Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 099

Thursday, July 27 2006

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:06:07 +0100
From: "Chana Luntz" <chana@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Subject:
Noshim daatan kalos


RSW writes
> It's pashut to me that the reason why women are not accepted 
> as witnesses when two witnesses are required is because 
> daatan kalos. I don't have a raayah off hand.

I think on a torah list, especially a high level one, we need something
more than "it is psshut to me".

Nashim daatan kalos is brought to explain the din of yichud - ie that
a man may not be secluded with two women, even though a woman may be
secluded with two men (so long as they are kasherim and not prutzim)
(Kiddushin 80b). Note that:

A) this would seem to be a din d'rabbanan (at least according to the
Rashba) as the Torah itself does not forbid yichud except for a mamash
erva and ish v'isha gamur (see Shut HaRashba chelek 1, siman 1 178) -
indeed he uses the fact that the gemora gives nashim daatan kalos as a
reason as a rayah that the din is a d'rabbanan;

B) this appears to be, as RSBA has identified, a explanation relating to
the relative ease of seduction (see Rashi there) - unless of course one
of the two women is the wife of the man in question, in which case she
is considered to be a good shomer (so maybe we should say that noshim
daatan kalos applies to all women other than your wife!).

> It's also pashut to me that the Torah considers two eidim to 
> be the strongest type of testimony and it's not just a technicality.

The Torah and the gemora also spend a lot of time dealing with eidei
zomamim - which is all about the deliberate falsification of such
witnessing.

And what you seem to regard as so pashut does not seem to have been
so pashut to the rishonim - the discussion by the Ran springs to mind
regarding whether the Torah form of justice is indeed the most just in
the real world (IIRC the Ran answers in the negative, but understands
the mechanism of the melech as acting as a corrective).

> As far as whether the reason for women not being required to 
> testify because they shouldn't have to put themselves at risk 
> because they have to care for their children: I don't think 
> that there is any source for such a statement.

The gemora itself (Shavuos 30a) bases the requirement for two men on
the pasuk "v'amdu shnei ha'anashim", and establishes that this pasuk is
dealing with witnesses, and not baalei dinim, by means of a gezera shava.
In that sense it gives no reason.

On the other hand the gemora there has a discussion about the impact
of kol kavuda bas melech penima - ie were it not for the gezera shava,
we might think that the pasuk is in fact talking about baalei dinim,
and that the reason it says anashim is because it is not the derech for
women to come to beis din, because of kol kavuda bas melech penima, not
that they cannot. As tosphos points out on the daf there, one cannot
similarly say that anashim in the pasuk is lav dafka once you establish
that it relates to eidus, because, unlike with being a baal din, one
cannot appoint an agent, but have to come in person. The implication
would seem to be, however, that kol kavuda provides an explanation of
why women, from a Torah perspective, may not be required to give eidus.

If you understand kol kavuda as having to do with what a woman is
required to do in the home (not the only explanation, but a plausable
one) then you would seem to have your source. And certainly if one is
going to give a reason for women's exemption from the requirement to
give eidus, an explanation brought on the daf gemora that discusses the
question would seem somewhat more relevant than a statement brought in a
completely different context such as the rabbinic prohibitions on yichud.

Regards
Chana


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:11:23 +0200
From: "David Eisen" <davide@arnon.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Wheat Tortilla Bread (was: malawach)


[Approved with berakhos that RDEisen be home safely soon! -mi]

RMF wrote:
> R. Shlomo Levi (Rosh Kollel of Yeshivat Har Etzion), in his Kuntres
> Birchat HaPat, says that the bracha is hamotzi. He reasons that the amount
> of oil is not large enough for this to be considered frying--rather,
> it is considered to have been baked, even though it is prepared in a
> pan (not an oven). Also, the dough is not a blilah rakah. Although the
> oil/margarine is tasted, this does not change the fact that this is a
> meal food, not a desert food.

Given my current location due to the telephonic tzav 8 I received last
Erev Shabbat, I do not have access to my copy of R. Levi's Kuntres
Birkhat HaPat. Does he discuss in there the berakha for wheat tortillas
(I assume corn tortillas would be a different berakha, depending on the
quantity of wheat in the flour)? My guess is that it would be a mezonot
as the dough is a blila raka; that said, I wonder if one eats it as part
of a well packed wrap, which have become extremely popular in Israeli
cafes in recent years, if it would then require a hamotzi as one will
be considered to be qovea seuda on it.

