Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 075

Monday, December 9 2002

• Re: Adon Olam
• Re: silk-screened sifrei torah (STAM) and megillot
• And also our donkeys
• RE: Avodah V10 #73
• Re: silk-screened sifrei torah (STAM) and megillot
• Re: dibre Torah be-loshan Bnei Adam
• Re: women and chanukiyot
• women and brachot
• Re: Saying Birchas hanehenin for someone else

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:25:52AM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
:                                If you carefully look at all versions of
: the Kedusha as it is expanded on different occasions and in the blessings
: of the Shema, the following becomes evident:
: 
: Malchus - G-d's immanence or reaching to the world (Pachad Yitshak
: talks about two types of Malchus, one form top to us, another form us
: reaching upwards, in the volume on Rosh Hashana and defines it in this
: way)....

This would explain the Gra's shitah on birkhas Avos. He holds that
(unlike R' Chanina's student) we do not heap on adjectives beyond
Moshe Rabbeinu's "haKel haGadol haGibbor vehaNorah". Rather, these
four themes are repeated and elaborated throughout the berakhah.

He stops before explaining "Melekh Ozeir uMoshia' uMagein".

Your explanation of "malchus" is an aspect of "barukh" as understood
by RCVilozhiner. Both are variations of the theme of "haKel", so it
shtims that both would be about being the Source.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 05:49:00PM -0500, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
: The question, of course, is what makes this stencil inking process
: equivalent to writing? Normal writing is done one letter at a time,
: and it is important to preserve the order of letter formation in writing
: STAM...

I can see the latter problem. I have a question your first question made
me think of. Hilchos Shabbos: would using such a stencil be tzovei'ah
or (also?) koseiv?

-mi

Question about parashas Mikeitz....

Here the brothers think they're about to become Tzafnas Panei'ach's
slaves, and they add that they're concerned that also their donkeys
would be confiscated. And again, when their fears prove unfounded
both avdus and their donkeys are mentioned.

I first thought it was because the donkeys were Ya'aqov's, and
this is the one who went back for pachim qetanim.

However, the conjugation "chamorEINU" wouldn't have been used if
the whole nequdah was about the donkeys being someone else's.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

From: "Avi Burstein" <betera@012.net.il> 
> IIRC, Hallel was established by the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah for 
> specific days or events where there was a clear Nes that happened to 
> yo. Saying a Bracha without those parameters violates Halacha and is 
> a Bracha L'Vatalah. Saying Hallel w/o a Bracha is also a problem.... 

> Of course others disagree...

Rav Aharon Soloveitchik (zt'l)'s article re saying Hallel without a bracha
on YH is found in Gesher (a REITS publication) volume 3 (circa 1968-69-70). 

: On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 05:49:00PM -0500, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
: : The question, of course, is what makes this stencil inking process
: : equivalent to writing? Normal writing is done one letter at a time,
: : and it is important to preserve the order of letter formation in writing
: : STAM...

On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 06:37:00PM +0000, I replied:
: I can see the latter problem. ...

I take that back. Letter order is a din bedavka in mezuzah. Which is
why one can fix a sefer Torah that was missing a letter.

-mi

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:23:24AM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
: My main point was more in aggadata issues where mesorah is less 
: clear. For example the concept of aliyah and Jerusalem being the 
: center of the world is now considered to be a spiritual height and 
: not a physical heightand center. Is there any basis for this in the 
: Gemara itself?

And where are Brisker chaqiros explicit in the gemara itself?

Aggadeta has no process for reducing options. Saying it has less clarity
in other ways presumes your conclusion.

To answer your question, the idiom of "oleh" for moving to Israel does
imply it. On their maps, with mizrach on top, Israel would be denoted
lower on the page.

: Similarly many gemaras indicate that the world is flat and that seems 
: to be the way rishonim acce[ted it. Today we reintrepr these gemaras.

About the rishonim, not at all -- most were geocentrists, which implies a
spherical earth in the middle of orbits! In any case, is that an aggadic
issue? Notice that tannaim just repeat the physics of their own day,
trying to understand the torah in its light. (I've noted this on Avodah
before; we acceptede geocentrism the same generation that the Romans did.)
We, when we reinterpret, are continuing their mahalach, not disagreeing
with it.

