Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 046

Monday, November 4 2002

• Re: Psak and Smicha
• Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane
• Re: yehei shlama rabba3
• Re:am'ru vs. amaru
• Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• Re: more am'ru vs. amaru
• Re: re daas torah
• Re: Violating the will of the majority
• Re: CI - was Violating the will of the majority
• Re:Avot/Mitzvot
• Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• Interesting ta'us-attention Litvaks
• yarmulkes & IM
• Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• Re: CI - was Violating the will of the majority
• Re: Defining death. Formerly: A question from my father r.e. this week's Haftarah
• Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?

In a message dated 10/7/2002 12:31:35 PM EST, cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
> IIRC Rav Henkin gave a definition during one of our discussions of 
> the Yoatzot. From what I remember (bli neder will try to find it 
> later), it had something to do with extrapolating from a case given 
> in the Gemara/SA to real life which is considered psak and is not 
> allowed. To read a s'if in SA is - according to Rav Henkin IIRC - not 
> considered psak and allowed for a woman to do. 

Bepashtus any educated lay person can cite Mar'eh Mkomos.

So any lay baki in Codes or in Tshuvos can simply point a person in the right 
direction w/o officially doing ho'ra'ah

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 10/7/2002 8:41:17 AM EST, Chana@KolSassoon.net writes:
> If anything, I would think that the opposite might well be the case. 
> One philosophical explanation for the halacha of tadir v'ano tadir, 
> tadir kodem, is that, we are always very excited and keen about the 
> rarer mitzvos, with a tendency to overlook and ignore the commoner ones 
> (for exactly the reason you mentioned - oh well, I can always do it 
> tomorrow, next week, next month). We therefore are instructed not to do 
> what we would instinctively do, which is prioritise the ano tadir (such 
> as Sukkah), but to put the tadir (such as benching) kodem.

FWIW
tadir kodem is ONLY applicable when BOTH are done. OTherwise the more
unusual often -if not always - takes precence

Therefore with speical Torah readings on Shabbos, the TAdir is first the 
special is last
While OTOH with Haftoros ONLY the most special is recited  

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 10/31/2002 4:31:48 PM EST, dbnet@zahav.net.il writes:
> What is the source for oseh shalom being a later addition than yehei
> shlama? They are both later additions, added to the kaddish(es) said
> at end of davening.

> Perhaps they were both added at approximately the same time, one for
> Aramaic speakers and one for Hebrew speakers.

Baer's Seder Avodas Yisrael is the soruce of my comment. Sorry my Baer
is on loan and I do not have it handy

Bepashtus the entire Kaddish is in Aramaic. Oseh Shalom is not.

Furthermore, Oseh Shalom is essentially redundant to yehei shlama rabba

I suggest viewing Baer on this matter.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

R' SBA wrote of two alternative nuschaot that he has seen where the pausal
form amaru is written rather than am'ru. One is the version he says is
used also by R' Aharaleh's chasidim and the other is in an Ashkenazic
Ma'aravit said (or skipped) on yom tov. The Sefaradi siddurim I've
checked have himlikhu v'am'ru both shaharit and ma'ariv. without zeh
Eli 'anu. The majority of the Ashkenaz machzorim that I checked ended
the piyyut with am'ru before mi khamokha and not amaru.

As to R' YGB's query concerning how this form, evidently one of the
chidushim of RZ"H, got into some siddurim such as the Stoliner and
Toldos Aharon:

Tz'lota d'Avraham has amaru and a note that R' Ya"vetz and GR"A do not
agree to amaru but that it comes from the siddurim of d'fus Slavita who,
in turn, state that it is from Sha'arei Tefila of RZ"H. Otzar Hatefilot
has amaru in shaharit and am'ru in ma'ariv. In many mefarshim there they
speak of "v'am'ru H' yimlokh... ", which justifies am'ru. 'Avodat Yisrael
of course justifies am'ru because, like Ya'vetz he says there is no
logical stop after the word despite the fact that people wait there so
all say together H' yimlokh..

