Avodah Mailing List
Volume 16 : Number 013
Sunday, October 30 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:24:19 GMT
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject: Source of Quote
There's a quote, I believe it's from Rav Chaim Shmulevitz, that "ezer
kenegdo", zacha ezer, etc. means that the wife is always right, but
only if the husband is zoche does he recognize it. Anyone with the
exact quote/citation/PDF?
Thanks.
Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:19:20 -0400
From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
Subject: RE: Kohain gadol
[R Zev Sero:]
> The taavah for power and kavod was so strong that they thought the risk
> worth it. And each one may have deluded himself that he was different,
> and wouldn't die. AIUI there were more than 300 Kohanim Gedolim during
> the 2nd Bayit's 420 years, and that includes Shimon Hatzadik who was KG
> for decades.
That's the obvious answer but again seems hard to believe that after a
few hundred deaths the "kavod" of being proved unworthy would have been
sufficient (does anyone know or know someone who knows Josephus well
enough to know if he has any data on this?)
KT
Joel Rich
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:58:55 -0400
From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
Subject: RE: Gezerot Tovot?
On October 28, 2005, Zev Sero wrote:
> On Hoshana Rabba I heard someone suggest that R Amram Gaon's version
> was a mistake, because there are no such things as good gezerot - that
> the word "gezera" by definition means something bad. Can anyone think
> of a counter example? Does the word "gezera" ever appear in Tanach or
> Chazal with a good meaning?
Well, we pray "kra roa gzar deenaynu". Now, if the terminology gizaira
automatically implied an unfavourable decree, wouldn't the word "roa"
be redundant?
OTOH, there appears to be a minhag to say the words "roa gizar" together
so as not to say the words "gizar deenynu" together which could be
interpreted bilashon zivuy. This could be explained in terms of the
word gizayra implying evil however there could be other reasons such as
not being overly forward and smug with our requests thus activating the
midas hadin.
AFAIC, my first sevara is superior.
Simcha Coffer
Go to top.
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:43:58 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Gezerot Tovot?
If "gezeira" necessarily implied an evil or harsh decree, wouldn't
it be a strange choice of term for rabbinic legislation?
Gut Voch!
-mi
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:34:08 +1100
From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
Subject: Gezerot Tovot?
From: Zev Sero
> In the addition to "Sim Shalom", nusach Sefard (following Siddur R
> Amram Gaon) asks for "gezerot tovot", while nusach Ashkenaz (following
> Machzor Vitri) does not. Nusach Bnei Roma also omits "gezerot tovot",
> but substitutes "chen vachesed".I heard someone suggest that R Amram
> Gaon's version was a mistake, because there are no such things as good
> gezerot - that the word "gezera" by definition means something bad. Can
> anyone think of a counter example? Does the word "gezera" ever appear
> in Tanach or Chazal with a good meaning?
Can't think of a Chazal right now.
But the Tefilo RBSO said on RH and YK after B'rich Shemei
includes "vesigzor oleinu gezeiros tovos yeshuos venechomos"
AND "us'bateil me'oleinu kol gezeiros koshos".
This seems to show quite clearly that there are both -
gezeiros TOVOS and KOSHOS.
SBA
Go to top.
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:40:23 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Subject: Re: Gezerot Tovot?
SBA wrote:
> Can't think of a Chazal right now. But the Tefilo RBSO said on RH and
> YK after B'rich Shemei includes "vesigzor oleinu gezeiros tovos yeshuos
> venechomos" AND "us'bateil me'oleinu kol gezeiros koshos". This seems
> to show quite clearly that there are both - gezeiros TOVOS and KOSHOS.
How old is that tefillah? Probably not older than Siddur R Amram Gaon,
in fact probably not older than the spread of Nusach Sefard in Eastern
Europe, so the same question would apply to it.
PS: You say it *after* Berich Shemeih, not before?
--
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name
Go to top.
