot (Micha Berger)
• 6. On the Lomdus of the OU Responsum (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Choice in mitzvot (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: amah ivriah ()
• 9. Judge Willner (Ben Waxman)
• 10. The Relationship Between The Written and Oral Torah (Professor L. Levine)
• 11. Terumah Real ARK-itecture (Cantor Wolberg)

There's a Halacha that if the Beis Din enacts a gezeira that the tzibbur
doesn't end up accepting ([gezeirah she'ein hatzibur yakhol laamod bo]
????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??), then they're obligated to cancel it
(at least according to Tosafos in A"Z). Are there examples of where this
actually happened in history? Sources?

On 23/02/17 13:08, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
>> What do you mean by Pidyon Haben/Give to Cohen?  Giving the money to the cohen *is* the pidyon.  There is no other
> -----/--
> Perhaps not the best example of the lot but we do have the practice of the Cohen asking mai bait tfei which the commentaries struggle to explain.

The cohen asks which do you value more, so he should realise that the 
money is not nearly as valuable as his son, but I assume the unspoken 
alternative to paying is that Hashem may ch"v take the child back to Him.

In any event there's no question that the chiyuv to redeem the son is 
unconditional, and if he'd really prefer to keep the money then it's his 
tough luck.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 12:16:06PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: Why do we no longer allow (in most cases) tfilat nedava (voluntary
: prayer)? Has human nature dramatically changed over time since the Talmud
: so as to make such prayer generally suspect? What are the observable
: indications of this change?

Another 2 examples: We no longer require repeating Ashrei if "Poseiach
es Yadekha" was said without kavvanah, and similarly not repeating 18
because of a thoughtless Birkhas Avos. Berakhos 34a would have yu
repeat 18, the Semaq (#11) would have you repeat if you think kavvanah
is likely the second time around, and the Tur (OC 101) as well as
the Rama tell you not to repeat. (A linear progression over time.)

We have yei'ush that the repetition would necessarily have sufficient
kavanah anyway.

The MB 101:1 "veha'idna" is worth a look. He asks why it would be
permissible to continue saying 18 if one realized in the middle that Avos
was said without kavanah. How can he continue making berakhos if there
is no chance he will be meqayeim the chiyuv?

So it seems yes; we do believe kavanah is further from common reach than
in Chazal's day.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 05:15:33PM +0000, Moshe Zeldman via Avodah wrote:
: There's a Halacha that if the Beis Din enacts a ... gezeirah she'ein
: hatzibur yakhol laamod bo] ..., then they're obligated to cancel it
: (at least according to Tosafos in A"Z)...

I dont think they have to cancel it; AFAIK it never becomes a gezeira by
default. See Hilkhos Mamrim 2:6. Adding that to halakhah 7, and it seems
that an active bitul is only when the lack of acceptance is first found
later. As opposed to halakhah 6 -- where we know for sure the tzibbur
never took it on.

Two cases I can think of are stam shemen, a parallel to stam yeinam
passed in Daniel's day, and tevilas Ezra.


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
mi...@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:14:02PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: In any event there's no question that the chiyuv to redeem the son
: is unconditional, and if he'd really prefer to keep the money then
: it's his tough luck.

I would make a similar objection to yibum vs chalitzah. The only thing
that balances the scales is our sharing Abba Shaul's concern that today's
yavam is too likely to be more interested in the yevamah as nearly
"forbidden fruit" than with haqamas sheim. But clearly from the format
of yibum, the guy is villified for choosing it (back when we gave him
the choice).

Still, I have nothing to add toward answering the original question.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

RYL brought

<<he job that requires more fortitude and indeed aggressiveness fell to the
man.>>

The question is how far we go with this. I have seen a psak of Rav
Zilberstein that women are not allowed to drive a car. Among his other
reasoning is that driving a car is like going to war and women are not
allowed to go to battle !!
i.e. similar to the above that aggressive driving is a man's job.

