Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 19

Mon, 03 Feb 2014

• 1. Re: You can't take it with you? (Saul Guberman)
• 2. Re: You can't take it with you? (Michael Poppers)
• 3. Re: Women wearing Tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 4. Leap Year (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 5. Re: Leap Year (Liron Kopinsky)
• 6. Re: Leap Year (Micha Berger)
• 7. Will the Real Adar Please Stand Up (Lisa Liel)
• 8. Re: Will the Real Adar Please Stand Up (Richie)
• 9. Re: Will the Real Adar Please Stand Up (Lisa Liel)
• 10. Re: Will the Real Adar Please Stand Up (Micha Berger)
• 11. Rabbi Shimon on Intent (Micha Berger)
• 12. Women wearing Tefillin (Chana Luntz)

As someone who is a member of a chevrah kaddisha, I will tell you that each
chevra has their own minhagim and what they will and will not allow.  I
have seen requests for various things to be buried with or on the niftar
including chumash, siddur, tehillim, flashlight, pictures,stuffed animal,
jewelry.  We let the officiating Rabbi handle these requests aside from
seforim.  Seforim we will bury with the niftar.

I find the story about Mr. Reichman very strange.  Some items to ponder.
Two wills to be read a month apart can/will create all sorts of problems
 with paying debts, business decisions, family dynamics, etc. in a timley
manner.  What beis din is hearing a case, making a decision and not
delaying a funeral, all on the same day.  The decision is given by the
"great rav", no name.

Saul




On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Kenneth Miller <kennethgmil...@juno.com>wrote:

> I had always thought that a Jew is buried with nothing other than a very
> limited number of objects prescribed specifically by halacha and minhag:
> tachrichim, a pasul talis for a man, soil from Eretz Yisrael, and perhaps
> others that I'm not aware of. But personal possessions are not included.
> "Tou can't take it with you," they say - nothing accompanies the niftar but
> his/her mitzvos, maasim tovim, Torah learning, and similar "things".
>
> This idea has been emphasized in recent years by a story of the
> philanthopist Edward Reichman, who instructed his children that he be
> buried with a certain pair of socks. The Chevra Kadisha refused to allow
> this, and if the story isn't familiar, you can read it at
> http://www.torah.org/learning/dvartorah/5771/behar.html
>
> But this Shabbos I read two different articles which suggest otherwise.
>
> The Inyan Magazine (of the Hamodia newspaper USA edition) has a story on
> page 10 about a frum restaurant owner in early 1900s New York:
>
>    The business was first and foremost a chessed opportunity, and
>    second, a livelihood. Newly arrived Yidden were never charged until
>    they became somewhat established. He maintained an accurate record
>    of the thousands of unpaid bills, telling his children that he
>    wanted to be buried with that list. "Dus iz mahn shlissel tsu
>    Ganeid'n - This is my key to Gan Eden."
>
> Similarly, Rav Frand (
> http://www.torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5763/terumah.html) wrote:
>
>    Rabbeinu Bechaye adds that it was the custom of pious people in
>    France to use the wood of their dining room table as building
>    materials for their own coffins. Imagine -- being buried in one's
>    dining room table! Why? The purpose was to teach them that they
>    would not take a dime with them. Nothing will escort us to the next
>    world except the charity that we gave during our life and the
>    kindness that we showed towards others around our table.
>
>    This seems to have been an accepted custom in Europe. People wanted
>    to take an item with them which would argue on their behalf as they
>    approached the Heavenly Court. I once heard from Rav Pam, that the
>    honest tailors in Europe used to request that they be buried with
>    the yardstick by which they measured material. The way to 'cheat'
>    in the tailoring business 200 years ago in Europe was for the
>    tailor to take as much material for himself as he could get away
>    with (from the material that their customers would bring to them to
>    make clothing). The honest tailors, who never used the yardstick to
>    cheat customers, asked that the yardstick be included in the coffin
>    with them -- as a critical defense attorney on their behalf, when
>    they faced their final Judgment.
>
> So... Would it really have been wrong to let Mr. Reichman bring along his
> socks? Or some other piece of evidence to show to the Beis Din Shel Maalah?
>
> Akiva Miller
> ____________________________________________________________
> Do THIS before eating carbs &#40;every time&#41;
> 1 EASY tip to increase fat-burning, lower blood sugar & decrease fat
> storage
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/52edbda26976d3da24952st01vuc
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140202/7de5875f/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah V32n18, RAMiller wrote:
> I had always thought that a Jew is buried with nothing other than a very
limited number of objects prescribed specifically by halacha and minhag:
tachrichim, a pasul talis for a man, soil from Eretz Yisrael, and perhaps
others that I'm not aware of. But personal possessions are not included.
"Tou can't take it with you," they say - nothing accompanies the niftar but
his/her mitzvos, maasim tovim, Torah learning, and similar "things". <
IINM, the Chevra Kadisha of Elizabeth has in the past placed "personal
possessions" next to the *niftar* (as a guy, I can only speak of what was
done for males), e.g. a special yarmulke/*kippah*.  As RZS implied later in
the same digest, placing socks next to the *niftar* would not [necessarily]
be an issue.