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:25:15 +0200
From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com>
Subject: mitzvot and science
&&Zɢ^~-)eV źwZjXZ*'jXɩIȞ쒺+^viNrEۈrI_yj
phhqBjh')' .-jb{^+_.j͢a.ݢúrz*'w n&ƥ+ jg:2ޖ'zZ\+-y֧vZ^墇ȭeZ}brNʋ柺wZjXZgw(צҊhjr&zޭ rj vgazzXmF+y^v^v)Zځ!vZbwgz0Z*.mbz^+^fy
!دzh')"Y֤{*.%zbyȝמvb+&j^hƧ^wZ)zY^rۚ"knzޖ'z)춊zaj hZ۫xت+r+z\w r''r[碶ڗyay"
^'qw\zX觲!]jםךayjب맊ȝמu+欢y*ޖ("hbrZu毢!h^&z++ye튷&bnWlr'qj|~^^^ jݶoz( v z^بn֧v)nXj[--m쟊ا ' ۋazh&jwl^ )&tmZZ欖(!\ޭ){ azبj+aȧeynjXݱȞ"ج'(ק*'}+'znXw֥杲+jبb/zwCڞ'G)Wkyǧ\bi(^w<(2^ %"Z,r'xibq+uI,m4ӅGu毢-權hj(ק*'wh-ul~jبb)%"楱ݦ' y٨uyا^>+rz+-kiحږgh~ږ,ޅ⢻zrpZ*+r*e{br "[azx؟ɪZV' 8nj'u'ݶ%"ޖ(")-ǬjzȠmm^*'y'r*exƢu0Y^ƙZxh)݊i-ǬinjYrinZ}-n* -wjaz^azz'yƧǢ+jبbazrzazk oj'Zz 鬊x^{aɞ ڶ*'jXx+zX' G)Wi)!
Yh)v'߉˥/}kibq~vz-)^)ǝ*+r*ezޙyazrz܅z+lبfy~bz!j^+p]~e aj赩eb*.rz^+j[-ji^hhkjبi)܊^az8b
.baz)ڕ'튉aj֥rz)ZV* r*e{y'!'ݶ-
ޖ("zX~ڱhz r*ezjg"zw ")Z\zf~~)ݲZފ˧i^^z{b+yb{-+l+^l^)^* z%بZ^ޙyhnXyڲ&z{hrazv+bv槊x(~^&ƥ+'vbuvh)bq\歊춊)bږǧz-bvjwgzz 楊Nlw^i.h+bz jhbqeƧqb
.^vvz\ajay'h(zhz{e"z{b~'\^ ]rpZ(٨uh~;'x+zX' z*+ܨ|r{y'qm"^rz+lzWޞujږ+r趷țhr*ez+ޭm+ v+-ץ)habr-j楗&)vn&jyޯZ^v uݭbvr߉קq觾*mZ*+ ]rܖ^Z mz zjb'ۚ*'kibqhz zkhry(\wuz)躺kibq'{W~b+-iڷzw"j"+l'!,nƛZz-jwb
jب[zv+NۚkibqzWljڕi^Ȩ楶vz-mjZv".izȧ^' q+v)උaɨuh~;'x+zX' ֫)ঈ+ j+ambzmǭkibq!j++ja{ޯ'&魧-ȧ^+nj[ jz'z)z j)ڭbvw^Zا諦N.(欞.ڱ ].aȬ{\鞶 wh!z{^ib)]+zr b h1xz'zhW[&ib"ܩzjbǧ+[aybاu^ק\r&zaz))(h~nw(ly鬶ZƧmy"ށݱn&ƥjwkzXv-)ޱ0zY"w^y؟wzX-lr''r^^쭢 ߊb ax-}jب)ZqykpY[y؟~'.ǣzwz虫-jwi)ڊfj)j) ajax謶h|ojwm~rj)z"z z좉ޮjwY\jkzv^bvmbazh':w~^(ZȝɚƢwZ+iޮ^zz*-+jzXjӆ+"z-Z^mbz)}%.ޖ'z&k&ނ)֧߮v" }^躹 z-zwmyޮƫyzzX觭b*. {!
bfj)j) az*ץ-bנ+r8b+,hjh' Zg-ƥ&梞ם+ajb+ rm(ޅݶjب[zv+J)!zޯv+]rm(ޅݶȜbvmbhr(} ߢzX+&^jȞ'u睶iږ+-ykyr{+h)z(ޅ슉}'ݛ+-ƥrzlڊҢg]ޖ'zZv)zY^rۚ+&r槺xZjjNrvz-m^^zr0j^ibnuJ-_] (!Ih[-קz~ק+ v wmm ykjبn)x-(ǩŭz{ez{.m'Ȩrkzgvjj.اeynjWz2DZyh~e&zwh^zr]mby(*'-ȧا'm+ i\,zwZ'iצ(Wm^^vf+jj.(}ޮ na{^Wjwi+"qkZ+a{&ޖ'z)+-jYrmbzv+ʊݡkwhnZrWna{^Wjwi+"qZ.j.֛ҡ0zv^+ʇܭ歊^Nچ+*'礕nz-v+&"z)~'-ږڲz- bږg)jXz)杶+ajXWj+awzraj!p]^zǞ楗(,^1x!
