Volume 35: Number 26
Tue, 28 Feb 2017
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 16:06:47 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] On the Lomdus of the OU Responsum
At 02:28 PM 2/26/2017, R Eli Turkel wrote:
>RYL brought
>
><<he job that requires more fortitude and indeed aggressiveness fell to the
>man.>>
>
>The question is how far we go with this. I have seen a psak of Rav
>Zilberstein that women are not allowed to drive a car. Among his other
>reasoning is that driving a car is like going to war and women are not
>allowed to go to battle !!
>i.e. similar to the above that aggressive driving is a man's job.
>
>I wonder how many on this list really agree with this reasoning
WADR to Rabbi Zilberstein, whom I know nothing about, it is time for
him to move into the second half of the 20th century (at least). In
many cities outside of Brooklyn which do not have bus transportation
to take children to and from yeshiva, it is primarily the mothers who
drive the kids to and from school day in and day out. And even in
Brooklyn women commonly drive to various stores to do shopping, some
drive to work, etc. Aside from Satmar and perhaps a few other
similar chassidic groups, Orthodox females in America drive cares.
I know of one Bais Yaakov type school in Far Rockaway (TAG) that
gives driver education classes.
Recall the Bais Yaakov teacher in EY who was fired because she got a
driver's license. See http://tinyurl.com/h9ueg3u To me it is
unfathomable that this happened.
This is just one of many examples of the fact that Orthodoxy in EY is
drastically different from Orthodoxy in the US, and this is why I
have maintained that it is a huge mistake to ask rabbis in EY
halachic questions about situations in America. Unless one lives
here, one cannot be familiar with the milieu and evaluate things properly.
YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170226/a1ad6125/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Saul Guberman
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 15:33:38 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Judge Willner
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Ben Waxman wrote:
> Does Judge Yael Willner's (an Orthodox woman who is a scion of rabbinic
> families. ...
> any way pose a question to those who oppose women rabbis because of
> serarah? Her powers as a SC judge are, IMO, about 1000 times greater than
> any dayan or even the Rav HaRashi; forget a shul rav.
There was a chasidic women appointed to a Judgeship in NY. That was before
the OU ruling came out. I guess they do not consider secular court
serarah. They are different systems. I guess the secular can be ignored.
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Ben Waxman
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 05:19:11 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] On the Lomdus of the OU Responsum
Regarding your second statement: He wasn't ruling for the US.
Your first statement contradicts your second - you're telling an Israeli
rav how to pasken.
Don't take what I just wrote as agreement with RZ' psak.
Ben
On 2/26/2017 11:06 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> 1) WADR to Rabbi Zilberstein, whom I know nothing about, it is time
> for him to move into the second half of the 20th century (at least).
>
> 2) This is just one of many examples of the fact that Orthodoxy in EY
> is drastically different from Orthodoxy in the US, and this is why I
> have maintained that it is a huge mistake to ask rabbis in EY halachic
> questions about situations in America. Unless one lives here, one
> cannot be familiar with the milieu and evaluate things properly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170227/bbe0ea95/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Akiva Blum
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 15:39:54 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] On the Lomdus of the OU Responsum
On Feb 27, 2017 12:09 AM, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
WADR to Rabbi Zilberstein, whom I know nothing about, it is time for him
to move into the second half of the 20th century (at least). In many
cities outside of Brooklyn
...
.
This is just one of many examples of the fact that Orthodoxy in EY is
drastically different from Orthodoxy in the US, and this is why I have
maintained that it is a huge mistake to ask rabbis in EY halachic questions
about situations in America. Unless one lives here, one cannot be
familiar with the milieu and evaluate things properly.
I cannot see how you can resolve these two statements, as he lives on EY,
and you and your examples are from the US.
Akiva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170227/e417c444/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:53:51 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] On the Lomdus of the OU Responsum
At 08:39 AM 2/27/2017, Akiva Blum wrote:
>On Feb 27, 2017 12:09 AM, "Prof. Levine via
>Avodah" <<mailto:avo...@lists.aishdas.org>avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>
>WADR to Rabbi Zilberstein, whom I know nothing
>about,? it is time for him to move into the
>second half of the 20th century (at least).? In
>many cities outside of Brooklyn
>
>
>...
>.