All the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140202/3d2b60c7/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 03:49:14AM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: Two thoughts: First, I can't help but wonder if there might be some
: poskim who hold that nowadays, in our society, all women are like Michal
: bas Shaul in this regard. It's my understanding that modern standards
: of cleanliness is part of why so many people don't bother with mayim
: acharonim, and perhaps the ideas can be connected.

Ashkenazim not bothering with mayim acharonim is so old, Tosafos address
them (Berakhos 53b "vihyisem qedoshim"; Chullin 105a "mayim rishonim").
We exclusively use sodium chloride for our salt, and therefore a practice
that aims at avoiding getting melach sedomis in one's eyes is pointless.

(I've noted in the past that this may be an instance where Ashk norm only
makes sense if we assume it was inherited from EY alongside the rise of
the Bavli. Because while melach sedomis is the only reason given in
the Y-mi, the Bavli implies a second by comparing it to mayim rishonim.)

In any case, RAFrimer already implied that guf naki somehow includes or
implies a need for yishuv hada'as and koveid rosh, which have certainly
decayed in recent decades well below what was normal when the custom of
even men in kelei qodesh not wearing tefillin all day began.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:07:01PM +0200, R/Prof Aryeh Frimer fowarded us
his letter to R' Tully Harcsztark of SAR, which included:
: As you know, Rama in Shulkhan Arukh 38:3 says explicitly that we object
: (mohin be-yadan) to women wearing Tefillen. The Pri Megadim (to Taz
: 38:2), Ma'amar Mordechai and other Poskim explain that the reason is
: that women will not careful about "Guf Naki" (see below for discussion)
: because they are not obligated.
...
:                         Wearing tefillen is like wrapping yourself up in
: a Sefer Torah where a "guf Naki" is required. One is forbidden in hesech
: ha-da'at (distracting thoughts) and Kalut Rosh (light-headedness)...

 From footnotes in RAFrimer's writings on the topic, I infer he is
referring to OC 37:2 "shelo yafiach bahem veshelo yasich daato meihem".
Although here he seems to be saying that the two are linked. Perhaps
I'm reading too much into this.

This linkage is more than a quibble, though, since "guf naqi" alone is
cited by the Rama et al WRT women being discouraged from this particular
mitzvah asei shehazman gerama.

My guess, from footnotes in RAFrimer's other writings, that he's basing
that linkage on Rava on Shabbos 49a and 130a. But I don't really know,
I'm just trying to guess from mar'ei meqomos. The gemara says (both
times) tefillin requires having a "guf naqi keElisha baal kenafayim",
which Abayei explains as not passing gas while wearing them, and Rava
says it means not sleeping. Then the gemara continues with the miracle
that gave Elisha his nickname. Implied in the latter gemara that Elisha
baal Kenafayim was uniquely moser nefesh for the mitzvah (Rashi sham).

I invite him to explain the connection further.

Back to the email from RAM I started with:
: Second, is it really true that - because of this guf naki problem - men
: wear tefillin only for the minimum requirement? It seems to ne that men
: actually go noticeably beyond the requirement. Are we really REQUIRED
: to wear tefillin for *Birchos* Krias Shema and Shemoneh Esreh? Are we
: really required to wear tefillin for Pesukei D'Zimra and Tachanun? What
: about Birchos Hashachar and Aleinu?