zƺ'^axWy#z^xhu;G)W<(2^ %"
Z,rv ]&wr%w_9Nvfy z+-ɢǝjwg{ w^y zzx^..֧u'qm.ا^jwbn)rXzNz+-mޖ'z zax' jފxn%ך y,rhr+0k/eaz(qzf' z Yr"ج\(Zȝ^iƭם(ǩ+ ݡ^)j"v' ( ')jX'-鞳j!z^mEۈǧi^ry솉}^ǝ騯/IbN
Go to top.
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:21:39 +0200
From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com>
Subject: mushrooms
As someone who is not a big fan of mushrooms I was glad to
see that the gemara says one cannot use mushrooms for an eruv tavshilin.
Rambam (deot 4:9) explains that mushrooms are bad for you and should
be completely avoided.
"Aleh Terufah" quotes that they are a coarse? (mazon av) food that
prevent motion and breath and urine
--
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:42:41 +0200
From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com>
Subject: cohen gadol
> Check out Yoma 9a: There were more than 300 kohanim in the bayis sheini
> (420 years). 4 kohanim gedolim served 141 years, so you have the other (at
> least) 296 kohanim in 279 years -- the average was less than a year. I
> understood the gemara to mean that they died (since they are called
> reshaim in a passuk), but I guess it could be they all got tamei...
This gemara is very problematical. Shimon haTzaddik was CG for 40 years.
Yochanan was CG for 80 years. If one looks at sefer Nehemia 12:9 there
were 6 generations of CG son after father (not including Shimon hatzaddik
who came afterwards). According to the minimilaist shittah this lasted
54 years though it is hard to fit 6 generaitons in 54 years.
The chashmanoim kings were also CG and that lasted some 150 years.
Thus we already have
150 - Chasmonai
50 - Nechemia's time
40 - Shimon Hatzaddik
10 - Yishmael
10 - (Rabbi?) Eliezer ben charsom
--------
260
Yochanan - 80- (not clear who he was - if he was Yochanan the Chashmonai
he overlaps with the previous numbers - however this does not jive with
Josephus and the length of the Chashmonai dynasty. If he is someone else
then we have another 80 years and have accounted for 340 out of 420 years)
During these 260 years we have only some 15 CG. That leaves 160 years
with 285 CG (approximate figures).
In addition we know about numerous CG who lived more than 1 year as CG.
Yehoshus ben gamla was around for a time. Also according to Josephus
the various Onias CG and others before and during Antiochus were around
several years each (one Onias may have been Shimon hatzaddik).
To the best of my knowledge Josephus does not mention them dying every
year. It is a clear that towards the end the position was sold by the
Romans and the position may have changed frequently but that was only
the last few years at most from Herod and on (80 years) but probably
less. Also for a short time it was sold by Antiochus but they seemed to
have lasted longer.
As an aside I see many books which seem to confuse Yishmael CG with
R. Yishmael the colleague of R. Akiva (though he may have been a
descendant of the first one). First the CG is frequently called "rabbi"
even though that title did not exist in the days of the Temple. Also he
is treated in some books as a Tanna which he certainly was not. However,
according to the piyut of the asseret harugei malchut Yishmael CG
was a tzaddik and is not to be included in those who were possible
saducees. According to the Gemara at the beginning of Yoma several of
the CG at the end could not even read or undertsand Tanach in Hebrew
and so were read Daniel which is in Aramaic.
In summary the gemara in Yoma 9a should be treated as an exaggeration.
The number 300 occurs freqyently as an exaggeration in aggadot.
--
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:48:00 +0200
From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com>
Subject: migdal bavel
Back to Bersehit and our annual questions of science and Torah.
Instead of talking about creation I will ask the question about Migdal
Bavel.
Simple Pshat in the pasuk indicates that all mankind lived in Shinar
until the dispersion becuase of try to build the migdal.
According to the standard calendar this took place about 3760 years ago
(i.e 1755 BCE). According to standard archaeology the first dynasty of
Eygpt is dated about 3000BCE and the second dynasty about
2700BCE. Sumerian and Akkadian civilization is dated to about
2500BCE. China and perhaps tribes in South America already existed.