I wonder how many on this list really agree with this reasoning

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170224/48690bd8/attachment-0001.htm>

On 23/02/17 17:13, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:14:02PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : In any event there's no question that the chiyuv to redeem the son
> : is unconditional, and if he'd really prefer to keep the money then
> : it's his tough luck.
>
> I would make a similar objection to yibum vs chalitzah. The only thing
> that balances the scales is our sharing Abba Shaul's concern that today's
> yavam is too likely to be more interested in the yevamah as nearly
> "forbidden fruit" than with haqamas sheim. But clearly from the format
> of yibum, the guy is villified for choosing it (back when we gave him
> the choice).

Vilified, but he has the right.  If he chooses chalitza he may be a 
naval, but he has reshus hatorah.  With pidyon haben there is no choice. 
  It doesn't matter how much he hates his son and loves his money, he 
must pay up.  and there is no alternative if he doesn't; he's simply a 
scofflaw.



-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

Someone wrote to me off-list:
 
 

    >> Your comment, "When a man buys an amah ivriya he has to marry her or 
 give her to his son as a >>  wife, or let her go free", is, I fear, 
misleading.   


>> You make it  sound as though he has an obligation to marry her himself 
or give her in  marriage to his >>son, or else to let her go free. In fact, 
yiud is not  an obligation but a privilege (though by exercising it, the 
>>purchaser  fulfills a mitzva).  If neither he nor his son marries her, she 
remains  an amah until she >>completes six years of servitude or reaches 
puberty,  whichever comes first -- which would have been >>the case had there been 
 no din of yiud.






>>>>>
I stand corrected.  I was in fact under the impression  that the master has 
an obligation to marry her or give her to his son as a  wife.  See Shmos 
21:8 and Rashi there.  The pasuk says if he doesn't  marry her then "vehefdah" 
-- he releases her. I took that to mean that if, after  she has worked for 
him some period of time -- let's say two years or three, but  no more than 
six -- if he doesn't want to marry her, then he has to set her  free.  But I 
was mistaken.  I see on a more careful reading that Rashi  only says he has 
to make it easier for her to ransom herself, by pro-rating the  buy-back 
price.  And what does it mean "he has to release her...."?   He is halachically 
obligated to do it, or only, if he's a mensh that's what  he'll do?  I 
don't know.  I guess the latter.
 
On the words "asher lo ye'ada" where the ksiv  is "lo" spelled with an 
aleph ("not") but the kri is "lo" with a vav ("to  him") Rashi says, "Kan ramaz 
lecha hakasuv shemitzva beyiud."  
 
"Here the text hints that it is a mitzva to  perform yiud."  
 
 OR in the Silbermann translation:
 
"Scripture hereby implicitly tells you that it is his  duty to designate 
her for himself..."  
 
Since he is translating "mitzva" as duty I took that to  mean the master is 
obligated.  But I see now that "mitzva" in  context can mean "something 
nice to do, something a mensh would do, something  he'll get schar for if he 
does it" rather than something that is  obligatory.
 
The question that started this thread now remains  unanswered.  That was R' 
Akiva Miller's post:
 
>>  I have heard it said  (usually in the context of  military service) 
that the
Torah forbids a woman  to be under the  control of anyone other than her
father or husband.

It  seems  from the beginning of Mishpatim that Amah Ivriya is an exception
to   that rule. Or perhaps it's not an exception, but that the rule  is
actually  "father, husband, or Adon," ..... <<  [--RAM]

So, is there a Torah rule forbidding a woman to be under the  control of 
anyone other than her father or husband?  And if there is such a  rule, is the 
amah ivriah an exception?


--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170224/0beb1273/attachment-0001.htm>

Does Judge Yael Willner's (an Orthodox woman who is a scion of rabbinic 
families. Further, were anyone today to participate in settlement 
activities similar to what Judge Willner did in her youth, that person 
would be labeled as being a right wing messianic extremist) appointment 
in any way pose a question to those who oppose women rabbis because of 
serarah? Her powers as a SC judge are, IMO, about 1000 times greater 
than any dayan or even the Rav HaRashi; forget a shul rav.