>
>This is just one of many examples of the fact
>that Orthodoxy in EY is drastically different
>from Orthodoxy in the US,? and this is why I
>have maintained that it is a huge mistake to ask
>rabbis in EY halachic questions about situations
>in America.? Unless one lives here,? one
>cannot be familiar with the milieu and evaluate things properly.
>
>
>I cannot see how you can resolve these two
>statements, as he lives on EY, and you and your examples are from the US.
>
I think you missed my point which is that one
should not ask rabbis living in EY questions about things in America.
On the other hand, does it make sense to you
that a religious women should not drive a car in
EY? Let me add to this. I have been told that
Rabbi Zilberstein's present wife, who is his
second wife, does drive a car! Now the question
is, "How does Rabbi Zilberstein resolve this
with his statements about women driving?"
YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170227/c7090de3/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Ben Bradley
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:31:10 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] amah Ivria
Unless I'm much mistaken, the sugyas in kesubos make clear that the context
of a woman being under the reshus of her father is only when she is a
ketana. That's certainly true of kiddushin, that the father only has zechus
to be mekadesh her (and take the kesef kiddushin) before she is a bogeres.
Once she has simanei bogrus she must accept kiddushin for herself. And
zechus in kiddushin is the context in which the gemara there talks about
going from her father's reshus to her husband's.
Thus, once divorced, even if still a ketana, she is in her own reshus ie
not the father's, which specifically refers to rights to her own earnings
and to accept her own kiddushin money in future.
Once she becomes a bogeres in her father's home he can no longer be
mekadesh her. He still has the right to her earnings since she's living at
his table, although even that is subject to the gemara's discussion, but in
any case I believe that's not called being in his reshus.
It's true that the process of chuppa as described in the gemara is a
formalisation of transfering from the father's to the husband's reshus but
in the gemara's context, that seems likely because it's assuming the girl
is not yet boggeres.
In any case, given that a bogeres automatically gains autonomy in
kiddushin, and that even a ketana gains this if widowed or divorced
(excepting yibum) I can't see that it can be true that a woman has to be in
the reshus of father or husband.
Note that an amah ivriya is also talking about a ketana. Once she gets simanei bagrus she outa there into her own reshus as free woman.
So, is there a Torah rule forbidding a woman to be under the control of
anyone other than her father or husband? And if there is such a rule, is the
amah ivriah an exception?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170226/83ec58b8/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:06:30 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Canceling gzeiros
R' Moshe Zeldman asked for examples of a gezeirah she'ein hatzibur yakhol
laamod bo. The Gemara in Avoda Zara 35-36 discusses oil of a non-Jew that
there was a gezera prohibiting it. The Gemara at the end says that the
decree againt non-Jewish oil did not spread through most of Yisrael and is
therefore permitted.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170227/e29ee2e4/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:02:42 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] Farfetched Ukimtas
Anyone who learns Gemara knows that many times the Gemara asks a question
on an Amora from a Tannaic source and the Gemara asnswers the question by
saying "hacha b'my askinan ...", saying that the Tannaic source was only
talking about a specific case which doesn't contradict the Amora's
statement. Sometimes the Gemara offers far fetched ukimtas where it is hard
to believe that the Tannaic source really meant that. Here is an example
which we learned in Daf Yomi a few weeks ago (Bava Basra 19-20).
The Gemara discusses barriers that shield from Tumah and Shmuel makes a
statement that anything that will be removed (is only there temporarily) is
not considered a barrier. The Gemara then proceeds to ask a series of
questions from Tannaic sources that seem to say that various things that
are only there temporarily do shield from Tumah.
Here is some of the shakla v'tarya:
A Baraisa states that the following block Tumah, grass that was detached
and placed in a window, or grew there by itself; rags smaller than three
fingers by three fingers; a dangling limb or flesh of an animal; a bird
that rested there; a Nochri who sat there, a (i.e. stillborn) baby born in
the eighth month; salt; earthenware Kelim; and a Sefer Torah. The Gemara
then proceeds to ask questions on each one that it is only there
temporarily and the Gemara gives ukimtas, qualifications, for each thing to
explain why it is not there temporarily.
1. Grass
The grass is poisonous.
The wall is ruined (so the grass will not destory it)
The grass is 3 tefachim from the wall and does not harm the wall but bends
into the window
2. Rags
The material is too thick to be used for a patch
It's sackcloth which is rough and would scratch the skin.