Ignoring external sources Abraham was 48 at the time of the dispersion
and 75 when he left for Canaan. In those 27 years Canaan had several
well established cities like Schechem and the Philistines and possibly
Jerusalem. A short time later he went to Eygpt which was well developed.
Earlier he came from Ur of the Chaldess and Charan which dont seem that
close to Shinnar.
Earlier the pasuk talks about Nimrod who was established in Bavel, Akad,
Calneh in Shinar Later he establihed Assyria, Nineveh, Resen and others.
A look at a map indicated that Nineveh is quite distant from Bavel.
Earlier when talking about Yefet the Torah says (10:5) that from these
(Greeks) the island people went out according to their language and
nation.
Does this mean that all these varied peoples left their homes and traveled
perhaps thousands of miles to Shinnar to build the tower? Or perhaps
the building of the tower of Bavel was a local phenomena and one does
not take literally 11:8 that G-d dispersed them around the entire world
(ie how long and how did they reach India, China, Auistralia and North &
South America)?
--
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:50:59 -0400
From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
Subject: Kohain Gadol
From the online version of the Jewish Encyclopedia:
> Josephus enumerates only fifty-two pontificates under the Second Temple,
> omitting the second appointments of Hyrcanus II., Hananeel, and Joazar.
KT
Joel Rich
Go to top.
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 23:02:27 +0200
From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com>
Subject: suspicious rabbi
> - When a person gains first-hand knowledge of an
> apparently-unquestionable halachic violation which has caused him or her
> (or someone else) harm and doesn't wish to approach the presumed violator
> to receive an explanation and/or apology, is that person nevertheless
> required to publicize the presumed violation so as to possibly protect
> others from harm by the violator? or, on the contrary, must that person
> seek further information in private?
Having hear shiurim from R. Zilberstein of BB on the issue his opinion is
1. report the issue to a proper Bet Din
2. Do not go back to the original rabbi without appropriate safeguards
that it wont happen again
--
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 00:51:39 +0100
From: Chana Luntz <chana@KolSassoon.org.uk>
Subject: Re: rabbinic misconduct
In message , S & R Coffer <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> writes
>On October 27, 2005 Moshe & Ilana Sober wrote:
>> This reminds me of I Shumel 2:2-27. Rashi and Radak say that "yishkavun"
>> is k'mashma'o, although they also cite the midrash that bnei Eli did
>> not actually have relations with the women who came to bring korbanos,
>> but only delayed their return to their husbands.
>> If b'nei Eli did actually take advantage of these women and had relations
>> with them, some interesting questions arise. Eli had heard of this - from
>> whom? If he had reliable information that his sons were... married women...
>> producing mamzerim - why did he consider some rather gentle words of mussar
>> "lo tovah hashmuah asher anochi shomea maavirim am H'" sufficient? "Lo
>> tovah" is a bit of an understatement here, no?
Aren't you (ie RIS) jumping to conclusions here? Rashi and Radak bring
two opinions, the midrash brought from the gemora refers specifically
to married women, but there is nothing in the pasuk to indicate that -
so why do you assume that according to the opinion that it is indeed
k'mashma'o, they were with married rather than single women? If anything,
women who had time to congregate at the ohel moed would seem to me to be
far more likely to have been single women. And remember, as the time of
Eli was before the time of Dovid Hamelech, there was no prohibition on
yichud with a single woman, and since these women were gathering around
the ohel moed they almost certainly would have been toyvel themselves
so as to be able to be in contact with taharos. In which case you may
well be struggling to find an actual issur and certainly no mamzerim
(although abuse of power there may well have been, if that power was
used to seduce).
>Well, you answered your own question. The Gemara (Shabbos 51) says
>"anyone who says the sons of Eli sinned is in error" and thus, whatever
>their infraction, it didn't involve the production of mamzeirim chs'v. In
>fact the Ralbag (in addition to several proofs recorded in the Gemara)
>proves, from the lack of criticism, that their aveira could not have
>been eishes ish. What Rashi possibly means to say is that some elements
>in klal Yisrael (disgruntled husbands?) may have been circulating some
>inappropriate rumours about the bnei Eli and thus the pasuk says that
>Eli heard these things. Hence Rashi's pirush (kimashmao: v'Rabboseinu
>pirshu...) as if to say that this is what Eli heard but the truth is that
>they didn't sin. As far as the Radak is concerned, I don't understand
>how he deals with the Gemara in Shabbos.