: Even in halacha we have debated using scientific data to re-intrepret 
: gemaras. Tosafot introduce the concept of nishtanu ha-teva...

Nope. R' Avraham ben haRambam also uses the concept. Although leshitaso,
it means teory, not reality, had changed. Point is, the idiom must
predate T.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On 6 Dec 2002 at 8:44, Jonathan Baker wrote:
> RCS 
>> On 5 Dec 2002 at 12:34, Jonathan Baker wrote:
>>> RCS: 
>>>> On 4 Dec 2002 at 13:31, Jonathan Baker wrote: 

>>>>> Remember, one of the arguments against women as shlichei tzibur,
>>>>> or women as kor'ot megillah for mixed groups, is about levels of
>>>>> obligation. Inherent in that argument is that people of equal
>>>>> level of obligation can motzi one another in brachot/tefillah.
>>>>> Certainly a woman can motzi a man in benching. 
>>>> Not in most instances. See SA OC 186:1 and MB 2 and 3 there. 
>>> Fine. But as long as their chiuv is the same, she can. 
>> Technically can - yes. Even remotely advisable - no. See Rashi in
>> Succah 38a (among others). 

> I've seen that Rashi, and the Tosfos, and I don't see how they're
> generally applicable, as broadly as you want them to be.  V. infra.

First of all that Rashi and Tosfos are talking explicitly about bentching,
which is the subject of the exchange above. Second, it cuts both ways
since that Mishna is also the source of women being motzi men with
brachos. So, anywhere you don't want to accept the klala, you can't
have women being motzi men with the brachos other than bentching. It
cuts both ways. So go ahead and take your pick.

>>> And the Tosfos on Sukkah 38a seems to imply that it works, even
>>> over the d'oraita/d'rabbanan chiyuv barrier, but that it's not a
>>> good thing to do. 

>> Where do you see that in that Tosfos? As far as I can tell that
>> Tosfos is dealing with whether or not women have a chiyuv d'oraysa
>> in bentching (and I admit to some difficulty in understanding the
>> Tosfos, but I don't see what you see there). 

> If "a curse comes upon him", but the Mishna (and Gemara) say that she
> benches for him, or helps him through hallel, that doesn't sound like
> "he doesn't fulfill his obligation".  In other words, even though
> there are different levels of obligation, she can still do it for him.

It's got nothing to do with levels of obligation (in bentching - only -
there's a safek whether she has a chiyuv d'oraysa because she can't
see "al ha'aretz asher nosata lanu" and v'al brischa she'chasamta
b'vsareinu"). It's quite plain that she can technically be motzi him -
 even with birchos ha'nehe'neen. But he's cursed if she does it. And
Rashi says quite explicitly why - because she's not worthy of being
his shaliach. Read the Rashi. Take out an Artscroll if you need it to
translate :-) And then accept that's what Rashi's saying. There is no
other explanation for that Rashi.

>  It crosses the d'O/d'R barrier, as odd as that seems.  It's like
> kohen/grusha marriage: it's mo'il, but it's not a good idea.

Tell me you don't mean this. A Kohain marrying a grusha is a lav. A
pretty serious one at that (you won't find a Rabbi in Israel who will
perform such a marriage). A woman making a bracha to be motzi a man is
not a lav. It's just not a good way of fulfilling an asei. In any event,
the comparison is totally inapplicable.

>>>>> One is called to account in the Next World for that which was
>>>>> mutar to one, and one did not take advantage of it
>>>> Source????? 
>>> Lots of people have said this. Looking on the web, it's always 
>> See my response to Reb Simcha. You seem to have given an 
>> interpretation to that Yerushalmi which is completely different from
>> that given by the Pnei Moshe and the Korban Ha'Eida, who are the
>> Rashi and Tosfos of the Yerushalmi. 

> Even though they're both late acharonim?  They should necessarily be
> taken as seriously as early Rishonim?

Do you have anyone else of equal stature who explains the Yerushalmi
otherwise? They may "only" be late Achronim - but they're still way
ahead of you and I and all the Hillel Rabbis on the East Coast in
halachic stature.

> Even so, it's only a small extrapolation from wanting to make extra
> brachot of shevach, on things which happen once a year, to saying
> she'asah nisim la'avoteinu.  And others have drawn it more widely than
> the "eat more types of fruit" literal reading.