Well, the minimum (mentioned in the SA, sham) is indeed Shema and Tefillah.
I think that the continuity of the siddur takes precedence over avoiding
the risk, so the lead-in and ramp down from the core mitzvos was included
as well.

: And if you find a way to explain that those are indeed requirements,
: then what of Mishne Berurah 37:7, who writes: "Anshei maaseh have the
: minhag to learn after davening, in tefillin." Why is it praiseworthy
: for a man to wear his tefillin even when it is clearly not required,
: but if a woman were to do such a thing, mochin b'yadan?

This is difficult, yes. But like the surrounding elements of Shacharis
it's a difference between her qum ve'asei and an ish ma'aseh's sheiv
ve'al ta'aseh.

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:19:03PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: This is technically accurate, but from what I can tell, those who wear
: tefillin rarely FEEL that they do so in the manner of a "dispensation."

That doesn't mean they're right. And just because men have the wrong
approach to things, I don't think we should exacerbate the problem
by accomodating and furthering women who have the same error. This is
a problem to be addressed, not a positive thing to be spread further.

(I said the same thing about men who like the amud not being a sign
that the amud should be treated as a positive thing, and irrelevant
to a conversation of whether tzenius means none of us of either
gender /should/ want it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Worrying is like a rocking chair:
mi...@aishdas.org        it gives you something to do for a while,
http://www.aishdas.org   but in the end it gets you nowhere.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

For Rosh Chodesh Musaf in Leap Years we add (in the chadesh aleinu paragraph) ul?chaparat pehsha (atonement for deliberate sins).
So the first reason given is a gematria explanation. The  ul?chaparat pehsha is added in a leap year to correspond to the number 13.
The previous couplets are enumerated individually but the ul?chaparat pehsha is counted as one (making the 13th month).

I recently came across another explanation which is interesting. So the question asked is what is the ?willful sin? that is referred to?
The answer is that in case the Sanhedrin made a mistake, it would not be Adar 2, but really Nissan and we would be eating Chametz on 
Pesach. So in case of such an eventuality, we are asking for forgiveness. I find that to be a weak explanation because were the Sanhedrin
to make that mistake and we ended up eating Chametz on Pesach, it surely would not be ?willful.? 

I came up with my own chiddush which is the following:
Since we have a longer year with the Leap Year, this means we have an extra month of possible sins.
Hence, for the leap year, since the odds are greater for more sins, we include ul?chaparat peshah.

ri

?Don?t forget to take that extra LEAP this year?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140202/9f1b9a43/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:32 PM, <cantorwolb...@cox.net> wrote:
> For Rosh Chodesh Musaf in Leap Years we add (in the chadesh aleinu
> paragraph) ul'chaparat pehsha...
> I came up with my own chiddush which is the following:
...

My own Chiddush of the year is that we are davka adding a 2nd Adar, and not
any other month. This extra month filled with a real religious happiness
should uplift us to a point where are both no longer interested in sinning
deliberately, as well are able to look back on our previous sins and repent
from them with a heart full of appreciation of and joy towards Hashem.

[The simplest answer I heard for this is just that the Korban Rosh Chodesh
is an atonement offering, so we add ul'chaparat pesha because we (should)
have (had) an extra opportunity this year to bring that sacrifice.]

Kol Tuv,
Liron

-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com

On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 04:32:31PM -0500, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: I recently came across another explanation which is interesting. So
: the question asked is what is the "willful sin" that is referred to?
: The answer is that in case the Sanhedrin made a mistake, it would not
: be Adar 2, but really Nissan and we would be eating Chametz on
: Pesach. So in case of such an eventuality, we are asking for
: forgiveness. I find that to be a weak explanation because were the
: Sanhedrin to make that mistake and we ended up eating Chametz on Pesach,
: it surely would not be "willful."

I think the problem with this suggestion is even more absolute:

As R' Aqiva explained to R' Yehoshua, the calendar was given to man,
for us to stanctify the times. Yom Kippur was when R' Gamliel and his
court decides it should be, and even if R' Yoshua is more correct in
theory, it doesn't change when Yom Kippur should be. Similarly, if the
Sanhedrin decides that today is 15 Adar II rather than Pesach, then it
really isn't Pesach, and there is no sin at all.

I find RLK's submission compelling, but I want to add my own gild to
Cantor Wolberg's lily:
> Since we have a longer year with the Leap Year, this means we have an
> extra month of possible sins. Hence, for the leap year, since the odds
> are greater for more sins, we include ul?chaparat peshah.