Well actually, if you understand the k'mashma'o with single women, the
gemora's explanation that Bnei Eli kept married women away from their
husbands overnight in Shilo would seem to be a more clearly defined
issur. After all in Eruvin 63b R' Abba bar Papa explains that Yehoshua
ben Nun was punished (by having no sons) because he prevented Yisroel
from engaging in pru u'rvu for a single night. This was because there
was a halacha that it was forbidden to have marital relations when the
Aron and the Shechinah were not in their place, and since he did not
return them to their place on a certain night when he could have done,
all of Yisroel were prevented from the mitzvah.
So in the case of delaying the women overnight, there would seem to be
a clearly defined sin, one for which the punishment related to absence
of descendants, and, in contrast to Yehoshua, one that would not seem
to have been done l'shem shamayim.
>> Relevant to our case because it shows that (1) big rabbis can commit
>> very serious aveiros and (2) the system doesn't always work to prevent
>> this - their own father was basically a tzadik, and the kohen gadol,
>> and yet he did not do anything effective to prevent this abuse.
>You obviously were never exposed to Slobodka mussar or you wouldn't be
>talking like this. Firstly, "big rabbis" today can in no way be compared
>to "big rabbis" of yesteryear. This is precisely why the Gemara goes out
>of its way to say that anyone who thinks that Reuven, bnei Eli, Dovid,
>Shlomo etc. sinned is in error. True the pesukim seem to indicate
>that they sinned but this is only lefi madreigasam, according to their
>incredibly lofty spiritual level hence the terminology "error" in the
>Gemara.
Although note that that gemora (Shabbas 55b actually) while it starts
off by saying that anybody who says the Bnei Eli sinned is in error...
does as its conclusion appear to concede that at least Hofni sinned in
some form, because in trying understand why both Bnei Eli were called by
the text "bnei ble'ial" (Shmuel aleph: 2:12) they say because Pinhas
was in a position to reproach Hofni, and did not do so, and hence he
was grouped together with him.
> The error is that we are comparing our level to theirs and thus
>assuming that the sin outlined in the pesukim is literal when in fact
>this is the furthest thing from the truth (based on Michtav MeEliyahu
>Vol. 1 pg. 161 and Rejoice O Youth pg.174 and countless maamarim in
>Chochma U'mussar (the Alter of Kelm) Daas Chochma U'mussar (R' Yerucham
>Levovitz) and Mishnas R' Aharon (R' Aharon Kotler).
>Second of all, Eli was exceedingly old (v'Eyli zaken meod) and lacked the
>strength to chastise his sons and ensure their proper behaviour. Besides,
>the pasuk states that Hashem hardened his son's hearts so they wouldn't
>listen to their father so what do you want from Eli?
Well Hashem's words to Eli via Shmuel are exceedingly strong - and the
punishment of his house is exceedingly severe - remember this is not
just a punishment of Eli, but of his entire line, see Rosh Hashana 18a
which describes Rava and Abaya as being from the house of Eli, with Rava
managing to live to the age of 40 because of his connection with Torah,
and Abaya living to the age of 50 because of his connection with both
Torah and gimilus chassadim.
Note also in that gemora, they describe a family that was descended from
the house of Eli and where all the men were dying at 18.
There is an alternative brought in the discussion in Sanhedrin 14a on
the subject, where the matter is presented as a machlokus, with one view
saying that the reference is indeed literally to old age (which would seem
to be the position assumed in the gemora in Rosh Hashana quoted above)
and another view that it relates to not having smicha which Rashi explains
by saying they won't ever have the torah of old age which would make them
fit for the Sanhedrin - I don't know whether the fact that Abaya and
Rava were l'ma'ase means that one can say that the machlokus was resolved.
In addition, one of the things we learn from Eli is to rebuke if one sees
something sheano hagon (see Brochos 31a-b). And note that the language
Chana uses about what she would have been had she indeed been drunk
"bas bele'ial" is precisely the word that the navi uses to describe
the bnei Eli. So what in fact this suggests is that Eli practiced one
standard for visitors to the mishkan and another for his family.