Who? Where? Sources? And don't give me "everyone says so." That's not
a source.

> Make more brachot on mitzva acts.

What "pleasures of the world" other than eating require brachos? You
can't make Birchas ha'Ilanos more than once a year, no matter how many
types of trees you see. Are you suggesting that I'm going to be called
to task in Olam HaBa for not going exactly once a month to the ocean so
that I can make a bracha on it each time. And what is the source for that?

>>                    Besides, I don't see Rashi's words as being 
>> b'geder "kadeish atzmecha ba'mutar lach." He goes way beyond that. 

> I don't see Rashi's words as applying generally at all.

Are you trying to limit Rashi to bentching? If that's the case, then
you also have to limit the Gemara there to bentching, and now the only
thing your wife can do for you is bentch. Interesting result.

> If you can draw Rashi broadly, then why not draw the Gemara in
> Kiddushin broadly.  

Because the Pnei Moshe and the Korban ha'Eida clearly don't.

> Oh, right, drawing Rashi broadly forbids more
> things, while drawing the Gemara broadly permits more things.  It's
> always easier to forbid than to permit.

This borders on apikorsus.

>> Certainly 
>>> looking at the list, it's the "frummies" who are more likely to
>>> have the woman not light, and the "frummies" are generally
>>> considered more concerned with "chumrot" than the just plain folks.

>> Whom are you calling "fruhmmies?" (Ironically, I would guess that
>> you classify me as a fruhmmie and yet my wife - who did not light
>> when 

> Your home, probably not.  The attitude towards halacha evidenced here,
> probably.

I don't understand. Am I a "fruhmmie" or not? Who else on this list is a
"fruhmmie?" More importantly - who isn't?

What's unique about this list is that - at least among nearly all of those
who post regularly - each of us is convinced that his or her derech is
a valid derech in Torah, and each of us is convinced that we are doing
our best to grow in Torah and to be proper Ovdei Hashem. Almost none of
us view our worldviews as a compromise. By calling some people among us
"fruhmmies" you're implying that others of us are not pursuing valid
drachim in Avodas Hashem or are compromising their fruhmkeit or other
such things, which I would guess that most people on this list would
find quite insulting. Ironically, I suspect that most of those with whom
you think you are identifying yourself would be most insulted at your
not considing them "fruhmmies." So if you think you're insulting me by
labelling me a fruhmmie - aderaba. I'd think there's something wrong
in my Avodas Hashem if you didn't label me a "fruhmmie." I suspect that
most of the list feels the same.

>> she was growing up - lights in my house). How does one qualify to be
>> a "fruhmmie?" Rav Nebenzahl in one of his sichot in Bamidbar implies
>> that we should all want to qualify to be "fruhmmies" regardless of
>> our hashkafa (he decries the fact that much of the DL world
>> qualifies itself as "not Charedi" and says that all Jews should be
>> chareid l'dvar Hashem - which is the derivation of the term). How
>> does someone on this list qualify to be a "fruhmmie?" 

> That attitude of fanaticism which is looked down upon by all of us. As
> in "those frummies over there".  Anyone to my right is a fanatic,
> anyone to my left is an apikores.

What a shtark hashkafa.... 

>>>>>> No. The Gemara only says tavo me'era on a man who needs his wife
>>>>>> to say brachos for him. Not the other way around. 
>>>>> NEEDS his wife to, not WANTS his wife to. IOW, it's a polemic
>>>>> against men who don't take the trouble to learn the most basic of
>>>>> mitzvot, the most basic of prayers - brachos on food. Doesn't
>>>>> sound like a ban on having one's wife be motzi one with a bracha.

> [snip] 
>> Whoa.... Before we talk about Tosfos, let's understand Rashi. Rashi
>> says "v'im lomad, tavo lo me'eira she'mevazeh es kono la'asos lo
>> shluchim ka'ela."  Rashi is quite explicit that it has NOTHING to do


> Oh.  We're looking at different Rashis.  You're looking at the one on
> the Mishna, I'm looking at the one on the Gemara.

> Mishna: women/slaves can say hallel for free-men, but a curse comes on

>  if they do.

> Rashi: because they haven't learned, and even if they have learned,
> it's
>  a slap in the face to Hashem that he uses such agents.