... and the month is an Adar, we're extending the season of joy.

Much like fasting Baha"b to atone for those sins which might have been
committed during the levity of the yom tov, perhaps a second Adar in
particular would be a cause for asking for additional atonement.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

On 2/3/2014 12:10 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> My own Chiddush of the year is that we are davka adding a 2nd Adar,
> and not any other month.

I think that technically, we're adding a 1st Adar.

Lisa

On Feb 3, 2014, at 11:40 AM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:
> I think that technically, we're adding a 1st Adar.

That means you consider the first Adar in a leap year as the same as the
Adar in a non-leap year which is not the way it is taught. The way it
is taught is that there are actually three different types of Adars. The
first type is the regular Adar in a non-leap year and the next two types
are the two Adars in a leap year.

[Email #2. -micha]

I found the following by Rabbi Yehuda Spitz which is very interesting
and informative," which also proves the assertion that there are three
distinctly different Adars (even though they have the same name). Analogy:
Grandfather is John, Son is John, Jr., grandson is John the third. They
all have the same name but they are distinctly different people.

    It is widely known that a leap year always has interesting Bar Mitzvah
    ramifications. The majority consensus is that if a boy was born in
    a non-leap year, and on the year of his Bar Mitzvah there are two
    Adars, his Bar Mitzvah will occur in the second Adar, since it is
    considered the true one.

    [Rema (O.C. 55, 10; based on Shu"t Mahar"i Mintz 15), Levush
    (O.C. 685, 1), Magen Avraham (O.C. 55, 10), Pri Chadash (ad loc. 10),
    Pri Megadim (ad loc. E.A. 10), Levushei Srad (ad loc. s.v. eino),
    Korban Ha'Eida (Megillah Ch. 1, Shiyarei HaKorban s.v. hada),
    Shaarei Teshuva (O.C. 55, 11), Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (15, 2), Aruch
    Hashulchan (O.C. 55, 14), Mishna Berura (ad loc. 45), and Kaf Hachaim
    (ad loc. 59); not like the Mahara"Sh HaLevi (Shu"t O.C. 16)].

    The same holds true if he was actually born in Adar Sheini. In fact
    the only way one would celebrate a Bar Mitzvah in the first Adar is if
    he was actually born in an Adar Rishon. This makes for a remarkable
    dichotomy. If one boy is born on the 21st of Adar Rishon, and his
    buddy a week and a half later on the 2nd of Adar Sheini, then in any
    standard year that follows, the second one would be celebrating his
    birthday almost 3 weeks before his "older" friend. Since there is
    only one Adar, the second born's birthday would be the 2nd of Adar
    while his "older" friend's would be on the 21st. In fact, only in
    a leap year would the older one truly be considered older. This
    would also affect their Bar Mitzvahs. If their Bar Mitzvah is in
    a standard year, the younger lad would become a man several weeks
    before his older compadre.

    [Although the Magen Avraham (ibid., based on his understanding of
    the Mahar"i Mintz's position) maintains that even a boy born in an
    Adar Rishon's Bar Mitzva gets deferred to Adar Sheini, and the Olas
    HaTamid agrees with him, nevertheless, the consensus of poskim is
    that one who is born in an Adar Rishon's Bar Mitzvah is observed
    in Adar Rishon as well; if he was born in a standard Adar or Adar
    Sheini his Bar Mitzvah would be observed in Adar Sheini. These poskim
    include the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.), Levush (O.C. 685, 1), Pri Chadash
    (ad loc. 10), Shvus Yaakov (Shu"t vol. 1, 9; who writes that the
    Magen Avraham misunderstood the Mahar"i Mintz), Elya Rabba (O.C. 55,
    9 & Elya Zuta 5), Rav Dovid Oppenheim (cited in the Ba'er Heitiv
    ad loc. 11), Me'il Tzadaka (Shu"t 21), Shaarei Teshuva (O.C. 55,
    11), Ma'amar Mordechai (ad loc. 13), Pri Megadim (ad loc. E.A. 10),
    Ikrei HaDat (3, 7), Maharsham (Daas Torah ad loc. s.v. u'shnas),
    Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (15, 2), Aruch Hashulchan (O.C. 55, 14), Mishna
    Berura (ad loc. 43), and Kaf Hachaim (ad loc. 59). The Ba'er Heitiv
    (ibid.) concludes that "v'chein haminhag pashut eitzel kol ba'alei
    hahora'ah"! On an anecdotal level, this halacha affected Rabbi Spitz
    since his birthday was Rosh Chodesh Adar and his Bar Mitzvah occurred
    on a leap year. Very interestingly, it will also affect his son who
    was born on his father's birthday].

