Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 022

Tuesday, May 24 2005

• Re: Subject: SheLo Asani Isha
• Subject: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• [none]
• SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: hashkafa and psak
• Re: closeness to Sinai
• Re: Sanhedrin Overturning a Previous Drash
• Re: What should a kohen do?
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: Eruvin
• Re: Hebrew counting
• Kedusha
• Re: Kedusha
• Re: Kedusha
• Re: What should a kohen do?
• Re: Kedusha
• Re: Pesach Sheni/Behab
• Rabbi Yehudah Davis ztvk"l and the Mountaindale Yeshiva

On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:10:14AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Indeed, this is such an obvious explanation that one wonders why Rashi
: felt the need to come up with the one about mitzvot. Nevertheless,
: he did.

As RZL already wrote -- Rashi is simply quoting R' Yehudah, the one who
was mesaqein the berakhos. There's really nothing to guess here: the
author told us what he meant.

-mi

"Zvi Lampel" <HLAMPEL@THEJNET.COM> wrote:
>  rivkyc@sympatico.ca Posted on: May 22, 2005:
>>>>> ... Why do men make the Bracha, SheLo Asani Isha?
>>> Simple. The pasuk says, "harba arbeh itzvoneich..."

> I heard this explanation from Rav Aharon Soloveitchik, ztzvk"l, when he
> spoke years ago at the Young Israel of Staten Island. He said, with a
> shrug, "That's the way /I/ understand it."

Indeed, this is such an obvious explanation that one wonders why Rashi
felt the need to come up with the one about mitzvot. Nevertheless,
he did.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 11:29:53AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
>:  You can't be both superior and inferior at the same time.

> Why not? You could be superior in one way, inferior in another, and
> therefore equal overall.

Then why don't women say SheLo Asani Ish in the same sense that men
do? They can thank God for not making them men in the inferior sense.
I maintain that overall the Bracha indicates that there is some feature
to men that grants them superior status. The classic answer is that they
have more mitzvos. So I am back where I started.

HM

"a. adereth" <adereth2003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
>> What is so great about having more Mitzvos? If women have less Mitzvos
>> required of them it is because they are created in a more perfect state
>> than men are, in the eyes of God. It follows that women can achieve the
>> same level of holiness or reward in Olam Habah as men do by doing less.

> Huh? Where do you get this from? 

There are many indications of this. Nashim have Binah Yiseirah, for
example. Or Chamas Nashim Bansah Baisa, implying that men do not have
this unique capacity. But it isn't that I "get" this from somewhere.
It is a logical construct. If women do not need Mitzvos as much as men
do to get the same Schar, it follows that women are created in a fashion
closer to Godly perfection them men are. Men, therefore, require more
Mitzvos to get there. Ths is not an idea I originated but have heard
many times in explanation of why women have less Mitzvos than men do. I
realize that there are other reasons. Their particular roles as mothers
exempt them from Mitzvos Aseh SheHazman Grama. But in order to give them
equal standing in the eyes of God, they must perforce be created on a
higher level, requiring less to do to get there.

> Would you say that a yisroel is created
> in a "more perfect state of holiness" than a kohen (when we know that
> the bechorim lost the avoda due to their sins)? 

Of course not. Cohanim...DO... have a higher status than a Yisroel or a
Levi. They were specifically given that status by God. But, nowhere in
the Torah does God sauy that men are superior to women. Nowhere does it
say that a man was chosen by God to serve Him in a superior way over a
woman. Men and women serve God equally, each in their own way defined
by their gender. A man is not superior to a woman because he has more
Mitzvos. They are in a certain sense in different worlds and each has
their own way to serve God which are considered equal in His eyes.

> Why does the bracha
> for not being an eved not bother you, since the premise is the same,
> and the eved too is exempt from mitzvos because he is presumed to have
> obligations that interfere with their performance? 

Because an Eved is not a Jew and indeed does have a lower status.
That Bracha is understandable. His Mitzvos are like that of a woman sans
the 3 Mitzvos specific to women.

> Moving outside of
> klal yisroel, would you say a ben noach is created in a more perfect
> state than a yisroel, as he only "needs" 7 mitzvos to receive s'char?

Of course not. A Ben Noach does not receive the same Schar as a
Yisroel. Also they do not automatically have a Chelek in Olam HaBah
as does a Yisroel. They have to earn it. For a Yisroel, it's his/hers
to lose.

...
> Women and men are both created b'tzelem elokim, and are equal in
> that sense, but this doesn't mean that they are equal status, any more
> than avodim are equal to their masters. 

I see. Your answer is that women are simply inferior in status to
men... as slaves are inferior in status to masters. I couldn't disagree
more.

> The gemara sees fit to ask how
> women can ever receive similar schar in olam habo, and answers that by
> enabling their husbands and sons to learn they receive s'char talmud
> torah 

This Gemarah offers no proof to your premise. It speaks of the
specific Mitzvah of Limud HaTorah and offers that women can receive
equal Schar through their enabling of men to learn. In no way does
that show superiority of one sex over the other. All it shows is how
each gender fulfils their Tachlis in their own way.

> but there is a
> state of dependency there. A woman can enable all she wants, but her
> husbands and sons are the ones who decide whether to learn or not.
> Etc.

Similarly a man can want to learn all he wants but if a woman doesn't
enable him, he can't.

...
> Who do you save first, a kohen or a yisroel, a man or a woman?
> Judaism grants men greater status than women.

I am not aware of this. Is the Halacha that if one can only save the
life of one person, a man's life takes precedence over a woman's life? If
that's true I am even more perplexed.

> The brocha was written before people were raised on apologetics for a
> caste system.

In other words, as you indicated above, your answer is that men are
better than women. I see. If that's the case then it explains the Bracha.

I do not agree. Men are not better than women.

HM

Regarding RHM's question about what the advantage is in (men vs. women
[or leviyyim or kohanim vs. yisraelim]) having more mitzva-obilgations
than others, I suggest that we can learn from Dovid HaMelech (Tehillim
119) that obligatory mitzvos are precious gems, the more of which one
has the opportunity to carry out, the happier one is.

"In the way of your testimonies (aidus) I rejoice as [one does] upon
total wealth ... In your pikudim I rejoice ... in your chukim I will
delight ... The way of your mitzvos I will run ...Lead me in the path
of Your mitzvos, because that it what I desire ... Therefore I love
Your mitzvos, more than gold ... I open my mouth wide and I am panting,
because I yearn for your mitzvos."

"The mitzvos are the acts which give the doer the quality of Kedushah:
'That you shall remember and /do all My mitzvos and [thereby] be kedoshim/
to your G-d' (B'midbar 15:40). The brachah before the mitzvos states:
Baruch Attah ... Who /has made us holy through His mitzvos/.'

"Rebbi Chanaya ben Akashya says: Hashem wanted to bestow merit on Israel;
He therefore increased for them Torah and mitzvos" (Makos 23b)."

Above based on Rav Avigdor Miller's "Rejoice O Youth!" pp. 201 (where
Rav Miller is focusing on the love Dovid HaMelech had for limud Torah)
and 331.

Zvi Lampel

rivkyc@sympatico.ca Posted on: May 22, 2005:
>> Simple. The pasuk says, "harba arbeh itzvoneich..."

> I heard this explanation from Rav Aharon Soloveitchik, ztzvk"l, when he
> spoke years ago at the Young Israel of Staten Island. He said, with a
> shrug, "That's the way /I/ understand it."

Comment: I would suggest that the point of the curse to man "in the sweat
of your brow you shall eat bread" and to woman "in pain you shall bear
children" is the same. In both cases the labor and the main occupation
is cursed. Man works for a livelihood and woman brings up children. The
earth and womb are to suffer the effects of man's disobedience.

Viewed this way, the above explanation may be questioned.

M. Levin

On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 08:37:30AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
:> If R' Elyashiv is giving a pesaq, then I have to be up-front with
:> the chevrah. Don't drink wine with me unless it's mevushal.... 

:> Are you really ready to take that step?

: I hereby wish to publicly proclaim that if I happened to be in Micha
: Berger's town for Shabbos, and he invited me for a meal (what a meal that
: would be!), as an appropriate guest, I would feel obligated to appear
: with some sort of present. The present would be a bottle of non-mevushal
: wine which I would ask my gracious host to kindly pour into my Chazon Ish
: sized becher....

But back to the point.

If one is saying R' Elyashiv is giving a pesaq in what you call "mandatory
hashkafah" or what I called dinei kefirah, then -- like any other pesaq
since the tannaim, there must be a nafqa mina lemaaseh. If we really
and truly speaking of a pesaq that belief in an old universe is assur,
then there are many many otherwise shomerei Torah umitzvos whose wine
he is pasqening is stam yeinam, whose shechitah is no good, etc...

(BTW, this in itself is decent proof that there is no pesaq in aggadita.
Every pesaq and machloqes must stand up to the question, "Lemai nafqa
mina?")

I wasn't really asking if RSC would drink my wine. I phrased it that
way to show the true enormity of what the claim of pesaq means. The
splitting of the O community into two.

And if no one believes R' Elyashiv is really taking that step, then in
what way is this a matter for pesaq? And then how can one write out the
chiyuv to learn the position of numerous rishonim and acharonim? (Even
if they're not to be embraced.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       an act of kindness?

On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 09:23:01PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Or to phrase it differently today we pasken "halakhah kebasorai"
: so we in fact give credence to the later posek because he saw both
: his and earlier opinions. This seems to be directly the opposite of
: closeness to Sinai.

Only within a mileau. The notion of halakhah kebasra'i may not cross
"rupture and reconstruction" barriers. That would explain why niskatnu
hadoros is the predominent factor between periods -- whether mandatorily
or by consensus, while within a period the ability to see and consider
the earlier opinion dominates.

-mi

On Sun, 22 May 2005 Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 09:01:18AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
>: I don't know why you categorize mimetic tradition as minhag. As long as the
>: chachamim don't have a drasha opposing our collective tradition, the
>: tradition adopts the property of halachah. It is only when the chachamim
>: come up with a drasha to negate the accepted tradition that the mimetic
>: tradition retroactively assumes the properties of minhag.

> I don't. I'm saying REED does. It seems to me to quite clearly be the
> essence of his position.

I agree that your understanding of Rav Dessler seems to be correct but
I do not think that this is the kavana of the ma'amar. You see, Rav
Dessler refers to three examples to illustrate his case, the tzitz,
tzaras erva and tefilin. In all three cases, there was, behechrech,
a way which we followed, perhaps for hundreds of years. If you would
have asked the chachamim/Sanhedrin of that generation, they no doubt
would have told you that the halachah is such and such regarding these
items. It is simply illogical to refer to our shemiras hamitzvos of
these three examples merely as minhag. Thus, we must say that the
Sanhedrin understood, based on appropriate methods of exegesis, that
the halachah was such and such, and paskened that way l'halachah. What
R' Dessler is saying is that it is possible that after some time, the
drasha supporting the commonly accepted halachah was forgotten and thus,
all they had left was the mimetic tradition to fall on. But here's the
key. The mimetic tradition was necessarily understood to be based on
what was originally a solid drasha which regulated the parameters of
the mitzvah before the drasha was forgotten. Otherwise, our sages would
have no right following a tradition that had no basis in halachah. Thus,
when R' Dessler states that the tradition associated with the tzitz
was only a geder of minhag, he means the geder of a mimetic tradition
without an awareness of the supporting drasha. Not that their shemiras
hamitzvah was only bigeder minhag. A good example of this would be the
maaseh with Hillel haZaken. Remember when he chastised the bnei biseira?
According the the dakusdika mishpat of the beis din shel malah, Hillel
allowed the slightest touch of anger to penetrate his emotions and thus
forgot a halachah. "What happens when erev Pesach falls out on Shabbos"
he was asked. "How can we carry the chalef to the beis haMikdash to
shecht the sheep"? He forgot the halachah so he hit upon a plan. "Let's
see how klal yisroel will be noheg this year" he said. Sure enough,
the day came and on Shabbos, all the Jews instinctively followed their
practice from years passed and stuck the knife in the wool of the sheep
they were transporting to the Mikdash. Although this was only mimetic
tradtion because the gadol hador had forgotten the halkachah and was
unable to pasken, once he saw what they did, the tradition re-established
what the halachah was before it was forgotten. The same applies to all
such cases. The tradition IS the halachah. However, once the chachamim
re-established the drasha relating to a forgotten mitzvah, such as the
tzitz, we are now obligated to follow that pesak even if it contradicts
the accepted minhag i.e. the accepted form of halachah till now. Thus,
like I wrote to R Zvi Lampel, I see this case as a latter Sanhedrin
overturning the pesak of a previous Sanhedrin.

> The testimony about the tzitz in Rome only
> is in the category of minhag because it lacks ish-mipi-ish textualist
> mesorah and no known way to establish it from TSBK or sevarah.

First of all, if we had a ish mepe ish tradtion dating back to Moshe,
there would be no room for drasha or sevara. These two mechanisms
only come into play absent a ish mepe ish. As far as the testimony, RZL
mentioned something similar but I don't understand either of you. Are you
implying that R' Eliezer was trying to "feer ein" the halaccha his way
despite the fact that he had no supporting drasha in the pesukim? Surely
not. R' Eliezer's *shita* was that the tzitz should have two lines
(or was it one...I forget already) and it was based on his halachic
understanding of the pesukim. The way I see it, he was simply attempting
to support his shita with empirical evidence, that's all.

BTY, in case RZL doesn't read all the Avodah posts, can you please show
him this one? It is also a response to his "sorry, no cigar" post of
yesterday. Thank you.

Simcha Coffer

R' Harry Maryles wrote <<< B'Zman HaZeh Cohanim are supect. That is,
they are not Meyuchasim. They have no pedigree. ... today's Cohanim are
in effect Safek Cohanim. This affects Halacha L'Maysa and our behavior
towards them in certain instances. >>>

I've never understood this argument. Is there a halacha somewhere that
a kohen who is not meyuchas is not a kohen?

If R' Katz is only a safek kohen because he has no pedigree, then isn't
he also a safek Jew because he has no pedigree?

Akiva Miller

On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 11:51:17PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
:> See above, the Rambam reads "af al pi she'eino mo'il klum".

: Referring to lichisha, not Tehilim.

The bottom line question, which no one else seems to be directly
addressing (and I only ask without having an answer) is knowing how the
Rambam distinguishes between lechishah and tefillah.

Lechishah is very distinctly described in the gemara as including
reciting pesuqim.

I suggested that the difference is that lechishah would be thaumaturgy,
the desire to manipulate reality through metaphysical forces. I asked
how that's different than kemei'os or other practices common in many
kehillos. (Of course, who said they need to hold like the Rambam?)

The other problem with my suggestion is that the hamon am do tend to
see these things in thaumaturgical terms. Segulos, Mi Shebeirach's,
Tehillim, tzedaqah besheim R' Meir Baal haNeis, etc... People do slip into
metaphysical mechanistic peceptions of these things. Even learning Hil'
Shemiras haLashon has taken on this charateristic in the last decade. (A
tzarah in the community? All the women should learn Chafeitz Chaim!)

So I ask for a definition of lechishah, not necessarily the Rambam's
but some mesoretically based one, that doesn't condemn the majority of
the actual hamon am as practitioners of it?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       an act of kindness?

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:38:20 R' Arie Folger wrote:
> His son, Rav Reuven, told me that RMF didn't want to pasken on the KGH
> eruv (which he allowed) but he was with RMF at a breakfast presentation
> of that eruv, and they essentially didn't let him leave until he paskened
> - kosher.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:38:14 R' Arie Folger wrote:
> This is a key distinction. The three highways have fences/walls/are in
> ditches, such that KGH is separated from Queens by me'hitzot.

On Sun, 22 May 2005 11:35:49 R' Arie Folger wrote:
> The information I stated comes mipi Rav Reuven Feinstein, who, IIRC,
> accompanied his father to the breakfast meeting where the eruv was
> explained to RMF. I must admit, though, that the fact that KGH is muqaf
> me'hitzot being omitted from the tshuvah is strange, indeed.

If there was such an ironclad reason to allow an eruv in KGH why then
did Rav Reuven claim that his father didn't want to pasken regarding an
eruv there? Since in RMF's two teshuvos that refer to KGH (Igros Moshe,
O.C. 4:86 and Addendum to 4:89) there is no mention of mechitzos as a
heter it must be that this distinction is actually Rav Reuven's himself
but not his father's.

Additionally, even if KGH is mukaf with three mechitzos that are omed
merubeh al haparutz and therefore would be classified as a karmelis,
according to RMF dalsos would be need to close the pirtzos just as in
Manhattan and Brooklyn (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:139:3, 1:140, 5:28:5).

Shmuel Pultman

On 5/22/05, Elazar M. Teitz <remt@juno.com> wrote:
>>: I'm not sure this is restricted to biblical Hebrew anyway. "Sho'alin
>>: vedoreshin behilchot haPesahh kodem laPesahh sheloshim yom". Does
>>: anybody have a counter-example?

> See the first three words of Y'vamos and of K'risos.

OK, let me refine my question (after looking in Gesenius). Does
anybody have a counter example with words normally used as counting
units (e.g. yom, hodesh, shekel, ama, etc.)?

From: T613K@aol.com
>How would you explain the meaning of the root of the word "kedeisha,"
>as in what Yehuda thought Tamar was when he met her on the road?

Reb Shimon, translating KDSh as designation or devotion explains that hence 
it is neutral - just as Kadosh is designated for Hashem, Kedeisha is 
designated for znus.

YGB

I wrote:
: qedushah is separation /for/.

This generated many questions. Some of the responses made me wonder
whether the author read the blog entry I pointed you to or are
just responding to the teaser that I posted to the list. Again, see
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/05/qedushah.shtml> before responding,
if you haven't already.

On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 05:01:39PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: So what does it mean to say that God is kadosh?

HQBH tends have conflicting desires. Therefore, He is entirely dedicated
for a single Divine Purpose to the exclusion of all else.

As RSS writes, the key to embuing our lives with qedushah is to dedicate
our lives to that Divine Purpose -- which RSS tells us is lehativ others.
Even one's entertainment can be qadosh if one rests for the sake of
being a better meitiv.

On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 06:29:39PM -0400, RYGB wrote:
:            Reb Harry raised an interesting nekudah that should somehow be 
: reconciled with Reb Shimon: How does "kedushas keli" or "kedushas korban" 
: or "kedushas ha'aretz" fit in, contextually?

These items are set aside for the purpose of Avodah Hashem. Therefore,
they have qedushah. I don't see the question.




On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 11:57:42PM -0400, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: Cf. Kuzari III:49:
...
: This of course is not saying that tum'a and kedusha are opposites
: (which would implyi that taharah and kedusha are synonymous), but that
: they are interdependent in the sense that tum'a is only relevant, only
: makes a difference, when there is kedusha, because its sole effect is
: to adversely influence one's connection to kedusha.

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 02:11:14PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
:> First it must be stated that Kedusha is a spiritual concept of
:> purity... of removal of Tumah. Kedusha is in no way a physical concept.

In the aforementioned post of Fri, May 20, 2005 at 06:29:39PM -0400,
RYGB wrote:
: What Reb Harry writes is somewhat borne out by Reb Tzadok, who says taharah 
: internally brings about kedushah externally. See Pri Tzaddik Pinchas #5 
: where he discusses shetifah of a kos shel beracha inside and outside with 
: the concept of tocho k'baro. I can't cite the Hebrew on Avodah, but I cite 
: in my blog: <http://rygb.blogspot.com/2005/05/kedusha.html>

Tum'ah seems to be an adulteration of one's bechirah with the notion
that one is just an animal. The Ramchal defines it in terms of taavos
gashmiyos. RSRH, in terms of human mortality and being a physical object
moved by fate rather than a conscious being in control of oneself. RYBS
also writes about tum'ah as that which causes us to think of ourselves
as the object of a sentence rather than the subject.

Of course one would have to free himself of baser taavos and realize
one's full bechirah chafshi and tzelem E-lokim before one can dedicate
that self-determination to doing His Will.

Tum'ah is the topic of another pair of blog entries:
    <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/04/tumah-and-taharah.shtml>
    <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/04/tumah-and-taharah-part-ii.shtml>
My own thoughts are at the second half of the second entry.

Seperation from the wrong thing is a precondition of being seperated for
the right One.



On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 11:53:12PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Do you take into account "pen tikdash hamele'ah", where the word is used
: to mean "destroy"? I was taught that this was because one separates it
: from oneself, by destroying it. Clearly it is not being separated for
: a purpose.

This text is bichlal difficult. Chazal (Qiddushin 56b) feel motivated to
turn it into a contraction of "tuqad eish". See also Hil' Kelayim 5:7.