[snip]

> Tosfos: s"v V't'hei: this should have been said on the gemara
> regarding
>  benching, because here it's clearly a bizayon for them to lead and he
>  to answer, because they are not obligated in hallel.

The Mishna and that Tosfos have nothing to do with bentching. They're
talking about Hallel. The Braisa in the Gemara talks about Bentching.

> Gemara: ...the sages say that a curse comes on one whose sons and wife
>  bless for him.

> Rashi: because he hasn't learned.

> Tosfos: s"v B'emet: this is referring to birchat hamazon, and one
> might
>  argue that women have the same d'oraita level of obligation as men,
>  since we see that they can fulfill the obligations of others, but
>  really they don't, unless the men have only eaten a shiur that
>  oblgates them d'rabanan, and women don't lead in public.  Similarly
>  the Behag says they shouldn't lein megillah in public.

> So really what's going on here is a very narrow thing, having to do
> with levels of obligation in benching and hallel.  

Huh? Rashi says explicitly that women are not worthy shluchim to be
motzi a man with his obligation. Why do you keep ignoring that?

> However, what Tosfos and the Gemara do NOT say anything about, is
> brachot in general, birchot hanehnin, birchot hamitzva, etc.  

In which case, what is the source for women being motzi men in general?

In fact, Bodner (Halachos of Brachos) cites this Gemara as the source
for women being able to be motzi men in Birchos HaNeheneen (Volume 1,
Page 196). But he is also very down on one person being motzi another
in Birchos HaNeheneen except where there is a mitzva involved (sound
familiar?). In general, he says that one should not be motzi another
in Birchos HaNeheneen, unless the person being yotzei has a safek in
whether he needs the bracha, the bracha is for a mitzva, the bracha
is on lechem mishna on Shabbos or Yom Tov, the person being yotzei is
unable to recite the bracha properly (RGS's example) or a bracha that
one does not know by heart (such as mei'ein sheva). (Ibid. 191-95).

> Only
> about certain issues where levels of obligation, or public
> performance, are in question. In the home is not "berabim".  It can be
> "yotzim yedei chovatam" for others in the family.

I don't see Rashi limiting himself to instances where Brachos are made
in public. He never mentions it. Tosfos (s"v B'Emes Amru) brings it
only b'derech agav - until the last two lines he doesn't even mention
rabbim. In any event, it is clear that Tosfos is not being cholek on
Rashi in substance. Tosfos knows how to tell us when he is being cholek
on Rashi.

>>>>> it's a befeirush SA that a woman can motzi her husband on neirot
>>>>> Chanukah, 
>>>> See the Biur Halacha 675 s"v Isha Madlekes. 
>>> By the same token, though, see MB s"k 9-10 there. He may bring down
>>> that gemara in the BH, but in the MB, he gives complete parity. 
>> He says that she can be motzi him, but he means if the husband is
>> not at home - not in front of him (otherwise you have to understand
>> the entire halacha as ONLY applying b'fanav, and I don't think
>> anyone holds that way). If the husband is at home, then it's like
>> any other bracha - she could technically be motzi him, but the
>> Gemara in Succa 38a and Rashi and Tosfos there would have all sorts
>> of nasty things to say about him. 

> I don't understand the MB that way at all.  The MB in s"k 9 is talking
> *specifically* about each being present in the room at the time the
> lighting is taking place.  Lechatchilah.  Bedieved it works even if
> the other party doesn't answer Amen.  It then brings a teshuva Olat
> Shmuel (who?) that says that a woman doesn't have to light, because
> she's tafel to her husband (which sounds like a Westernized gloss, as
> another poster suggested), but if she wants to light, she should say
> the bracha, and if the man is not home, she still lights, because she
> is bat chiuva.

> You're creating this "technically be motzi him" argument, which sounds
> like a "bedieved - me'ikar hadin" type of argument, when the MB
> himself is saying lechatchilah.