> The truth is that
>as far as we're concerned Eli was beyond reproach. If it wouldn't be
>that the pasuk assigned some blame to Eli, we would have no right to
>say anything against him. Now that these great men are taken to task,
>our job is to understand that we are to take a lesson *on our level* and
>yet understand that the blame assigned is not literal and only applies on
>a dakusdic level according to their elevated status. (see Malbim pasuk
>23). Thus, although you may be right about some of the shortcomings of
>our generation, comparing them to previous generations, especially those
>of antiquity, with comments such as "their own father was basically a
>tzadik, and the kohen gadol, and yet he did not do anything effective
>to prevent this abuse." reveals what I believe to be a misunderstanding
>in the appropriate interpretation of the sins of Klal Yisrael's great
>people of antiquity.
Well, despite agreeing with you (RSC) that one has no particular reason
to attribute to the bnei Eli the production of mamzerim - it seems to
me that the conclusion that "their own father was basically a tzadik,
and the kohen gadol, and yet he did not do anything effective to prevent
this abuse." would seem to be correct. Whichever level you want to place
the bnei Eli on, according to all opinions they were clearly abusing
their position in a way that was not appropriate for them, and Eli did
not act to prevent such abuse and was punished for precisely this (as,
according to the gemora, was Pinhas). This does allow it to be directly
transplanted to our level without any great difficulty.
Shavuah tov
Chana
--
Chana Luntz
Go to top.
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:36:11 -0400
From: "Moshe & Ilana Sober" <sober@pathcom.com>
Subject: Re: rabbinic misconduct
RnCL:
> why do you assume that according to the opinion that it is indeed
> k'mashma'o, they were with married rather than single women? If
> anything, women who had time to congregate at the ohel moed would seem
> to me to be far more likely to have been single women. .... In
> which case you may well be struggling to find an actual issur and
> certainly no mamzerim
What kind of single women are you referring to?
If not-yet-married, the Biblical term is "na'arot" not "nashim." Adult
single women of the variety that are common today would have been a
rarity then - I think girls generally married around bat mitzvah age,
before which point they would not have been bringing their own korbanot.
I suppose it could have been almanot and grushot, but I see no particular
reason to support this. In any case, such women would be particularly
vulnerable, making the abuse of power that much worse.
Why wouldn't married women have time to come bring korbanot? They didn't
really have a choice, assuming that these were obligatory korbanot. If
they were nursing infants, they could have brought them along. Other
household duties could have been covered by other women in the household
(co-wives, mothers in law, sisters in law, aunts, nieces, older daughters,
etc) - nuclear families are also an anachronism.
I think the issur of relations with a penuyah after tevilah is z'nut.
RnCL:
> So in the case of delaying the women overnight, there would seem to be a
> clearly defined sin, one for which the punishment related to absence of
> descendants, and, in contrast to Yehoshua, one that would not seem to
> have been done l'shem shamayim.
Good point.
RnCL:
> Although note that that gemora (Shabbas 55b actually) does as its
> conclusion appear to concede that at least Hofni sinned in some form,
Even if you reduce the problem of the women to delaying them overnight
(and I agree that there is textual support for doing so), I don't think
anyone denies the bizayon kodshim, which is emphasized much more heavily
in the pesukim.
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:57:01 -0500
From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
Subject: RE: rabbinic misconduct
On October 29, 2005 Chana Luntz [mailto:chana@KolSassoon.org.uk] wrote:
> Aren't you (ie RIS) jumping to conclusions here? Rashi and Radak bring
> two opinions, the midrash brought from the gemora refers specifically to
> married women, but there is nothing in the pasuk to indicate that - so
> why do you assume that according to the opinion that it is indeed
> k'mashma'o, they were with married rather than single women?
The above is not addressed to me however I feel compelled to comment. If
Chazal say that Chofni and Pinchas did not commit any improprieties
relating to arayos, there can only be one opinion. I mentioned in my
previous e-mail that Rashi can easily be understood to be referring to
the shemuos that Eli *heard* and than follows up with the truth of the
matter which is the maamar Chazal in Shabbos about delaying the women. In
fact, a plain reading of the pesukim yields this interpretation. "And
Eli was exceedingly old (in his nineties) and *heard* what his sons were
doing...And he spoke to them saying why do you do *like* these things...No
my sons, for the *rumour* (shemua) I have *heard* is not good...etc."
(Samuel 1 - 2 22:24)
> If
> anything, women who had time to congregate at the ohel moed would seem
> to me to be far more likely to have been single women.
Not to me. Contrary to today's society, young girls did not leave their
homes and congregate in public places. Kol kivuda bas melech penima.
Besides, why would they have amassed (nashim hatzovos) at the entrance of
the ohel moed? Come to think of it, if, as you say, they were unmarried,
why didn't it say "ni'aros hatzovos" as opposed to "nashim hatzovos"?