 I have never made a serious survey on this word. I haven't proved it,
but have a strong impression that the pausal form is not been commonly
accepted. R' Aharele, in Jerusalem may have picked up the Sefaradi nusach
of himlikihu v'am'ru for ma'ariv and combined it with the Ashkenazic
zeh Eli 'anu. but the kamatz of amaru must come, perhaps via Slavita,
from RZ"H.

Very many other changes of RZ"H were copied by siddur editors and remain
to this day including many oppposed by R' Ya'akov m'Emden, " Mordekhai
Dueseldorf, the Gra, and others.

Another innovation of RZ"H is the invention of the t'nu'a kala, i.e.,
the sh'va merachef being a sh'va na', which was opposed, among others,
also by the GR"A:

Despite the opposition, it was copied, i.e., accepted as correct
pronunciation, by most siddurim that marked the sh'va na'. To this day
it appears in the Chabad siddur. It is also found in Otzar Hatefilot
and the old Chorev Siddur Hashalem. In my youth, it appeared in all the
Hebrew Publishing Co. siddurim which were pretty much the shul standard
in the early 40's.

It, obviously does not appear in siddurei haGR"A which make a point of
the "fact" that these sh'vaim are nachim.

Interestingly, most siddurim used the rafeh sign to indicate the sh'va na'
ignoring its original function. But, then, even the new accurate Tanakh
editions no longer have the rafeh sign so it can be considered mufneh.

My usual test word is to look at umalkhuto and malkhu'kha in ma'ariv.
If I see the lamed marked for sh'va na', I know RZ"H has won another
one. Did you ever hear anyone pronounce the word umalekhuto? Nah!

R' Shlomo Ganzfried (of kitzur Sh"A fame) in his Keset Sofer, chelek
2, also accepts RZ"H's ideas on t'nu'a kala and "correct" Hebrew.
(Somewhere near siman 24 or 25, IIRC. I'm too tired to get up to search
for the book and then the place.)

Modern grammarians have rejected RZ"H on this and it is now pretty much
accepted that these sh'vaim are nachim with a few exceptions where the
mesorah notes a chataf. The investigation of Teimani pronunciation also
backs up the anti-RZ"H school.

For the uninitiated, I'm talking about the sh'va in words like udvar,
shikhva, pitda,arvot, darkhei, as well as the malkut'kha malkhuto examples
cited above.

Although on the sh'va, RZ"H is now beginning to lose the battle, on words
in the siddur he seems to have a victory. I'm talking of "improvements"
to have a more Biblical Hebrew such as changing the -in endings to -im
and the -akh endings to -'kha (makdishin > makdishim, kodshakh . kodsh'kha
etc.) battle. One change that lost out was R' Zalman's improvement in ata
yatzarta, namely hash'lukha instead of shenishtalkha b'mikdashekha. While
RV"H accepted it and 'ad hayom hazeh it is in the Roedelheim tefilla
(siddur), R' S. Baer in 'Avodat Yisrael changed it back and wrote his
reasons. Most siddurim followed this one cancellation of modernism but
they probably didn't know much about the others modernizations that are
now pretty much standard in Ashkenaz siddurim.

As I mentioned in my last posting, R' Y. m'Emden's book Luach Eres is a
refutation of RZ"H, going page by page through the siddur . The latest
edition includes some of RZ"H's works as well as of other of his opponents
and also some mechkarim as well as notes of the editor R' David Yitzhaki
(of Kolel Hazon Ish).

So, RYGB, I cannot tell you very much about the spread of amaru . It
appears that it might have spread to the chasidic world from the siddurim
printed in Slavita. That press was established after the times of RZ"H
by a son of R' Pinchas miKoritz. Although the kamatz of amaru has not
penetrated many siddurim, RZ"H's relative success in his, and V'yetar
Yitzhak's, many other modifications is fairly widespread throughout
Ashkenazi siddurim. That would made theGra and Ya'vetz unhappy, but,
by now, after 200 years, most of us are used to it. Except nit pickers
like me. (That's R' -mi's very apt term for me in old postings.)