MY ACRONYM FOR A.D.A.R All Days Are Religious

On 2/3/2014 11:07 AM, Richie wrote:
> That means you consider the first Adar in a leap year as the same as
> the Adar in a non-leap year which is not the way it is taught. The
> way it is taught is that there are actually three different types of
> Adars. The first type is the regular Adar in a non-leap year and the
> next two types are the two Adars in a leap year.

When you say "not the way it is taught", who are you referring to as
not teaching it that way?

Lisa

On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:07:58PM -0500, Richie wrote:
: I found the following by Rabbi Yehuda Spitz which is very interesting
...
:     It is widely known that a leap year always has interesting Bar Mitzvah
:     ramifications. The majority consensus is that if a boy was born in
:     a non-leap year, and on the year of his Bar Mitzvah there are two
:     Adars, his Bar Mitzvah will occur in the second Adar, since it is
:     considered the true one.

This would presumably support Lisa's contention.

However, this is still a not-fully closed machloqes, as RYS puts it,
a matter of consensus. My father was told by RHS that he might as well
say qaddish for my grandfather's yahrzeit in both months.

Purim is no indicator of which Adar is more real; the gemara says it's
in Adar II to put the geulos (Purim and Pesach) next to eachother. In
fact, implied in that gemara is that neither is the more real Adar, which
is why we are using an external rationale to choose one over the other.

And the Beis Yoseif (OC 55 "kasuv beseifer ha'agur") says we learn this
from R' Aba bar Memel on Eruchin 31b. The gace in the gemara is when a
a bayis ir chomah is chlut, and when a year is complete for bechoros.
Also, Y-mi Kesuvos 1:2 WRT three year olds and besulim and rental years
(BM 102b).

But the question there isn't which Adar is real, but defining a "shanah
temimah". IOW, a whole shanah me'uberes is defined as all 13 months. But
when we're not measuring a duration of time in years, but finding an
anniversary, none of the above is necessarily relevant.

Which is how the MA understands the Rama as saying that even a boy born
in Adar I whose bar mitzvah year has two Adars would also become bar
mitzvah in Adar II. Just because the first whole year was 13 months
doesn't mean the 13th whole year shouldn't also be 13 months!

...
:     The same holds true if he was actually born in Adar Sheini. In fact
:     the only way one would celebrate a Bar Mitzvah in the first Adar is if
:     he was actually born in an Adar Rishon. This makes for a remarkable
:     dichotomy. If one boy is born on the 21st of Adar Rishon, and his
:     buddy a week and a half later on the 2nd of Adar Sheini, then in any
:     standard year that follows, the second one would be celebrating his
:     birthday almost 3 weeks before his "older" friend...

You remind me of the riddle the older men in shteibl used to pose to me
when I was a boy: There are two brothers where the younger one becomes
a bar mitzvah before the older. How?

Twins: one born during the day on the last day of Adar I, the other born
at night, which is 1 Adar II. The year of their bar mitzvah only has one
Adar. You would think this means the 2nd twin's bar mitzvah is 1 Adar,
and the 1st twin's wouldn't be until the end of Adar.

The problem is, the older gentlemen were mistaken. Because the 30th
of a month is the first day RC for the next month, the RC status trumps
the actual date. So... The first twin's birthday is the first day of RC
Adar, and his bar mitzvah is the 30th of Shevat, not the 29th of Adar. So
their bar mitzvah days are still one day apart.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are what we repeatedly do.
mi...@aishdas.org        Thus excellence is not an event,
http://www.aishdas.org   but a habit.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Aristotle

Y-mi Yomi passed the mishnah Sanhedrin 9:2. The last din of which is that
if someone intends to kill an adult, hits hard enough to kill an adult,
but missed and hit and killed a qatan, chayav. R' Shim'on disagrees,
and says that even if "niskavein laharog es zeh, veharag es zeh, patur."

It struck me to suggest that this could be leshitaso. This is the same R'
Shim'on who holds that a melekhah she'einah tzerichah legufah is also
patur aval asur. There appears to be a common thread about the definition
of intent WTT chiyuv onesh between the two cases. Both involve intending
an action, but not the particular issur he violated, and both are patur
aval asur.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

RMB writes:

 

>AFAIK, one can make sound arguments both ways, actually.

>H/T RGS, who pointed me to the Rama OC 38:3 and AhS 38:5.

>The Rama says "ve'im hanashim rotzin lehachmir al atzman, mochin beyadam",
>citing the Kol Bo. The MA ("mochin") and the MB (s"q 12) say this is
>because of guf naqi, but the Rama himself gives no explanation. 

 

The MA and the MB say what they say because the Kol Bo brings this as the
reason.  

 

Sefer Kol Bo Siman 21

Rabbi Meir writes women are exempt from tephillin because it is a mitzvah
aseh shehazman grama that behold they are not worn on Shabbas and Yom Tov
and if they want to lay them we do not listen the them since they do not
know how to guard themselves in cleanliness.

 

>The MA adds that guf naqi here is an issue because they are not mechuyavos.



One does wonder though whether the Rema had access to the Orachos Chaim,
which is the more detailed (and I believe regarded as later) version of the
Kol Bo, where R' Aharon (ben Ya'akov ha-Cohen of Narbonne, although some say
of Lunel) adds to this:

 

Orchos Chaim Hilchos tephillin siman 3

Rabbi Meir writes women are exempt from tephillin and if they come to wear
them we do not listen to them because they do not know how to guard
themselves with cleanliness.  And there is a question to me from that which
is in Eruvin perek Hamotzi that Michal Bas Shaul wore tephilin and the
Chachamim did not protest.  And the Rashba permitted to them all mitzvos
aseh and they bless on them from this ma'aseh, and she would not have done
it without the will of the Chachamim and since she laid [tephillin] for sure
she blessed.

 

The Beis Yosef, does quote this Orchos Chaim, but only the question, not the
reference to the Rashba (which would seem to suggest that he might have only
had a partial version, as it is not like him to pass up on a quote of the
Rashba), and then writes:

 

Beis Yosef Orech Chaim siman 33

3 Women and slaves are exempt: Mishna perek mi shemeto (Brachos 20a) and the
gemora brings the reason that it is  because it is a mitzvah aseh shehazman
grama and all mitzvos aseh shehazman grama women are exempt.  And the Rosh
writes in hilchos tephillin (siman 29) that even though we hold like Rabbi
Akiva who says (Eruvin 96) night is a time for tephillin in any event
Shabbas and Yom Tov are not a time for tephillin.  The Kol Bo writes (siman
21) in the name of Rabbi Meir that if the women want to lay tephillin we do
not listen to them because they do not know to guard themselves with
cleanliness.  And in the book Orech Chaim (hilchos tephillin siman 3) he
questions on him [Rabbi Meir] from that which it says at the beginning of
perek hamotzei tephillin (there) that Michal bas Kushi (explanation bas
Shaul) laid tephillin and the Chachamim did not protest.  And to me it seems
that the reason of Rabbi Meir is like that which is written in Tosphos (d"h
Michal) that there is a pesikta (Ravati perek 22) that the Chachamim did
protest, and their explanation of the reason is because tephillin need a guf
naki and women are not particular to be careful and Rabbi Meir wants to be
concerned for the words of the pesikta.


The pesikta in question reads as follows:

 

Pesikta Rabati Piska 22

Women from where: and they shall teach them to their sons (Devarim 11:19)
and not their daughters, all who are chayav in talmud torah are chayav in
tephillin and women who are not chayav in talmud torah are not chayav in
tephillin.  [And it was taught] behold Michal Bas Kushi laid tephillin and
the wife of Yona went up aliyos l'regel and the Chachamim did not protest,
R' Hezkia in the name of Rabbi Abohu said the wife of Rabbi Yona  and Michal
bas Kusi the Chachamim protested.