No, he's not saying a woman can be motzi a man who is standing right
there l'chatchila. Ain hachi nami he says that a woman can be motzi a
man. Ain hachi nami that a woman can be motzi her husband who is not at
home, and apparently even if he is standing there. But he doesn't say
whether it's l'chatchila or b'dieved or anything else. Assuming they're
both standing there, do you think the MB would have told his wife,
"go be motzi me with bentching Chanuka candles" and ignore Rashi? And
again, you ignore the Biur Halacha, where the MB cites the Gemara of
"tavo me'eira." So I don't see how you can understand the MB otherwise
than to say that if the husband is not at home at the time to light,
the wife should be motzi him, but if the husband is at home, unless for
some reason he cannot make the bracha and/or light (e.g., R"L both his
hands are in casts) he should make the bracha and light for himself.

>>>>>> Because according to most poskim (and keep in mind that in my
>>>>>> house the women do light) having her husband light for her does
>>>>>> not put a woman into a "lesser" position. The idea that it does
>>>>>> is what Rebbetzin Katz would call the influence of "feminism."
>>>>>> The idea that any time a woman doesn't do the exact same thing
>>>>>> that a man does, it puts her in a lesser position. 

>>>>> And a Maimonidean would say that anyplace where Tosfos interjects
>>>>> Minhag Ashkenaz, it's a western influence from Xianity and Xian
>>>>> lands, and thus 
>>>> Mah inyan shmitta eitzel Har Sinai? 
>>> That's what I would ask you. If you're going to interpret Rashi on
>>> Sukkah 38a as a Westernized gloss and thus impermissible, 
>> Why would I have a hava amina that Rashi is a "westernized gloss and
>> thus impermissible?" Rachmana Litzlan - we're talking about the
>> Gadol HaParshanim here. Dismiss him as a "westernized gloss?" Chas
>> v'Shalom. Never. 

> And yet, you're over-interpreting Rashi, Tosfos, MB, etc.  

I'm interpreting the simple words of Rashi, Tosfos and the MB. You're
ignoring those of their words that don't fit your worldview. As in
ignoring Rashi in Succa and ignoring the Biur Halacha.

> And then
> get upset that I'm over-interpreting the Yerushalmi.

I'm upset that you're giving an interpretation to the Yerushalmi that
has no support whatsoever in the Mforshim. Mei'heichi timtzei?

>>> remember that others 
>>> regard much of what we do as impermissible Westernized glosses.
>>> Where do you draw the line? 
>> I'm not sure the line is quite so clear. But Rashi is definitely not
>> a "westernized gloss." 

> Maimonideans would consider him to be.  I know strict Maimonideans who
> do.

This is too absurd to merit a response. 

Unless you have something new to say, this is my last post on this
subject. I'm on this list to learn Torah, not to engage in high school
polemics to "score points."

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

(Tora-oriented part of reply)

RCS:
> JJB
>> RCS:
>>> JJB:

> First of all that Rashi and Tosfos are talking explicitly about 
> bentching, which is the subject of the exchange above. Second, it 
> cuts both ways since that Mishna is also the source of women being 
> motzi men with brachos. So, anywhere you don't want to accept the 

HOW IS IT THE SOURCE FOR THIS? There is NOTHING in either the Mishna
or the Gemara or the Rashi or the Tosfos that broadens it AT ALL!

> klala, you can't have women being motzi men with the brachos other 
> than bentching. It cuts both ways. So go ahead and take your pick. 

Or, since it says nothing, and one can motzi someone of equal obligation,
(else tefilla betzibur wouldn't work), there is no reason to even think
that in the general case, women can't motzi men.

If it's not a question, why should it be answered?

> It's got nothing to do with levels of obligation (in bentching - only 
> - there's a safek whether she has a chiyuv d'oraysa because she can't 
> see "al ha'aretz asher nosata lanu" and v'al brischa she'chasamta 
> b'vsareinu"). It's quite plain that she can technically be motzi him -
>  even with birchos ha'nehe'neen. But he's cursed if she does it. And 
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   UNSUPPORTED INTERPOLATION

> Rashi says quite explicitly why - because she's not worthy of being 
> his shaliach. Read the Rashi. Take out an Artscroll if you need it to 
> translate :-) And then accept that's what Rashi's saying. There is no 
> other explanation for that Rashi. 

Why should I accept your interpolation into Rashi. There is no other
explanation for that Rashi unless you interpolate external ideas.

>>>                    Besides, I don't see Rashi's words as being 
>>> b'geder "kadeish atzmecha ba'mutar lach." He goes way beyond that. 

>> I don't see Rashi's words as applying generally at all.