K"T,
David

Found a number of important issues in "Male & Female He created them"
a Targum/Feldheim book 1996.

1) p 127 "Despite all of these admonitions concerning truthfulness, an
number of untruths about Torah are taught in outreach settings...Some
of the teachings are exaggerations or oversimplifications of principles;
others are patent falsehoods. Naturally, these mistakes do not blot out
the wealth of good work done in outreach, but they can be substantial
enough to harm the students and the community..."

2) p 132 "A number of recent books in English propose this idea of women's
spiritual superiority over men, and reportedly, the idea is taught as
well in numerous schools for women. The reader should note that none of
the books in question offer a classical source for the idea and none of
the several teachers of the idea have been able to supply a source..."

3) p135 "Therefore it should not be surprising to find an abundance
of classical sources which not only rebut the teaching of higher
spirituality in women but explicitly state its converse. Among these
sources are the Maharal, the Taz, the Magen Avaraham, the Shevet Mussar
and Rav Tzadok...It should be added as well that this author ...did not
find any sources which put forth the idea of spirituality in women being
on a higher level than that of men. Nor had any of the numerous Gedolei
HaTorah interviewed for this book heard of any such sources."

4) p 197 "The teaching of oversimplified or false principles concerning
the spiritual natures of men and women produces a number of negative
repercussions...Since misteachings on this subject are a relatively recent
occurrence, the classical commentaries have not focused on them...One of
the problems with apologetic teachings is their hindrance to outreach to
non-religious Jews...p198 A second problem for outreach is that fact that
these teachings dissuade many men from becoming Torah observant...Is a
young man who has been out in the world really supposed to believe that
he is less naturally moral and good than his female peers?...

5) p 202 " Young women can be taught day in and day out to respect the
leadership of their husbands, but if they are taught simultaneously
to doubt the qualifications of the leader than the teachings are
undermined....As a different woman phrased it, 'If women are more
spiritual, then we should be the rabbis'." p210 "A wife who regards Limud
Torah as something the husband alone needs to lift himself to her level
sends a very different message than the wife who admires the husband
for his unique and intrinsic abilities...

                        Daniel Eidensohn

In my las posting I suggested in a wishy-washy manner that 
perhaps, maybe, ulai, the amaru form spread to hasidic 
siddurim from RZ"H via Slavita press.  The reason for my 
hesitation was that I remembered having read this some place 
but wasn't quite sure where or when.  I did check in the Enc. 
Judaica and found that the Slavita press was founded in 1793 
by the son of R' Pinchas miKoritz. This fit in with both the 
timing, i.e. after RZ"H, and with chasidim.

I went to bed at about 2 AM but woke up at about 4 AM 
thinking of am'ru/amaru and suddenly remembered that I have a 
Slavita siddur.  I couldn't wait, jumped out of bed and sure 
enuff, there it was on the top shelf, Siddur N'hora Hashalem, 
nusach Ashkenaz, printed in Slavita in 1833.

It has amaru in shaharit and am'ru in ma'ariv (like Otzar 
Hatefilot).  In the introduction, after the haskamot, it has 
a listing of dikduk and nusach choices. For page 71 in 
shaharit it says: hmlikhu v'amru, mem sh'niya k'mutza 'al pi 
Sha'arei Tefilla.  There is no note or reason given for the 
alternate form in ma'ariv.  Both are followed by H' yimlokh 
so one should not be more of a hefsek than the other.

As Sha'arei Tefilla is the work of R' Shlomo Zalman Hakohen 
Hanau ham'khuneh RZ"H, I now feel more certain that my 
suggestion has a strong basis.