(But it is also possible that the problem with kelayim is not that kelayim
is a negative, but that it's too qadosh. That is an idea I toyed with WRT
shaatnez, which is both assur and the cornerstone of bigdei kohein gadol.
But I don't have this idea developed well enough to want to defend it.)



On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:29:00PM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: How would you explain the meaning of the root of the word "kedeisha,"
: as in what Yehuda thought Tamar was when he met her on the road?
...
: 1) as a euphemism where "holy" woman is a refined word meant to indicate
: just the opposite or
: 2) that certain women were "set aside" or sanctified in the understanding
: of their religions, for use in certain religious ceremonies.

: The second meaning, which I'm pretty sure is the more accurate of the two,
: suggests that something can be considered holy in another religion even
: though it is not REALLY holy and the same Hebrew word will be used for
: both genuine holiness and the ersatz product worshipped in an A'Z sect.

Or that the Torah is using the title given such women in the Asheirah
worshipping community. /QDSh/ is a shoresh in their language too.

RNTK cont.:
: This root must have some intrinsic meaning that would make sense in
: both contexts, something like "dedicated for some special reason" or
: "separated."

On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 10:52:55PM -0400, RYGB wrote:
: Reb Shimon, translating KDSh as designation or devotion explains that hence 
: it is neutral - just as Kadosh is designated for Hashem, Kedeisha is 
: designated for znus.

But whether designated for Asheirah or for zenus, the concept of
"seperated FOR" comes through.

Tangent: She isn't a "qedoshah" but a "qedeishah". Perhaps it's not she who
is being set aside, but that she causes her customers to be. Or, perhaps
it's simply proof that the word is Canaanite.

BTW, "harei at mequdeshes li" is another case where the "for" does not
mean "for HQBH". Many is the derashah that says that the Jewish word for
wedding is "Sanctifications". But IMHO, it's more like "separating the
couple so that they may share common goals". From the man's perspective,
"li".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 30th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  result in holding back from others?

On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 12:50:48PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
: HQBH tends have conflicting desires. Therefore, He is entirely dedicated
: for a single Divine Purpose to the exclusion of all else.

Heretical typo alert!

That should read: HQBH doesn't have ...

-mi

> I've never understood this argument. Is there a halacha somewhere that
> a kohen who is not meyuchas is not a kohen?

> If R' Katz is only a safek kohen because he has no pedigree, then isn't
> he also a safek Jew because he has no pedigree?

R' Dovid Cohen says in the name of R' Moshe Feinstein that if someone
loses their chezkas kehunah, they are not a kohen anymore. For example,
two generations of non-frum family would make the subsequent generations
not kohanim, since the edus cannot be accepted.

As Micha points out on his blog,
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/05/qedushah.shtml>.

the definitive definition of kedusha to which we both subscribe is at:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/shaareiyosher.pdf>

YGB

Daniel Israel <israel@email.arizona.edu>
> I was perusing the calendar yesterday and I noticed that Pesach Sheni
> falls on the last fast of Behab. Now according to the recent discussion
> here about tachnun on mincha befor Pesach Sheni, it would seem logical
> that those who have the custom of eating shmura matza should do so during
> the day.

On the contrary, it seems to me that it should be eaten davka on the
night of the 15th, between tzeit-hakochavim and midnight, just like the
korban which it commemorates.

Micha Berger wrote:
>I find this an interesting contrast and one that leaves me befuddled
>about RYD's derekh and needing some clarification.
...

I have another question about the approach of Rav Davis. He clearly
took a "tough" approach to those whom he taught. Rav Avigdor Miller
also was "tough" on the boys when he was the mashgiach at YRCB. However,
both of them considered Rav Isaac Sher to be their primary rebbe. Yet,
"As a rebbi, Rav Yitzchok Eizek was beloved by his students. Despite his
easygoing and amiable nature, he had no difficulty imposing discipline
in the yeshiva. His students obeyed him out love for him, maintaining
an appropriate distance from him even though he was so genial toward
them." (<http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Musar/ravsher.html>) So Rav Sher was
easy-going and yet two of his followers were not! I would have expected
them to follow the derech of their rebbe.

Yitzchok Levine

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


[ 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         ]