> Are you trying to limit Rashi to bentching? If that's the case, then 

On what grounds do you NOT limit him to benching?

And by the way, I looked it up in Artscroll this morning, which also
does not say ANYTHING beyond benching and hallel in that sugya.

> you also have to limit the Gemara there to bentching, and now the 
> only thing your wife can do for you is bentch. Interesting result. 

Only if you presuppose that gemara is necessary to allow a woman to
motzi a man in the general case. You have not PROVEN that point, you
have only SAID it over and over.

[big snip]

>> Tosfos: s"v V't'hei: this should have been said on the gemara
>> regarding
>>  benching, because here it's clearly a bizayon for them to lead and he
>>  to answer, because they are not obligated in hallel.

> The Mishna and that Tosfos have nothing to do with bentching. They're 
> talking about Hallel. The Braisa in the Gemara talks about Bentching. 

Ainochenami.

>> So really what's going on here is a very narrow thing, having to do
>> with levels of obligation in benching and hallel.  

> Huh? Rashi says explicitly that women are not worthy shluchim to be 
> motzi a man with his obligation.  Why do you keep ignoring that?

And why not? Because of levels of obligation, as Tosfos explains.
Why do you keep ignoring that?

>> However, what Tosfos and the Gemara do NOT say anything about, is
>> brachot in general, birchot hanehnin, birchot hamitzva, etc.  

> In which case, what is the source for women being motzi men in 
> general? 

Does there need to be a source other than the general idea that people
of equal obligation can motzi one another?

> In fact, Bodner (Halachos of Brachos) cites this Gemara as the source 
> for women being able to be motzi men in Birchos HaNeheneen (Volume 1, 

On what basis? When everyone else (Rashi, Tosfos, etc.) take it to mean
only benching and hallel?

> Page 196). But he is also very down on one person being motzi another 
> in Birchos HaNeheneen except where there is a mitzva involved (sound 

Forst (v. infra) disagrees. He holds that the halacha would *prefer*
that when two or more sit together, that one person SHOULD make the
bracha, and the others be motzi on hir (at least for bread or wine, but
everyone has to make their own on other foods), but that the custom has
grown up that each makes their own bracha, on the basis that everyone
won't have the right kavanah to be motzi as a group.

> familiar?). In general, he says that one should not be motzi another 
> in Birchos HaNeheneen, unless the person being yotzei has a safek in 
> whether he needs the bracha, the bracha is for a mitzva, the bracha 
> is on lechem mishna on Shabbos or Yom Tov, the person being yotzei is 
> unable to recite the bracha properly (RGS's example) or a bracha that 
> one does not know by heart (such as mei'ein sheva). (Ibid. 191-95). 

He's not the only word on this, apparently.

The halacha itself in OC 213:1 between the Mechaber and the Rema and
the MB is interesting as well.

The Mechaber seems to think that one should bless for everyone, and
that sitting or reclining together reinforces this. The Rema holds that
everyone now blesses for themselves. See MB s"k 12, which seems to be
the source for Forst - it's against the law for everyone to bless for
themselves, but there's a rationale for it about lack of proper kavana.

In birchot hamitzvos (OC 589), levels of obligation come into play and
that is me'akev women motziot men where their levels of obligation differ
(etrog, shofar) - but is clearly not me'akev for chanukah, where the
obligation is the same. See, e.g. Rema 589:6.

You still haven't pointed to a source before 1950 that says your position,
that a gemara is even necessary to tell us what should be obvious, that
women can motzi men where their obligation is the same. Why does Bodner
think it's a question, when clearly the Mechaber & Rema & MB don't?
To which he has to bring a[n inapposite] gemara in answer?

Which is to say, I have an SA and an MB, but not Bodner. Forst's book on
"Laws of Brochos" (Artscroll) makes absolutely no distinction between
men & women in birchot hanehenin, or in birchot hamitzvot where they
have the same level of obligation. He doesn't see that it's necessary
to bring a source for men & women being motzi each other beyond the
general sources for one person being motzi another.

> Only
>> about certain issues where levels of obligation, or public
>> performance, are in question. In the home is not "berabim".  It can be
>> "yotzim yedei chovatam" for others in the family.