I remember that the siddur shows the influence of a few other 
innovations of RZ"H but I know no reason why this one 
aberration went to Slavita but not to most other printers.

RZ"H lived and worked in Germany so we can wonder how he made 
an impression on a printer in the Ukraine. BTW, the Enc. 
Judaica tells us that RZ"H left Frankfort for Hamburg because 
of opposition to his hiddushim from the "conservatives". 
Later on he had to leave Hamburg as well. But, still, he has 
left an enormous impression on our modern siddur.

With hope that this will end the amm'ru/amaru thread, I 
remain,Sirs, yo"s

David

In a message dated 11/03/2002 1:07:19 PM EST, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com writes:
<< (i don;t beleive it was RYE who handled the daily Brisk questions,
rather r simcha zelig (?)). >>

R' Simcha Zelig Reuger, according to R' A. Ziegler(a student of R'YBS) R.
Chaim asked for 3 names and picked R'szr because he would always say
"I don't know, I need to look it up". Interesting however that R'MS
first entered Rabbinate and started copying R'CS process of sayimg I
don't know, ask R'SZR, R'CS told him that when R'CS said that, people
didn't believe him, but if R'MS says it they will believe him so he
should give the answer(I adssume to establish his own reputation)-per
R. Rakeffet in The Rav.

KT
Joel Rich

In a message dated 10/15/2002 8:24:36 AM EST, yadmoshe@bezeqint.net writes:
> That is the job of gedolim. Halacha is not determined by plebiscite as
> it is by the Reform and Conservative.

I'm not sure what you mean by this
We can show many cases where the Halachah was decided against the
greatest Gadol.

Illustration: In a recent artcile in the Yated Ne'eman, Rif paskened
to blow Shofar on Rosh Hashanah shechal beshabbes so long as there was a
beis din. Rif's Talmidim refused to follow him on this. How can this be?

Furthermore, how can there ever be a Toe'h bidvar Mishnah when a a Gadol
is involved?

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 11/3/2002 1:05:18 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>: In Micha's system Tosafos is flawed.

> 1- IF Agus is right that Tosafos were out to justify minhag Ashkenaz
> even if we can only find a handful of Tosafos-notes that actually set
> out to do so (our lack of chulios in tzitzis, mayim achronim, anyone
> know of others?) -- out of how many thousands? Not enough to claim that
> it's their standard methodology.

> Taking Tosafos at face value, they were out to make Shas consistant,
> not justify some external datum.

Let me qualify my statement as follows

When Tosafos CONTRADICTS the Shas what is his most common motive:
A) Internal Consistency
B) External Consistency
C) Preserving Minhag

AISI, #B and #C are the most common

I am preapring a post on this matter now re: chiyyuv o women on Kiras 
megillah
Sources:
Arachin 2b, Tosafos, Rambam Hiclchos Megillah 1:1
SA mi chayyav etc. 

Dr. Agus was a bit fuzzy on this in the classes that I attended. I asked
Rabbi Dr. Kanarfogel on this matter directly. He conceded that Tosafos
would not give in on the Minhag. RDEK and I disagree on one essential
prat, He holds that Shas- based upon Tosafos - was waved together as
an integral whole. I see it as recdrogings of individual debates whose
underlying premises may not match. IOW can Sugya A argue on Suya B. RDEK
holds that Tosafos would say no. That may be true for Tosafos or not,
but it is apparent to me that Suyas DO argue. I intend to write an
article on this based upon Arvei Psachim where the sugya of Rav Yehuda
amar Shmuel argues with the previous Sugyabased upon Rav Huna

> 2- Even in those cases, as you write "EVERY Halacha and every Masorah
> would be subject to immediate chakira". And, sure enough, they do measure
> up those cases against the gemara at hand. It's not like they were
> keeping the universe of practice and of learning totally separate. Isn't
> a separateness of halachah-as-lamdus and halachah-as-practiced a key-pin
> of you worldview?

