Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 008

Saturday, October 22 2005

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:36:37 +0100
From: Chana Luntz <chana@KolSassoon.org.uk>
Subject:
trusting kids on the web


I am sending this to Avodah, despite it being a continuation of a thread
on Areivim, because experience has shown me that a post like this pretty
inevitably results in a "post on Avodah" rejection from Areivim - sorry
if that is annoying for everybody or results in a non-sequential thread.

RSBA writes on Areivim:
>Chazal say 'ein apitropus le'aroyos'
...
>I presume that when saying that, they were not talking about shkotzim 
>and gassen yungen - but rather about the average kid [and person] with 
>the average upbringing and average yetzer hora.

>They were, do boubt, NOT referring to those clever and talented members 
>of this illustrious group who have succeeded in rearing offsping using 
>such wonderful and successful techniques that they are so confident 
>that they will always easily defeat anything that the yetzer hora hurls 
>their way.

Without getting into the merits of the discussion about whether or not
one should or should not allow one's kids to access the internet, I find
it fascinating that this particular phrase of Chazal's is frequently
used in precisely the way RSBA used it - as if to say, when it comes
to arayos, one cannot expect to overcome one's yetzer hora by oneself,
and therefore one needs external assistance (eg, in this case, throwing
away the computer, or net nanny or whatever).

And yet, when Chazal actually used it, it seems to me that they used in
a way that means almost exactly the opposite.

As far as I can see (without Bar Ilan assistance) Chazal use the phrase
three times: in Chullin 11b, Nida 30b and Kesubos 13b.

The case in Chullin perhaps most simply illustrates the point. There the
gemora is discussing from where we know that we can rely on rov in order
to inflict capital punishment. Various different proof sources are
brought, but the one in question is from the fact that a person is put
to death for striking his father and his mother. But, to paraphrase the
gemora by use of an English law expression - "while maternity is fact,
paternity is hearsay". So, says the gemora, we must be relying on a rov,
ie that rov b'ilas achar habaal. But maybe, questions the gemora, we are
talking about a case, and only about a case, where the couple were in
prison together at the time the mother conceived, without any possible
access to anybody else (in which case, surely you would have certainty
as to the father). No, says the gemora, "ein apitropus le'aroyos".
That is, even if somebody is locked up in prison, there is no wall high
enough that can guarantee that there will be no arayos.

The case in Nida is similar, but in some ways more striking. There the
gemora is discussing when it is that an embryo is formed in the womb.
And as a proof one side of the machlokus tries to bring a kind of
scientific experiment that was apparently carried out by the Greek
Queen Cleopatra - she had some maidservants who had incurred the death
penalty, so she decided to try and work out when the embryo formed in
the womb by getting them pregnant and cutting them open a specific
number of days after. But the gemora rejects this experiment with
the phrase "ain apitropos l'arayos". That is, despite the fact that
the full weight of the Greek monarchy was no doubt employed to ensure
that these maidservants had no other chance to get pregnant than the
specific situation allowed (otherwise her experiment would not work),
even so, there was no preventing arayos.

The one case that might be closer to the use of the phrase by RSBA is
found in Ketubos. To cut a long story short for our purposes, the gemora
is discussing whether or not one believes a (single) woman who secludes
herself (ie has yichud) with a man, to say that the man in question is a
person with whom having relations would not posul her for the kehuna. And
the argument for rejecting her claim is ein apitropos l'arayos - once
she has secluded herself, she is not able to be considered guarded
from any kind of arayos (by those positing the argument, the case is
argued to be analogous to the case of a woman taken into captivity.
Because those who take her into captivity are by definition wanton,
you have to assume something untoward occurred, even if she says to the
contrary, and similarly here.)

But it still seems a stretch to use the case of a woman who has already
demonstrated her weakness for matters of arayos by being prepared to
seclude herself as illustrative of the ordinary person as RSBA and the
colloquial usage of the phrase has it (and the use of the analogy to
a woman taken captive would seem to illustrate the point - if in the
ordinary case there is really ain apitropos l'arayos, why is any woman
ever fit for the kehuna, whether there have been any specific suspicious
circumstances in her past or not).

And the other usages (ie Chullin, Nida) seem almost to be making an
argument closer to that of RSB's - ie if somebody is hell bent on arayos,
there is not a thing that can be done, neither prison walls nor the might
of a great kingdom will prevent it. Thus the argument for parental
supervision, or no internet connection or whatever is being advocated
would seem in fact an argument that yesh apitropos b'arayos - with the
apitropos being the usual guardian (which after all is what apitropos
means) of children, namely their parents.