> I don't see Rashi limiting himself to instances where Brachos are 
> made in public. He never mentions it. Tosfos (s"v B'Emes Amru) brings 
> it only b'derech agav - until the last two lines he doesn't even 
> mention rabbim. In any event, it is clear that Tosfos is not being 
> cholek on Rashi in substance. Tosfos knows how to tell us when he is 
> being cholek on Rashi. 

Exactly. So if Tosfos is AGREEING with Rashi, then Tosfos is EXPLAINING
Rashi. And Rashi's business of "af al pi shelomad" is explained by
Tosfos as being related to levels of obligation. And/or, agav, rabbim.

>> I don't understand the MB that way at all.  The MB in s"k 9 is talking
>> *specifically* about each being present in the room at the time the
>> lighting is taking place.  ...

[snippity-eh]

> Gemara of "tavo me'eira." So I don't see how you can understand the 
> MB otherwise than to say that if the husband is not at home at the 
> time to light, the wife should be motzi him, but if the husband is at 
> home, unless for some reason he cannot make the bracha and/or light 
> (e.g., R"L both his hands are in casts) he should make the bracha and 
> light for himself. 

And I could also understand the MB to say that unneutered cats are at
risk of becoming pregnant, if he had said that, but he didn't.

>> And then
>> get upset that I'm over-interpreting the Yerushalmi.

> I'm upset that you're giving an interpretation to the Yerushalmi that 
> has no support whatsoever in the Mforshim. Mei'heichi timtzei? 

I'm upset that you're giving an interpretation to Rashi, Tosfos and the
MB that has no support whatsoever in their own texts. And then get upset
that I'm over-interpreting the Yerushalmi.

What it seems to come down to, so far, is that you base your
interpolations on what you have heard, and I base my interpolations on
what I have heard, and for some reason your interpolations are to be
taken as more authoritative than my interpolations.

> Unless you have something new to say, this is my last post on this 

You keep saying that this passage is the source for women to motzi men
generally. I don't see how it's necessary to bring a source for that at
all, as long as men & women have the same level of obli- gation in the
particular bracha. Neither, apparently, does R' Forst.

Rashi and Tosfos are quite clear about their issue in Sukkah being about
levels of obligation in hallel and bentching. They say absolutely zero
about other types of equal-obligation brachot.

It seems to me to be quite clear that the ONLY objection either
of them sees in women being motzi men in benching and hallel is the
level of obligation thing. (Or, agav, rabbim, which Artscroll cites in
the name of Meromei haSadeh, that the issue with hallel according to
Tosfos *is* rabbim, it's communal recitation of hallel led by a woman).
Which implies, therefore, that where there is no difference in obligation,
there isn't even a QUESTION whether men & women can motzi one another -
of course they can.

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

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
>> Nobody has been by a Bris or any other function where a brocha is made
>> on a cup of wine and the m'vorech doesn't want to drink or only wants
>> to drink a small sip and he gets someone to listen and be mechavin to
>> be yoitzeh with his Boirei Pri Hagofen and drink a reviis?

> I agree that the quote from me above was mistaken, but why do you 
> tihnk a reviis would need to be drunk in order to make Borei Pri 
> HaGefen (unless of course he was being yotzei Kiddush - see below)?  

> BTW - my first son's Bris was on the first day of Rosh HaShana, and I 
> recall R. Meir Stern (RY of the Talmudic Research Center in Passaic 
> and Avraham Yaakov's sandak) reminding R. Chaim Davis (then also a RY 
> in that Yeshiva and now Rosh Yeshiva of Beis Medrash l'Torah in 
> Passaic) to be m'chavein to be yotzei Kiddush with the bracha.  

I saw it done in my shul on a weekday where the Rov who made the Bracha and 
gave the name, did not daven yet, so he had someone who davent already, be 
mechaven to his bracha and for some reason also wanted that the person should 
drink enough to make an al hagefen(i don't know the reason).
Maybe, because the bracha of Ahser Kidash Yedid M'Beten is said 'al
HaKois' so it has more chasivus than an ordinary birchas hanehenin and
is somewhat similar to kidush.
in the same vain, the Borei Pri Hagofen at a Pidyan Haben would probably
also require a reviis to be drunk by the Kohein.

BTW,the rov made the bracha and was ,oitzeh someone else only,
he DID NOT EVEN TASTE the wine (for him, it was still before davening).

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


[ 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         ]