Look the Kuzari says that a Tradition based religion achieves more
peace of mind than a textual based religion in his argumetn against
Karaites. That is because every point has to be re-examined without
relying upon the opions of predecessors.

If you cannot rely upon your grandfather to get the number of matzos
right, the way to tie your Tefillin or the color of Your tzittizs then
soon you might as well subject EVERYTHING to scrutiny.

What are your sources that Oats are Oat? {See post Re; RHS and Rambam}
How do you know that Turkey is kosher? Have you aksed your RAv re:
tying a necktie on Shabbos?

In a text or text/Rav halachic paragidm there is no acceptance of
consensus and every Halachah is subject to re-examination. You need
to have all of Shas at your command. Or at least you need to ask a Rav
about everything.

If you accept Masorah you KNOW that neckties, are OK on Shabbos and that
Turkey is kosher, and that frum Jews wear Yarmulkas etc.

As far as methodlogy goes, how do YOU know whether the proper method is
to ask a Gadol or to ask your local Rav or to consult a Sefer?

And how do you know the MB is superior to say the Kittzur? Or that the
SA is superior to the Levush? Or the Bavli is superior to the Yerushalmi?

How do you know that can't simply pasken like the Vanilla Rambam?

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Lfi shitat Rashi that the avot kept even the Rabbinic Mitzvot(based on
yoma28b), Where did the mesora of these breakdown (ie who are the avot
and when did their descendants stop following their practices and why?)

KT
Joel Rich

Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
> 3) p135 "Therefore it should not be surprising to find an abundance
> of classical sources which not only rebut the teaching of higher
> spirituality in women but explicitly state its converse. Among these
> sources are the Maharal, the Taz, the Magen Avaraham, the Shevet Mussar
> and Rav Tzadok...It should be added as well that this author ...did not
> find any sources which put forth the idea of spirituality in women being
> on a higher level than that of men. Nor had any of the numerous Gedolei
> HaTorah interviewed for this book heard of any such sources."

Spirtual superiority is not always a good thing. The story is told that
the CI used to stand up when a mentally handicapped man walked into
the room. When asked about it he said that they were on a much higher
spiritual level than he was since they were fufilling their mission here
on earth more fully than he was as they were using their capabilities
more fully than he was. Since they had "less" to do than him they were
indeed created on a higher spritual level.

Even though this issue was discussed here at length here on Avodah a few
years ago, I have never had a good explanation of the Bracha recited every
morning of SheLo Asani Isha. I have heard the explanation that men get
to do more Mitzvos by than women by being required to do the Mitzvos
Aseh SheHaZman Grammah. Women are closer to G-d's idea of perfection
and they are, therefore, exempt from Mitzvos Aseh She HaZman Gramah. IOW
to reach even the level that women are already on, men were given those
Mitzvos in order to reach a woman's level of spirituality. This is why
we say Shelo Asani Isha, to thank G-d for giving us more Mitzvos to do.

I always questioned this explanation. Why thank G-d for making us
less perfect than women? Why thank Him for making our burdon greater?
Wouldn't it have been better for men to have been created on this
higher level? This is when I heard the above comparison to retrarded
people. It is not always better to be created in a state of higher
spirituality. Mentally handicapped people are in a higher spiritual
state. Women are in a higher spiritual state. The ability to raise oneself
to the higher spirtual state reaps greater reward than having being

That explanation seems to put women at a disadvantage once again. Why are
women not given the same opportunity to perfect themselves as men? Why
create them "holier"?

Now... as your post shows, the entire proposition that women are on
a higher spritual plane is dismissed as, at best questionable. This
strengthens my question. Why do men thank G-d for not making them
women? If it is because men have more Mitzvos, why are women deprived of
them? The fact that they are given special dispensation beacuse of child
rearing responsibilities means that they cannot hope to reach a man's
level of spirituality as they are Aino Metzuvah and even if they would
do all the Mitzvos Aseh SheHazman Grammah, it doesn't equal the same
Schar as does a Metzuveh V'Oseh. One cannot say that a woman's Mitzvah
of child rearing is the same as a man's Mitzvos Aseh SheHazman Grammah
because that would void the answer to my SheLo Asani Isha question. IOW
Man wouldn't have more Mitzvos, just different one's.