Which is not to say that Chazal did not make fences in the case of arayos
-in fact the prohibition of yichud for a single woman, as opposed to
a married woman, is in itself a fence enacted by Dovid haMelech after
the case of Tamar. So, I guess what might be called a prohibition on
yichud with a computer, or with the internet, might be argued to be an
appropriate modern day equivalent. It is interesting though, I have been
trying to think of a case in Chazal of a fence that is more stringent on
youth than it is on those who are older - but haven't managed to come up
with one. But of course any suggestion that there might be passwords
set by the parents (which kids might or might not be able to hack), or
internet use by children only in the presence of their parents, means
that we are trusting the parents (at least up to a point). I wonder
what that says.

And indeed it is also clear from Chazal that in matters of arayos the
situation is not always lost (the lack of power of prison walls and
mighty kingdoms notwithstanding). The only rub is that successful
parenting seems to be one of the primary reasons for calling Yosef,
Yosef HaTzaddik - after all, as per the machlokus brought by Sotah 36b
(and Rashi Breishis 39:11) , Yosef was indeed tempted to arayos, but an
image of his father in the window stopped him short in his tracks (Hmm,
what is Microsoft Windows known as in Hebrew? Is there a bad pun there?)

But bad puns aside, is this a question of how far we take ma'ase avos
siman l'banim? Or is it just the same question that I keep worrying
at in various posts over the past year or so - namely quality versus
quantity. If you allow accessibility to temptation and just try and
teach self restraint, you are going to lose people in the process
whom you might otherwise not lose, but presumably you produce a few
tzaddikim that would otherwise not be produced (if Yosef had never had
the encounter with Potifur's wife, would he have been Yosef HaTzadik?
My gut reaction is not). Does this not mirror the should we grant
access to controversial concepts debate (aka Slifkin), with the same
people lining up on the same sides, or do people find themselves on
different sides on this one? Is it the same issue or a different one?

Moed Tov
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:11:04 +0200
From: "Rabbi Y. H. Henkin" <henkin@012.net.il>
Subject:
hosafot to Haazinu


Shalom,

But see Aruch haShulchan 428:8. I assume that was minhag Lita. Also,
my grandfather z"l normally followed AH over MB, as is known (see
Bnei Banim).

    Chag sameach.
    Yehuda Henkin


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:29:13 -0400
From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
Subject:
RE: Shofar on Shabbos


On October 17, 2005 Zev Sero wrote:
<In Yavneh they blew on Shabbos.>

To which I responded
How do you know?

On October 20, 2005, Elazar M. Teitz remt@juno.com gently informed me
in an offline communication as follows:
<First mishna of the last perek of Rosh Hashanah.>

The sound you are hearing is me kicking myself!

Simcha Coffer


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:44:48 -0400
From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
Subject:
RE: shofar on shabbos


On October 19, 2005 Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 09:11:05AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>:> therefore they knew, obviously, that <snip> if
>:> they stopped people from blowing shofar on Shabbos to prevent possible
>:> chillul Shabbos, there would still always be shofar-blowing on every
>:> Rosh Hashana.

> : What about lulav on Sukkos (only the first day is d'orayysa)?

> Declaring a yoma arichta enables shofar on another day -- but also "only"
> derabbanan. Just like the other days of Sukkos.

Yes but what I think RDR meant to say is that outside the Bais haMikdash,
the mitzvah was only one day. The fact that we take the lulav today for
seven days is only zecher leMikdash.

Simcha Coffer


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:59:48 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: shofar on shabbos


On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 10:44:48PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: Yes but what I think RDR meant to say is that outside the Bais haMikdash,
: the mitzvah was only one day. The fact that we take the lulav today for
: seven days is only zecher leMikdash.

And my response was that once you have the zeicher lemiqdash, there are
other days to fulfil the mitzvah that are no lesser than shofar on the
extra day of RH's yoma arichta. Therefore, there is no reason to ask why
we need the presence of a mitzvah on Sunday to justify banning shofar
on Shabbos when lulav is similarly banned without a yoma arichta.

It may even be one of the famous "many other reasons that weren't given"
that exist for every taqanah.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
micha@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:48:09 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
Subject:
Re: trusting kids on the web


From: "Chana Luntz" <chana@KolSassoon.org.uk>
>>Chazal say 'ein apitropus le'aroyos'

> Without getting into the merits of the discussion about whether or not one 
> should or should not allow one's kids to access the internet, I find it 
> fascinating that this particular phrase of Chazal's is frequently used in 
> precisely the way RSBA used it...
> And yet, when Chazal actually used it, it seems to me that they used in a 
> way that means almost exactly the opposite.
...
> But it still seems a stretch to use the case of a woman who has already 
> demonstrated her weakness for matters of arayos by being prepared to 
> seclude herself as illustrative of the ordinary person as RSBA and the 
> colloquial usage of the phrase has it
> And the other usages (ie Chullin, Nida) seem almost to be making an 
> argument closer to that of RSB's - ie if somebody is hell bent on arayos, 
> there is not a thing that can be done, neither prison walls nor the might 
> of a great kingdom will prevent it.  Thus the argument for parental 
> supervision, or no internet connection or whatever is being advocated 
> would seem in fact an argument that yesh apitropos b'arayos - with the 
> apitropos being the usual guardian (which after all is what apitropos 
> means) of children, namely their parents.