Regards from the Lebanese border,
David


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:55:52 -0400
From: "Moshe Yehuda Gluck" <mgluck@gmail.com>
Subject:
RE: music


R' cbk:
<...>
> But if one's approach is to find what
> the tradition is/was regarding the issur/minhag of music during the 3
> weeks, it doesn't seem like the logical conclusion. So the question is,
> what should be our goal?
> Should it be to look for ways to assur music lest we inadvertantly
> transgress this issue, and to create a siyug for this issur/minhag?

Similarly, should we prohibit beer after Rosh Chodesh because it has
many of the same effects as wine, and is used similarly in social
gatherings? (A local liquor store employee told me that beer sales go
up significantly during the nine days...)

KT,
MYG


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:32:16 -0400
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: historical contingency and brachos


On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:47:20 +0200 "Ari Z. Zivotofsky"
<zivotoa@mail.biu.ac.il> writes:
> I am not sure anyone requires a reviis - at most a melo lugmuv.

The Biur Halacha quotes the Chaye Adam that you need kevius al hayayin.
Although (he says) he did not pasken this way in the Mishna Berura,
he says that based on this one should not be mekel with less than
melo lugmav. It sounds to me that although the setimas rov haposkim is
otherwise, his own daas is noteh to this pesak. Therefore, it would be
at the least melo lugmov, not the most.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:39:27 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: mitzvos kalos and chomuros


On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 05:06:43PM -0500, CBK wrote:
: I had always seen this as imlplying (or even explying (being explicit))
: that there actually are mitzvos that are kal and those that are
: chamur. Not that I know which is which, nor do I even know on what
: scale these terms are judged...

Well, you do know that the scale isn't sechar, since you are being
warned against treating a mitzvah you know is qalah lightly because you
do not know its sechar. If you can know one without the other, they must
be disjoint.

WRT derashos, qal vachomer is judged by scope of the issur, or by
magnitude of the onesh in beis din [shel mata]. I assumed the terms mean
the same thing here too.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org   
Fax: (270) 514-1507      


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:46:54 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Music


On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 02:07:12PM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
: Mon, 24 Jul 2006  from: Harry Maryles <>
:>  That anyone would
:> think, let alone Paskin that an accapella recording is more entertainig
:> than a live accapella performance is mind boggling.

: Personally, I consider well-produced and edited audio and video recordings
: of concerts to be much better, quality- and entertainment-wise.

Recordings allow laying tracks recorded at different times. Such as
enabling someone singing harmony with themselves. And other accoustical
tricks.

However, I think that the atmosphere of a concert allows one to "connect"
more to the music and get more entertainment than from a recording. Al
ta'am vareiach....

I understand what is driving the chumrah in question. When I went to
Eichlers in Manhattan a"h last omer, there was literally dozens of
high quality a cappella CDs. And with mouths doing rhythm and base, you
really don't notice the lack of musical instruments. So, if one holds
that aveilus includes not listening to recorded music, one can totally
avoid the feeling of aveilus they're supposed to be getting. One could
listen to one of the streaming audio Jewish music sites that just carry
a cappella these weeks.

It's like Rav Ovadiah Yosef's opinion of sheitelach.

(FWIW, I was raised with the "party gathering" definition, and
therefore wouldn't listen to a capella at a simchah during the omer
or bein hametzrim, while I would to recordings or radio of all types
[of otherwise mutar] music.)

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org   
Fax: (270) 514-1507      


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:50:11 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Waiting to Daven Maariv on Shavuous


On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 10:52:14PM -0400, rabbirichwolpoe@aol.com wrote:
:> Acharonim invent chumros all the time, and this wouldn't be the first
:> one based on peshat in the pasuq.

: It's not ONLY chumros. The Maharil invents a kula for non-married men
: to not wear a Talis Gadol based upon a drasha of semuchin. And while
: MB and other poskim reject this crsahs this is the popular Minhag.

Do they reject it as iqar hadin, or suggest the chumrah of not relying on
a minhag whose justification (read: limud zechus) is a rishonic derashah?

This also speaks to which part of the MB's haqdamah is more central. If
its a survey rather than a seifer pesaq, it would seem that even the CC
didn't intend for his rulings to be accepted as iqar hadin lemaaseh.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org   
Fax: (270) 514-1507      


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:05:39 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Noshim daatan kalos


On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 01:18:28PM -0400, Shmuel Weidberg wrote:
: It's pashut to me that the reason why women are not accepted as witnesses
: when two witnesses are required is because daatan kalos. I don't have
: a raayah off hand.

On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 05:28:02PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: See Shvuot 30a - it's a drasha so you can supply any reason you think
: is pashut.

After the derashah (a long conversation) the gemara invokes "kol-kevudah
bas melekh penimah". Kol-kevudah means that few women will represent
themselves as baalos din, and therefore they would not be valid as ediyos.

Personally, I thought it was similar to the textbook case of Moshe's
ineligibility to testify about Aharon. The limits of eidus goes beyond
neemanus. To theorize further, two brothers have a dynamic that makes
derishah vechaqirah complicated -- they can't empathize with the eidim,
too much else is going on. Similarly, asking male dayanim to assess the
eidus of women. Thus the problem with their eidus is a derivative of a
woman's eligility to be dayan. That fits kol-kevudah, since it is the
reason why she wouldn't be a baalas din.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org   
Fax: (270) 514-1507      


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:27:59 -0400
From: "Samuel Svarc" <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com>
Subject:
RE: Music


>From: "CBK" <fallingstar613@hotmail.com>
>> He considers a recording of such sound to have been produced by
>> an instrument and therefore to be instrumental music. The logic is good,
>> IMO, but yuo can argue on other grounds.

>Yes, the logic is good. However, it seems to depend upon the frame of
>reference. In other words, it is logical if you are looking for a reason
>to prohibit such music. It seems like the approach of someone who looks
>to find the issur in something. But if one's approach is to find what
>the tradition is/was regarding the issur/minhag of music during the 3
>weeks, it doesn't seem like the logical conclusion.

Why not? The minag/halacha for hundreds of years is not to listen
to music. All that he is pointing out is that once a form of music,
which at first is permissible, is mastered and the imperfections are
taken out it becomes a prohibited form of music. There are tapes of
a cappela on the market were the producers sampled voices (this is a
recording technique) to specific drum sounds. They then played the drum
notes through a MIDI controller. They overlay this on the vocals. Yes,
it is discernable from a real drum, but so what? You wouldn't permit
music from an electronic keyboard, so why is that permitted? R' Belsky,
R' Shloime Miller, and other poskim pasken that it isn't. As one of
the Lakewood poskim told me, "If you want to use a suppository that
will give you nutrition on Yom Kippur, fine. The Torah assered achila,
not its result and that isn't achila. The prohibition of listening to
music in the Three Weeks is because of its result; therefore these types
of music which lead to that result are prohibited as well."

KT,
MSS


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:30:56 +0100
From: "Alan Rubin" <alanrubin1@gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Music during the Three Weeks


Shmuel Weidberg wrote:
> R' Shlomo Miller assered a capella because of Maris Ayin, not because
>he considered it to have the status of music, but because people who
>don't know the halacha will think that it is mutar to listen to music
>with instruments.

Do we have the power to make this sort of gezeirah nowadays? Does Maris
Ayin extend to this? Is the 'prohibition' of listening to music during
the three weeks of such importance that it needs to be protected with
gezeiros? Should I stop listening to shiurim on my mp3 player because
people might think I'm listening to music?

Or is this another chumra too far?

Alan Rubin


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 06:54:47 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Music during the Three Weeks


On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 08:30:56AM +0100, Alan Rubin wrote:
: Do we have the power to make this sort of gezeirah nowadays? ...

Well if we don't, then aveilus during the omer is altogether out.
According to the AhS, it post-dates the Crusades. So, it would seem we do.

But I think the reason is as I gave, that one can get the same
un-aveilus-dik emotions from a fine a capella as from instrumented music,
and therefore the current trend making it ubiquitous defeats the entire
practice as it already exists.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org   
Fax: (270) 514-1507      


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:38:10 +0300
From: Ari Zivotofsky <zivotoa@mail.biu.ac.il>
Subject:
Re: historical contingency and brachos


Gershon Dubin wrote:
>The Biur Halacha quotes the Chaye Adam that you need kevius al hayayin. 
>Although (he says) he did not pasken this way in the Mishna Berura, he
>says that based on this one should not be mekel with less than melo
>lugmav.  It sounds to me that although the setimas rov haposkim is
>otherwise, his own daas is noteh to this pesak.  Therefore, it would be
>at the least melo lugmov, not the most.

by "at most" I meant the largest shiur suggested.
some require a taste, others require a melo lugmav.
I do not know anyone who requires a revi'is. thus at most, i.e. the
largest minimum shiur, is a melo lugmov.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:45:24 +0100
From: "Chana Luntz" <chana@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Subject:
New tephilot


RET wrote:
> RYBS has many articles/speeches on tefillah with a great 
> emphasis that on the concept that we need a matir to daven to 
> hashem. He views tefillah as being more for ourselves and 
> less a right to petition hashem for requests. RAL points out 
> that later in life RYBS softened his views as he and his wife 
> went through their medical problems. Though very innovative I 
> don't think his views on tefillah even after the softeneing 
> were widely accepted.

It is interesting to note that the idea of composing new pizmonim would
seem to be alive and well in the American Syrian Community.

In preparation for our Zeved haBat, we have got hold of what seems to
be generally known as the "red book" (its full title is Sir u'shbahah,
hallel ve'zimrah) - and is a collection of the traditional pizmonim of
the Syrian community. But as well as the traditional pizmonim, they
have included various more recent pizmonim commissioned by members of
the community, usually around life events - there are loads for bar
mitzvahs and weddings etc. - The one that is fascinating us (and we
would love to know what the tune is) is on page 253, and was written
l'kvod a certain Avraham Sassoon, l'avi habat, channukah 1983 (the
composer is Araham Cohen Sabon). It includes some lovely lines such as
"l'beit sassoon hatzlach elyon, k'mei rachel ba'ah im hazon". I think
also that the mother must have been originally a Harrari, because there
is a verse all about "samach hayom beit harrari".

Regards 
Chana


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:13:39 -0400
From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <rygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
The Power of a Beis Din to Create a Halachic Metzius


The shul in which I daven in the morning has a copy of the "banned"
sefer of R' Chaim Kanievski's often one word answers to the many
questions some fellow directed at him - it's called "Doleh u'Mashkeh."
One of the very interesting responses was to the question of the status
of a person condemned by a Beis Din to death who himself knows that he
did not commit the crime in question. Is this person allowed to turn
around and kill the Shaliach Beis Din who comes to execute him? R' Chaim
responded that in Sanhedrin 82a we only see that in the case of Zimri
(Bo'el Aramis) would he have been justified in killing Pinchas - the
inference being that all other Chayavei Misos Beis Din are not allowed
to kill their executioners. In response to a follow-up question, R'
Chaim acknowledged two sevaros at work here: "Chiyuv mechudash," and
"Rodef b'ones" (the author questioned the second sevara on the basis of
the case of a fetus that is being rodef the mother, ach yesh l'yashev).
The first pshat is very much in line with my contention in the question
of the permissibility of killing lice on Shabbos: Chazal are kovei'a
the Halachic Metzius.

YGB


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:08:03 +0200
From: Minden <phminden@arcor.de>
Subject:
Re: Eli Tziyon tune


R' Jon Baker wrote:
>> I posted a link to a recording of the Western tradition on my blog:
>> <http://lipmans.blogspot.com>.

>> Maybe we're talking about different tunes, but I don't find this tune
>> in three four time particularly march-like.

> Ah. What I've generally heard in the US has been the first verse tune,
> repeated over and over, somewhat faster than you sing it. So it comes
> over as more 4/4 with each crotchet divided in three, for more or less
> 12/8 time. Say, 48 beats/minute.

I understand - this way the first beats are very dominant, and it
gets snappy.

I think the element of hope is evoked through the subtle turn to the
major key at the last note of ve-oreho, using only notes that are proper
to the main, minor scale (diatonic notes). In the version I recorded, this
effect is even stronger every time the chorus part starts again. (Musical
chorus, that is. The text is continuing.)

Lipman Phillip Minden


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:30:33 GMT
From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <remt@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: Rav Soloveitchik on Holocaust Kinot


> Of course, later piyutim (not tefillot) were written by Hakhmei     
> Ashkenaz and Hakhmei Tzarfat. There is no doubt that the authors of   
> the piyutim mourning the destruction during the Crusades were of the  
> Ba'alei ha-Tosafot. But the Hakhmei Ashkenaz and Hakhmei Tzarfat were 
> the Hakhmei ha-Masorah! ...
>             Tosafot quotes Rabbi El'azar ha-Kalir many times when he 
> has a halakhic problem. Rabbi El'azar ha-Kalir was not simply a  
> paytan; he was one of the Hakhmei ha-Masorah. So, of course, if     
> he wrote a piyut of a kinah, it has relevance. But I cannot trust     
> others to do it.

Did RYBS consider R. Shlomo Alkabetz one of the Chachmei Ham'sorah?
If not, did he oppose saying L'cha Dodi?

EMT  


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:12:53 +0200
From: Minden <phminden@arcor.de>
Subject:
Re: Music


R' Samuel Svarc wrote:
> The minag/halacha for hundreds of years is not to listen to music.

Or is it? In the Worms minneg books including the Chavves Yoir's notes
you won't find it. (Let me add that I follow the main point of your
posting, though.)

Lipman Phillip Minden
http://lipmans.blogspot.com


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 >