The answer can only be as Chazal tell us. They were waiting for their
korbanos to be offered. Now, which type of woman brings a korban? Only
married women are obligated to bring korbanos (the kivsei and kiney
yolayda Vayikra 12 6:8) and as can be imagined, if Chofni and Pinchas
did not attend to their korbanos on a daily basis, they (the women)
would accumulate quite quickly.
> And remember, as
> the time of Eli was before the time of Dovid Hamelech, there was no
> prohibition on yichud with a single woman, and since these women were
> gathering around the ohel moed they almost certainly would have been
> toyvel themselves so as to be able to be in contact with taharos. In
> which case you may well be struggling to find an actual issur ...
Struggling? It's an open pasuk "lo siheyeh kideysha meebiney yisrael"
Also, "al tichalel bitcha lihaznosah".
> So in the case of delaying the women overnight, there would seem to be a
> clearly defined sin, one for which the punishment related to absence of
> descendants, and, in contrast to Yehoshua, one that would not seem to
> have been done l'shem shamayim.
Chs'v! Chofni and Pinchas were the greatest talmeeday chachmim of
their generation and were mikabel directly from Eli who was one of the
fundamental links in the transmittal of Torah SheBaal Peh (Rambam -
Hakdama to the Yad). If they allowed the women to amass at the gates of
the ohel moed it was only due to their great dedication to limud haTorah
and their hesitancy to disrupt their learning for each individual woman
(R' Avigdor Miller). The curse on their descendants had nothing to do with
the incidences of the nashim hatzovos. It had to do with the impropriety
of their ni'arim regarding taking the zroa lichayayim and keyva (or shok
vi'chazeh by the shlamim) before the cheylev was offered on the mizbayach
(Samuel 1 - 2 15:17... see Rabbeinu Yonah in Shaare Tishuva 4:16 See
also Doros haRishonim Vol 1 Ofaney haKorbanos pg. 229-230 for a vigorous
argument against Wilhoizen demonstrating conclusively that no technical
impropriety was committed regarding the kodshim issue). Technically
zerikas hadam is matir achila to the kohen but the proper way to do it
is to first be makriv the cheylev (Pesachim 59b). BTY, they didn't eat
the meat. They just *took* it. And it wasn't Chofni and Pinchas. It
was their servants.
It is precisely *because* of Chofni and Pinchas's greatness that the
house of Eli was cursed. Because Chofni and Pinchas did not protest
their servant's activities, it caused some people to impute a level of
haughtiness to them and this was, lefi madreygasam, enough for Hashem
to accuse them of being michalel the kodshim. However, this in no way
detracts from their gedula in our eyes or in the eyes of the chachmim.
If one wishes to know how klal yisroel really viewed Chofni and Pinchas,
it can be gleaned from the fact that after they lost the initial battle
with the Pelishtim, the Sanhedrin decided to send Chofni and Pinchas along
with the aron Hashem to the battle front. That tells you the regard our
Sanhedrin had for them (Shabbos 55b).
And if one is interested in Chazal's attitude, they need look no further
than Medrash Shmuel 12 wherein is stated: "seven tzadikim were killed by
the Pelishtim: Shimshon, Chofni, Pinchas, Shaul and his three sons" Now,
in the war where the aron Hashem was ultimately captured and Chofni and
Pinchas were killed, 30,000 Jews died, many of who were surely tzadikim
gemurim, not to mention the later war with Shaul and the earlier battles
with Shimshon. Why single out these seven people? Because, in the eyes
of Chazal, from amongst all the people that died at the hands of the
Pelishtim, these seven were extraordinarily righteous! *This* is who
Chofni and Pinchas really were.
>You obviously were never exposed to Slobodka mussar or you wouldn't be
>talking like this. Firstly, "big rabbis" today can in no way be compared
>to "big rabbis" of yesteryear. This is precisely why the Gemara goes out
>of its way to say that anyone who thinks that Reuven, bnei Eli, Dovid,
>Shlomo etc. sinned is in error. True the pesukim seem to indicate
>that they sinned but this is only lefi madreigasam, according to their
>incredibly lofty spiritual level hence the terminology "error" in the
>Gemara.
> Although note that that gemora (Shabbas 55b actually) while it starts
> off by saying that anybody who says the Bnei Eli sinned is in error...