So in light of all of this how does one explain the Bracha SheLo Asni
Isha?

HM

In the Rashi on 53a, Rashi translates "which word" (do we use to learn
out sekila in the gezera shava), in many prints of the Gemara, into
"aizeh tova", which apparently makes no sense.

Rav Dovid Cohen, in his "he'akov lemishor" mentions this as one case of
where the proofreader read the words out loud that he was proofreading,
to the typesetter. So, he read "aizeh, teiva", meaning which word,
and the one listening to him (a certifiable Litvak, obviously), heard
it as.....tova!

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Michael Frankel" <michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com>
> refugee german community -- RSHR's transplanted q'hilloh -- and can assure
> you that these yekkish chareidim (they were also solid aguda supporters)
> generally did not wear any head covering in the workplace. I can also
> assure you that r moshe had nothing to do with it. And this was not a

But did the Melamed leHoil, who was IIRC in Germany?

Shimon Deutsch reproduces a teshuva from R' DZ Hoffman in support of
his contention that photographic evidence (university ID picture and
maybe one other) indicates that the Lubavitcher Rebbe didn't insist
on wearing a yarmulke all the time.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

Binah yeseirah nitnah lahen
vs
da'atan qalos

Better in some ways, worse in others. Seems obvious to me, what's the
she'eilah -- why assume spiritual stance is unidimensional?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org            I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org       I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            -  Rabinranath Tagore

On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 05:26:59PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: > Taking Tosafos at face value, they were out to make Shas consistant,
: > not justify some external datum.

: Let me qualify my statement as follows

: When Tosafos CONTRADICTS the Shas what is his most common motive:
: A) Internal Consistency
: B) External Consistency
: C) Preserving Minhag

: AISI, #B and #C are the most common

I dunno. I open a gemara, and can't find examples of (C) at all --
aside for the couple you've pointed out.

As RGS pointed out (in person) motza'ei Shabbos, it seems Rashi had
no problem with a machloqes hasugyos, but to the Tosafos they were
seen as setiros -- not machloqesin.

The only role I would think prevaling minhag or sources from EY would
serve would be a kasuv hashelishi lehachri'a beineihem. Given they take
setirah as proof that the naive read of the inyan is inaccurate, why
not use what's done as a means to read otherwise.

:> 2- Even in those cases, as you write "EVERY Halacha and every Masorah
:> would be subject to immediate chakira". And, sure enough, they do measure
:> up those cases against the gemara at hand. It's not like they were
:> keeping the universe of practice and of learning totally separate. Isn't
:> a separateness of halachah-as-lamdus and halachah-as-practiced a key-pin
:> of you worldview?

: Look the Kuzari says that a Tradition based religion achieves more
: peace of mind than a textual based religion in his argumetn against
: Karaites. That is because every point has to be re-examined without
: relying upon the opions of predecessors.

Ah, but texts preserve the opinions of predecessors. This isn't "Torah
shebichsav" only, or even printed texts only. It's formal knowledge of
halachah, as it's built by ba'alei mesorah across the doros.

: If you cannot rely upon your grandfather to get the number of matzos
: right, the way to tie your Tefillin or the color of Your tzittizs then
: soon you might as well subject EVERYTHING to scrutiny.

Although some things are sure enough for such scrutiny to be silly. Yes,
in /theory/ scrutiny would be worthwhile, but only where ikka rei'usa.

: In a text or text/Rav halachic paragidm there is no acceptance of
: consensus and every Halachah is subject to re-examination. You need
: to have all of Shas at your command. Or at least you need to ask a Rav
: about everything.

WRONG! Consensus among rabbanim is also consensus (azlinan basar ruba)
-- as is consensus among the am. You don't reopen halachic questions
until you can show that the current ruling is ta'us. You can't simply
hop from one eilu to the other eilu amongst the divrei E-lokim chaim.

The difference is that it's part of a formal system, and therefore
one rule among many. You make it into an informal, native system, and
therefore consensus among the masses becomes the only rule.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org            I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org       I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            -  Rabinranath Tagore

On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:06:47PM +0200, D & E-H Bannett wrote:
: Today, brain stem death is irreversible. Today, it is death. Tomorrow?

Let's ask the same question about the other definitions...

Today, decapitation is irreversible. Today it is death. Tomorrow?

Today, cessation of breath or heartbeat are frequently reversible.
As you note, claiming they're death yeilds problems.

People have themselves frozen cryogenically because there is /nothing/
that is certain to be irreversible for all time to come.

Unless you define them as "unreversed cessation of heartbeat", so that
once the situation is irreversable, the time of petirah (and tum'as
meis, etc...) was when the heart stopped.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org            I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org       I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            -  Rabinranath Tagore

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Binah yeseirah nitnah lahen
> vs
> da'atan qalos
> 
> Better in some ways, worse in others. Seems obvious to me, what's the
> she'eilah -- why assume spiritual stance is unidimensional?

Doesn't Binah Yeseirah mean spiritual superiority? What do you mean
"Better in some ways, worse in others".

[Email #2. -mi

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Binah yeseirah nitnah lahen
> vs
> da'atan qalos

In my quick read I did'nt notice "da'atan qalos". So I retract my last
question. But if they are equel in some ways and superior in others,
why thank G-d for not making us women? Doesn't it make us equal enough
for men not feel thankful for not making them women?

HM

> Binah yeseirah nitnah lahen
> vs
> da'atan qalos

> Better in some ways, worse in others. Seems obvious to me, what's the
> she'eilah -- why assume spiritual stance is unidimensional?

Binah yeseirah (Intuition) is a cognitive not spiritual ability.

p 203 in Male and Female He created them

Mishna Nidah 5:6 discusses the age of maturity. "Rebbe's view is that
girls reach maturity at twelve and boys at 13., Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezar
says that boys reach maturity at twelve and girls at 13. The gemora
explains Rebbe Shimon is that boys develop their practical intelligence
through their exposure to the marketplace. The explanation for Rebbe's
view is that girls have binal yeseirah which is intution that depending
on different opinions, may mean extra intutiion or earlier developing
intuition (Nidah 45b)

Maharal calls it a seichel elyoni or loosely translated, ethereal or
non concrete intelligence. The Maharal Chidushei Agados Nidah 45b says:
"The explanation is that HaShem gave to the woman an ethereal intelligence
since she is extra prepared for this. To the man He gave intelligence
and chochma in extra amounts and this is an abstract intelligence. Bava
Metzai (59a) 'If your wife is short bend down and listen to her.'
It is established that this refers to matters of the house or according
to another interpretation matters of the world. This is so because the
woman's wisdom comes from ethereal inelligence which is more relevant to
her than it is to the man. Therefore it says that in matters of heaven
that one should not go after the counsel of his wife because wisdom
required for such maters is not relevant to her, it being an abstract
intelligence. There is to understand well what our Rabbis hint at when
they say that HaShem gave binah yeseirah to the woman. This is drawn
from the language vayiven a reference to the verse where HaShem builds or
vayiven the woman from the side of man. She completes the building of the
man and from this perspective wisdom is relevant to her. Nevertheless the
attribute of the man is that he has abstract intelligence."

page 204. The problems is that people sometimes misunderstand the meaning
of binah yeseirah and take it effectively to refer to some comprehensive
link to truth. Such a practice might be reflective of the trend in the
secular world towards relgions from the Far East which operate with
little literature and focus on meditation and internal wisdom...

                                            Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ 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         ]