It's not sackcloth, it's just rough like sacklocth
3. Dangling limb of an animal
The animal is tied up and can't move.
It's a non-kosher animal.
It's a weak animal.
3. Bird
The bird is tied down.
It's a non-kosher bird.
It's a Kalanisa (a very lean bird).
It's not really a kalanisa, it's just lean like a kalanisa.
4. A non-Jew
He is tied up.
He is a ?????.
He is a prisoner of the king
5. Salt
The salt is bitter.
There are thorns in it.
It's resting on earthernware so it does not harm the wall.
5. Sefer Torah
It's worn out.
It's burial will be in the window.
In the example above the Baraisa gives a list of things that block tumah.
The Baraisa in no shape or form qualified any of the things that block
tumah, and yet the the Gemara proceeds to attach a long list of
qualifications to the objects which seem quite far fetched, for example do
we really need to believe that when the Baraisa wrote a bird (with no
qualifications) it really meant, a tied up non-kosher Kalanisa like bird?
The question is when the Gemara offers these ukimtas does the Gemara really
think that this is what the Tanna meant? Or is the Gemara just offering
logical possibilities to avoid it looking like an Amora is arguing on a
Tanna (this may depend on the reason why Amoraim don't argue on Tannaim)?
How are we supposed to approach these kinds of ukimtas when learning a daf
gemara?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170227/ceaf43fe/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Professor L. Levine
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:58:53 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] Sharp Food and Kanife
From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis
Q. I cut onions with a fleishig knife, and then added the onions to a
cheese omelet cooking in a dairy pan. I hadn't used the knife for 24 hours.
What should I do?
A. The omelet should not be eaten, and the pan will need to be kashered.
The concept of nosein ta'am bar nosein ta'am (a secondary transfer of
flavor) does not apply to a case in which a davar charif, a sharp food such
as an onion, was prepared with a fleishig (or milchig) utensil (Rama, Y.D.
95:2).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170227/522f2446/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 06:58:32 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Farfetched Ukimtas
>
> The question is when the Gemara offers these ukimtas does the Gemara
> really think that this is what the Tanna meant? Or is the Gemara just
> offering logical possibilities to avoid it looking like an Amora is
> arguing on a Tanna (this may depend on the reason why Amoraim don't
> argue on Tannaim)? How are we supposed to approach these kinds of
> ukimtas when learning a daf gemara?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Obviously I do not know what the Gemara was thinking. In the spirit of
> all facts are theory based (an aphorism which I think I may have
> authored) I would say that the data seems to suggest that it may have
> been an attempt to reconcile a later position with an earlier one
> rather than just leaving it as a disagreement. Of course this goes to
> the debate about whether authorial intent makes a difference.
Kol tuv
Joel rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
Thank you.
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Professor L. Levine
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:29:15 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] Working on Purim
The following is from The Guidelines Chabura at
http://www.theguidlineschabura.com/
I must admit that I was not aware of the prohibitions of doing laundry and cutting one's nails.
Working on Purim (1)
May a person do work on the day of Purim?
The custom is to refrain from work on Purim. Whoever works on Purim will not see any blessing from it. (1)
Note: All forms of work are permitted in the evening. (1a)
Similarly, all work is permitted on the other day of Purim (15th of Adar in most places and on the 14th in Jerusalem). (1b)
Are there any cases when it is permitted to work?
Work is permitted in the following situations:
* If refraining will cause financial loss.
* When one will derive pleasure from making a business deal.
* When this is necessary for a mitzvah.
* If this is required for Purim.
* When doing simple jobs that do not require much concentration. Care
should be taken not to become too involved with the job and be distracted
from the merriment of the day. (2)
May one ask a gentile to do work for him?
Yes, all forms of work are permitted through a gentile. (3)
Working on Purim (2)
Is it permitted to launder on Purim?
Laundering is forbidden unless the clothes are needed on Purim. (1)
May one shave or have a haircut?
It is permitted when done in order to look presentable for Purim itself, but not because one has spare time. (2)
May one cut his nails?
Cutting nails is forbidden. However, when Purim is on Friday, it is permitted in honor of Shabbos. (3)
Is writing permitted?
Writing is permitted in the following cases:
* Torah topics that are not intricate
* Letters to friends
* A reminder of one's debts
* Any short notes (4)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20170228/50f4ba47/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
------------------------------
**************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."
A list of common acronyms is available at
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)