> does as its conclusion appear to concede that at least Hofni sinned in
> some form, because in trying understand why both Bnei Eli were called by
> the text "bnei ble'ial" (Shmuel aleph: 2:12) they say because Pinhas
> was in a position to reproach Hofni, and did not do so, and hence he was
> grouped together with him.
Yes but the form is as I said above and as the Gemara states; they
held up the woman from getting back home. Thus, the error the Gemara is
referring to is to someone who takes the meaning of the pesukim literally
as I mention just below.
> The error is that we are comparing our level to theirs and thus
>assuming that the sin outlined in the pesukim is literal when in fact
>this is the furthest thing from the truth (based on Michtav MeEliyahu
>Vol. 1 pg. 161 and Rejoice O Youth pg.174 and countless maamarim in
>Chochma U'mussar (the Alter of Kelm) Daas Chochma U'mussar (R' Yerucham
>Levovitz) and Mishnas R' Aharon (R' Aharon Kotler).
>Second of all, Eli was exceedingly old (v'Eyli zaken meod) and lacked the
>strength to chastise his sons and ensure their proper behaviour. Besides,
>the pasuk states that Hashem hardened his son's hearts so they wouldn't
>listen to their father so what do you want from Eli?
> Well Hashem's words to Eli via Shmuel are exceedingly strong - and the
> punishment of his house is exceedingly severe
In proportion to a man's greatness, so is the severity of punishment
wrought against him. "vRuach nisara meod - melamed sheHKBH midakdek im
chassidav kichut hasi'ara" I've explained this above.
The Torah also accuses Reuven of an act that technically he never
committed, an accusation which resulted in a much worse curse than the
one Eli faced. Reuven and all his subsequent descendants lost out the
privilege of the bichora for all eternity.
Hashem accused Moshe Rabbeinu of lacking emunah. Now I ask you, is there
anyone in the history of the world that possessed emunah more than the
Raya Mihemna, more than the one who spoke to Hashem face to face? Did he
deserve the terrible punishment of premature death as a result of a lack
in emunah that none of the miforshim are even clear on? (see Abarbanel
who lists 10 possible explanations for mey meriva and shlogs up every
one) The answer, once again, is that when Hashem was saying "ya'an lo
he'emantem bee" he was referring to the level which was possible for
Moshe to achieve. No comparison to current day circumstances can be
made whatsoever.
> remember this is not
> just a punishment of Eli, but of his entire line, see Rosh Hashana 18a
> which describes Rava and Abaya
You mean Rabah. Rava was Abaye's colleague, his bar pelugta. Rabah was
his Rebbi and relative.
> So what in fact this suggests is that Eli
> practiced one standard for visitors to the mishkan and another for his
> family.
Entirely false. Eli was very old and sick and *did* attempt to chastise his
sons however Hashem withheld the effectiveness of his words so he could
punish Chofni and Pinchas for the chilul kodshim that had occurred. If Eli
is to blame, it is only by the measuring stick of Hashem who understands
that lefi madreygasso, Eli was able to do more than he did.
> Well, despite agreeing with you (RSC) that one has no particular reason
> to attribute to the bnei Eli the production of mamzerim - it seems to me
> that the conclusion that "their own father was basically a tzadik, and
> the kohen gadol, and yet he did not do anything effective to prevent
> this abuse." would seem to be correct. Whichever level you want to
> place the bnei Eli on, according to all opinions they were clearly
> abusing their position in a way that was not appropriate for them, and
> Eli did not act to prevent such abuse and was punished for precisely
> this (as, according to the gemora, was Pinhas). This does allow it to
> be directly transplanted to our level without any great difficulty.
It would seem that you missed my point. I am not denying that the Torah
is full of stories that can be used by us as object lessons. But this
thread began with a story of some Rabbi who was inappropriate with his
female clients or some such thing (I generally skip these type posts on
Avodah so I'm not sure exactly the details) and the lack of criticism
against this Rabbi. A comparison was then made between that situation
and the one with Eli and Chofni and Pinchas as follows:
>> Relevant to our case because it shows that (1) big rabbis can commit
>> very serious aveiros and (2) the system doesn't always work to prevent
>> this - their own father was basically a tzadik, and the kohen gadol,
>> and yet he did not do anything effective to prevent this abuse.
My point is that the above verbiage betrays, IMO, a fundamental
misunderstanding of the chataim of the ancients as illustrated in
this post.
Simcha Coffer
Go to top.
*********************
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/ ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]