Ayin Rambam Hilchos Issurei Biah 22:14[15]
??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????, ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? 
???? -- ???? ????????? ??????
"We do not appoint - even a trustworthy and Kosher man -
to guard a place[yard] where there are women,
even if he is standing outside, 'sh'ein apitropus le'aroyos'..."
http://tinyurl.com/bktlg

> is this a question of how far we take ma'ase avos  siman l'banim?

IIRC, that IS a phantom maamar Chazal...

> I have been trying to think of a case in Chazal of a fence that is
> more stringent on youth than it is on those who are older - but haven't
> managed to come up with one.

IIRC therre is a halacha that an unmarried man shouldn't be a melamed
because he may meet the mothers of his talmidim.

IIANM there are other halochos etc re bochurim on such matters.

SBA 


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:17:30 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Shofar on Shabbos


On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 03:08:27PM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: R' Simon Montagu wrote <<< The RITVA (to Rosh Hashanah 16a, see Be'er
: ha'Golah of the MAHARAL, Be'er #1) states that when Chazal present an
: Asmachta, it means that the Torah meant to suggest that it is fitting
: to implement such a Halachah, but that it did not choose to make it
: obligatory. The Torah empowered the Chachamim to enact it should the
: need for it arise.. >>>

: Does this mean that without the asmachta, the chachamim would *not*
: have the power to enact it, even if the need arises?

No, it means that the Ritva places dinim based on asmachtos on a plane
between the regular derabbanan and de'orsaisos. Much like the discussion
we had in the long past on divrei soferim, which are also not de'oraisa,
but yet suggested by the RSO -- in that case, via nevu'ah.

:-)BBii!
-mi


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:21:40 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: statistics


On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 11:38:24AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I agree completely with the answers. My point was that even though there
: are many sources in our tradition that the benoni is left to the whims of
: nature this is not the "popular" picture painted by contemporary rabbis
: who follow the the shitah that absolutely nothing in the world is left
: to chance.

Frankly, the popular picture doesn't work. It makes the world entirely
about identifying a cheit for every tragedy, and yet also acknowledges
the notion of resha'im getting their reward in olam hazeh, and also tzadiq
vera lo, and also ... It's not thought through very well, is inconsistent
-- and moreso, few have thought it through well enough to realize that
they quote ma'amarei chazal that contradict. (As though there were never
machloqesin and every aggadita can be taken at face value.)

I therefore feel the whole thread was misguided, looking for consistency
where none exists.

Better to discuss the pictures popular amongst contemporary talmidei
chachamim. At least they are coherent and subject to logic.

:-)BBii!
-mi <with a major sigh>

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
micha@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 08:21:18 -0400
From: "Russell Levy" <russlevy@gmail.com>
Subject:
RE: trusting kids on the web


Chana Luntz wrote:
>>I have been trying to think of a case in Chazal of a fence that is
more stringent on youth than it is on those who are older - but haven't
managed to come up with one. <<

Two quick cases: SA 3:11 and 16. Both of these show we are choshesh in
some of these matters when we're dealing with bachurim, but not with
those who are married.

Gut shabbos & Gut moed
 -Russell


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:19:33 -0400
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Direction for na'anuim


Someone who is due any other direction than east from Yerushalayim, say,
south, and davens in the northward direction. Does this person change
the direction of na'anuim or is it still east, south, etc.?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:01:34 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
Subject:
RE: sugya correctly


From: "S & R Coffer" <>
> As far as the comment regarding psak and horaah not being the bailiwick
> of lomdus, this is the standard attitude in most of the chareidi Yeshivos
> that I am familiar with. My Rosh Yeshiva, for instance, doesn't have
> semicha and never put his kochos into halachah. This state of affairs
> is an unfortunate side-affect of golus and yeridas hadoros. Whereas 300
> hundred years ago every Rav in the city was also its "Rosh Yeshiva"

300 years ago??
Maybe in certain countries.

In prewar [Greater] Hungary (only 60 years ago) there were many [I have
heard the figure of 300!!] yeshivos, which were mostly headed by the
rav or a dayan of that Kehilla.