 

As you can see, this pesikta contradicts the position in the gemora Bavli
that the reason for women's exemption from tephillin is because it is a
mitzvah aseh shehazman grama (and presumably holds like the alternative view
that actually tephillin are not a mitzvah aseh she hazman grama but hence
linked to Torah).  The gemora in Eruvin 96b that brings a partial reference
to this only brings the view that the Chachamim did not protest, so one can
assume that this is yet another contradiction between our gemora and the
pesikta.  And indeed that is how Tosphos understands it in the cited
Tosphos.  They only refer to this pesikta to explain the view of Rabbi
Yehuda, that women are not permitted in general to do mitzvos aseh shehazman
grama.  Rashi had explained Rabbi Yehuda's position as being because to do
so would be ba'al tosif, but Tosphos rejects this as a possibility, because
of the nature of ba'al tosif, so they needed to find other reasons why Rabbi
Yehuda in general did not permit women to perform mitzvos aseh shehazman
grama - and so what they came up with was a list:  shofar because of the
shvus d'rabbanan, aliya l'regel because it looks like chullin b'azarah,
smicha because of avodah with kodshim, and tephillin because of guf naki.
And indeed, the Ra'avid who in fact poskens like Rabbi Yehuda that women may
*not* perform mitzvos aseh shehazman grama indeed holds that all of these
are forbidden but "the sitting in the sukkah and the taking of the lulav
itself  we permit as there is not here kilkul and not zilzul of the
mitzvoth" (The Ra'avid at the beginning of Torat Cohanim (Vayikra) 2:2) - ie
both those who posken like Rabbi Yehuda (like the Ra'avid) and those who
poskened like Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon (nashim somchin reshus) understood
this to be an explanation of Rabbi Yehuda's position that ain bnos yisrael
somchos.

 

The only really odd thing about Rabbi Meir's position is that the Kol Bo
brings him elsewhere as saying:

 

Kol Bo Siman 22

And Rabbi Meir writes that we do not protest if they [women] wrap themselves
[in tzitzis] and bless on them even though they are a mitzvah aseh shehazman
grama that behold their time is not at night.

 

But it is possible that Rabbi Meir held like the Ra'avid - who only
prohibited women from techeles in tzitzis [presumably when there is shatnez)
but not all together, but it is difficult to understand the basis on which
he appears to allow a bracha - which is usually only allowed by those who
follow Rabbanu Tam's understanding as well as following Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi
Shimon.  (note by the way the Kol Bo himself says that women should not say
a bracha on shofar, lulav and sukkah).

 

As you can see, the Beis Yosef assumes that Rabbi Meir must be choshesh for
the pesikta, but it is hard to understand how anybody could be choshesh for
a pesikta that contradicts our gemora in a number of ways, and yet not
choshesh for an explicit mishna which forbids women blowing shofar on Rosh
Hashana (and therefore, as a consequence, forbids any blowing that is just
for women, and via which no man fulfils his obligation).  And yet that is
the halacha that we follow today.

  

To further understand the question, we need to have an investigation of the
nature of guf naki and tephillin, in strict halachic terms. 

 

The Shulchan Aruch rules in the siman above the one dealing with women and
tephillin:

 

Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim hilchos tephillin siman 38 si'if 2

One to whom it is clear that he is not able to  pray without passing wind,
it is better that the time of tephilla should pass than that he should pray
without a guf naki (and see above in siman 80) and if he sees that he is
able to keep himself with a guf naki at the time of krias shema, he should
put on tephillin between ahava and krias shema [and bless]

 

This is quoting a teshuva of the Rosh, which also appears in  siman 80 is as
follows:

 

Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim Hilchos Krias Shema siman 80 si'if 1

One to whom it is clear that he is not able to prevent himself from passing
wind until he finishes krias shema and tephilla, it is better that there
should pass the time of krias shema and tephilla and he should not pray,
that that he should pray without a guf naki, and if the time passed for
tephilla, he is an onus and he can pray mincha twice.  And if he sees that
he is able to prevent himself at the time of krias shema he should put on
tephillin between ahava and krias shema Rema and bless on them (Tur)

 

Now while the Gra has a different view, and argues with the Shulchan Aruch,
what you can see from here is that it is not just tephillin that need a guf
naki, but tephilla and krias shema.  So from this we would seem to have an
answer to the famous question of the Magen Avraham in siman 106 si'if 2 and
others, why if women are obligated in tephilla (as would seem the majority
position of the Rishonim, that they are obligated rabbinically) why do "our
women" not daven, except perhaps to say some request in the morning after
washing.  Straightforward answer based on this Shulchan Aruch, maybe they
are choshesh for this Shulchan Aruch and for not having a guf naki, and
hence are holding back from davening.  And certainly for krias shema, which
is a mitzvah aseh shehazman grama, and hence from which women are patur, it
would seem that if a woman is not permitted to lay tephillin because of guf
naki, the same must be true for reciting krias shema.

 

Of course, it is critical that any discussion of guf naki takes into account
a key teshuva of the Rema who was asked regarding somebody who was
constantly passing urine, but in the course of that he discusses the case
where he had some sickness which also made him pass wind constantly:

 

Shut of the Rema Siman 98

...since behold the Rosh did not say except that it is better that the time
of tephilla passes but he did not say that there was an issur in the matter,
rather that it is better that he wait until after when there is a fix to
return and to pray twice.  However one who is regular in this and if he does
not pray he will be exempt from tephilla completely for sure it is permitted
for him to pray without a guf naki, because an issur rabbanan does not come
and push aside a chiyuv d'orisa or tephilla that is a mitzvah d'rabbim and
thus it is permitted to him to interrupt between ahava and krias shema in
order that he recite krias shema and he pray...

 

Quite a bit more can be found in the various teshuvos relating to the
question as to whether a man can put on tephillin in hospital when he has a
catheter (see eg Tzitz Eliezer chelek 8 siman 1).  Bottom line though, it
does seem that the Rema's position that guf naki itself is no more than a
d'rabbanan would seem to be a dominant view, and hence in the case of a man,
should not push aside tephilla d'rabbim or tephillin or krias shema.
However, tephilla may be obligatory on women, but tephilla d'rabbim would
seem not to be, so if the concern is guf naki, then logic would seem to
suggest that women should not daven.

 

Another interesting thing about the whole question of guf naki, is that
(leaving aside the catheter and shilshul case, where the flow may be
constant), we are dealing here with a safek.    In the case of a medical
condition, one has to say that the percentage chance is sufficiently close
to 100 that it is not deemed a safek but a vadai.   And presumably it is not
unreasonable to say that as the day, the probability that a person will at
all times have a fully guf naki and will never feel the need to pass wind
diminishes to zero even for a normal reasonably healthy person and again
approaches a vadi, but for the short time of shachris, there is at most in a
normal person a safek.  Which would seem, on the basis of the Rema, to be a
safek d'rabbanan.  

 

Back to women and guf naki, I would just note that it seems to me likely,
however, that Rabbi Meir's view about women not being able to maintain a guf
naki might actually, even if we are talking about wind, have a certain
medically justification.  It appears to be that, even today (and I will put
this as delicately as I can, given the indelicate nature of the subject),
(a) relations can cause increases in wind in many women; and (b) the process
of childbirth and the damage it does to eg the pelvic floor can lead to
difficulties in controlling wind production.  In medieval societies, we know
women were married off very young, and were generally having children as
teenagers when their bodies were not yet fully developed, and in the absence
of modern medicine, it may well have been that observations that most women
were not able to maintain a guf naki may have been medically justified.  It
also should be noted, in relation to Michal be Shaul that she did not did
not have a child until the day of her death (Shmuel II 6:24) - so it may be
that she did not fall into the category of high risk non guf naki women, and
so would, vis a vis the average woman in the times of Rabbi Meir, have been
an exception.

 


>Tir'u baTov!
>-Micha

 

 

>I didn't read it yet, but RGS posted his survey of the subject at
>http://www.torahmusings.com/2006/11/why-no-tefillin

Surprisingly historical take for RGS - seems to suggest that guf naki was a
post fact rationalisation for the fact that most men were not wearing
tephillin at all, and could barely be persuaded to put them on for shachris.
If true (and it is not a very halachic view, in the sense that halacha cares
about what the sources say, not the outside historical reasons that may or
may not have driven these sources ), it would seem to weaken the yehora
argument.  If in a certain time period most men aren't doing something they
are obligated to do, then the yehora arguement for a woman who does it is
much stronger during that time period, something that would seem to fall
away if every tom dick and harry were doing it.

 

>-Micha

Regards

 

Chana

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140204/76bfa903/attachment.htm>

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


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 19
**************************************

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.)