Is this even a question or do people simply say "That is the secular 
world, this is the Torah world, and even if we applaud her appointment 
(which many do), it has no bearing what so ever on how we look at the 
question of women and Torah"?

Ben

RSRH gives what I consider to be a brilliant explanation of the
relationship between Torah she'b'k'sav and Torah she'ba'al peh in his
commentary of Shemos pasuk 21:2


Should you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall work [for] six years, and in the
seventh [year], he shall go out to freedom without charge.   ???? ???????
????? ??????? ????? ??????? ??????? ????????????? ????? ?????????? ??????:


However, the primary source of Jewish law is not the written word,
the "Book," but the living teachings of the oral tradition; the "Book"

serves only as an aid to memory and a resource when doubts arise. The
Book itself establishes the fact that the whole Torah had already been
transmitted to the people and impressed upon them and lived by them
for forty years, before Moshe - just before his death - turned over
to them the Book of the Torah. Accordingly, it is primarily the exceptional
cases that are recorded; for it is precisely from them that the
principles of ordinary life can be derived most clearly.

On the whole, the "Book" records not principles of law, k'lalim but
individual concrete cases, and they are recorded in such an instructive
manner that one can easily deduce from them the principles that were
entrusted to the living consciousness of the oral tradition. The language
of this "Book" was so skillfully chosen that in many instances an unusual
term, a change in sentence structure, the position of a word, an extra
or missing letter, and so forth, can imply a whole train of legal concepts.
This Book was not intended as a primary source of the Law. It was
meant for those who were already well-versed in the Law, to use as a
means of retaining and reviving, ever anew, the knowledge that they
had already committed to memory. It was intended as a teaching aid
for teachers of the Law, as a reference to confirm the Oral Law, so that
the students should find it easy, with the aid of the written text before
them, to reproduce in their minds, ever anew, the knowledge they received
by word of mouth.

The relationship between Torah she'b'k'sav and Torah she'ba'al peh is like that
between brief written notes taken on a scientific lecture, and the lecture
itself. Students who attended the oral lecture require only their brief
notes to recall at any time the entire lecture. They often find that a

word, a question mark, an exclamation mark, a period, or the underscoring
of a word is sufficient to bring to mind a whole series of ideas,
observations, qualifications, and so forth. But for those who did not
attend the instructor's lecture, these notes are not of much use. If they
try to reconstruct the lecture solely from these notes, they will of necessity
make many errors. Words, marks, and so forth, that serve the
students who listened to the lecture as most instructive guiding stars
for the retention of the truths expounded by the lecturer appear completely
meaningless to the uninitiated. The non-initiate who will attempt
to use these same notes in order to construct (as opposed to reconstruct)
for himself the lecture he did not attend will dismiss what seems unclear
as baseless mental gymnastics and idle speculations leading nowhere.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20170226/88d0ca29/attachment.htm>

?And the Cherubim shall spread out their wings upward, 
screening the Cover with their wings, with their faces
toward one another; toward the Cover shall be the 
faces of the Cherubim.?  (Ex. XXV:20).

The rabbis ascribe to the Cherubim the appearance of
children (Rashi on XXV:18) and their posture as given
in the text symbolizes the way in which our children 
should be reared and trained. 

Their wings must be spread out and upward ? teaching
them their duties bein adam laMakom.

Their faces must be one to another ? teaching them their
duties bein adam lachaveiro.

How do they learn these Jewish duties?  ??toward the 
Cover shall be the faces of the Cherubim" ? in other words,
by looking into the Ark at its contents; in a word, by studying
and absorbing Torah.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20170226/ab120b10/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 722882 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20170226/ab120b10/attachment.tiff>

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



_______________________________________________
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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)