> today
> most people do not possess the ability to become proficient in lomdus and
> halacha simultaneously; thus the generally pronounced distinction between
> roshei Yeshiva and Rabbanim. Fortunately we still have some people left
> that encompass both qualities. As it happens, Toronto (where I live)
> has a few such people, most notably Rav Shlomo Miller shlita.

Rav Wosner, Rav Nosson Gestetner, Rav Anshel Katz, Viener Rav in WB,
his brother Rav Chaim leib Katz in BP, the Erlau Rav

RMF, the SR, the Papa Rav, Sopron Rav, RY Kaminetzky, Kashua Rav Brisker
Rav, Tshebeener Rav and many more that I can think of - including our
own Rav and RY Rav Betzalel Stern zt'l, [baal Sh'ut Betzeil Hachochmo]

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:47:07 GMT
From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject:
colors in the gemara


[From an Areivim discussion of Theodore "Doctor Seuss" Geisel's "Green
Eggs and Ham" and the Jewish child. I wrote that I believed the green
eggs were a greater halachic problem than the ham -- chamisa saqanta
mei'isura. The following ensued.
-mi]

R' Russell Levy wrote <<< Well, the Gemara discusses green eggs in Chulin
and doesn't say they are unhealthy... (As seen in a Tosafos in Sukkah,
discussing what colour yarok really is :) ) >>>

Ahhh, a discussion of green vs. yellow... I came across something very
interesting a while back, and have been waiting for the opportunity to
share it.

The gemara's discussions of colors have always bothered me, not because
of the difficulty in translating the words, but because I've gotten the
impression that even when the gemara was written, the words themselves
were vague and ambiguous.

It turns out that there may be some basis for this among linguists.
According to <http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_168b.html>,
Brent Berlin and Paul Kay researched 98 different languages for their
book "Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution", and came to
these conclusions:

"1. All languages contain terms for white and black.
2. If a language contains three terms, then it contains a term for red.
3. If a language contains four terms, then it contains a term for either
green or yellow (but not both).
4. If a language contains five terms, then it contains terms for both
green and yellow.
5. If a language contains six terms, then it contains a term for blue.
6. If a language contains seven terms, then it contains a term for brown."

It seems to me that #3 of this list is pretty close to the gemara's
situation, provided that we stipulate "zahav" and "techeles" to be the
names of *substances* rather than of colors.

Are there other exceptions or problems? Was "kachol" used as "blue"
in gemara times?

Akiva Miller


Go to top.

Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:32:05 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: colors in the gemara


On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 05:47:07PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: According to <http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_168b.html>, ...
: "1. All languages contain terms for white and black.
: 2. If a language contains three terms, then it contains a term for red.
: 3. If a language contains four terms, then it contains a term for either
: green or yellow (but not both).
...
: It seems to me that #3 of this list is pretty close to the gemara's
: situation, provided that we stipulate "zahav" and "techeles" to be the
: names of *substances* rather than of colors.

 From RSRH, "Collected Writings" (Volume III page. 126):
    We find only three terms to encompass the colors of the spectrum:
    adom for red, yaroq for yellow and green, and techeiles for blue
    and violet....

    Red is the least refracted ray; it is the closest to the unbroken ray
    of light that is directly absorbed by matter. Red is light in its
    first fusion with the terrestrial element: adom, related to adamah
    Is this not again man, the image of G-d as reflected in physical,
    earthly matter: "vatichsareihu me'at mi'Elokim" (Tehillim. 8,6).

    The next part of the spectrum is yellow-green: yaroq.

    Blue-violet is at the end of the spectrum: techeiles.

    The spectrum visible to our eye ends with the violet ray, techeiles,
    but additional magnitudes of light radiate unseen beyond the visible
    spectrum. Likewise, the blue expanse of the sky forms the end of the
    earth that is visible to us. And so techeiles is simply the bridge
    that leads thinking man from the visible, physical sphere of the
    terrestrial world, into the unseen sphere of heaven beyond....

    Techeiles is the basic color of the sanctuary and of the High Priest's
    vestments; the color blue-violet representing heaven and the things
    of heaven that were revealed to Israel... no other color was as
    appropriate as techeiles to signify G-d's special relationship with
    Israel. A thread of techeiles color on our garments conferred upon
    all of us the insignia of our high-priestly calling, proclaiming all
    of us: "Anshei qodesh tihyun li -- And you shall be holy men to Me"
    (Ex. 19, 6).

    If we now turn our attention to the pisil techeiles on our tzitzith,
    we will not that it was precisely this thread of techeiles color that
    formed the krichos, the gidil, the thread wound around the other
    threads to make a cord. In other words, the vocation of the Jew,
    the Jewish awareness awakened by the Sanctuary, that power which
    is to prevail within us, must act to unite all our kindred forces
    within the bond of the Sanctuary of G-d's law.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv


Go to top.


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


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >