Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 45

Wed, 04 Mar 2009

• 1. Re: women reading megillah for men (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Women reading Megilla (Stadlan, Noam)
• 3. Re: Anshei Knesset Hagedolah (Akiva Blum)
• 4. Re: Anshei Knesset Hagedolah (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Who wrote Megillas Esther? (Marty Bluke)
• 6. Re: Women reading Megilla (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 7. Re: Women writing a Megilla (Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer)
• 8. On Benching Children etc (I. Balbin)
• 9. Re: Who wrote Megillas Esther? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 10. Rambam's naturalism (Michael Makovi)
• 11. Re: Minhag Avos and Sephardim (Michael Makovi)
• 12. Re: Who wrote Megillas Esther? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 13. Re: Who wrote Megillas Esther? (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Minhag Avos and Sephardim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 15. To DE or to D no E? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 16. Re: To DE or to D no E? (Micha Berger)
• 17. The True Pshat About Two in the Wilderness with Only Enough Water for One (David Eisen)
• 18. Choshen (SBA)
• 19. Re: Choshen (Micha Berger)
• 20. Re: Rambam's naturalism (Micha Berger)
• 21. Re: Choshen (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

IIRC, RYBS's development of the concept had to do with the chiyuv on
men being midivrei  qabbalah, but there is a machloqes if a woman's
chiyuv is also MDQ or whether "af hein hayu be'oso haneis" is
derabbanan.

The Behag (quoted by Tos' Megillah 4a) says the problem is that women
are mechuyavos in shemi'ah, whereas men are mechuyavim in qeriah
(which can be fulfilled by listening, shomei'ah ke'oneh). I'm not sure
RYBS's is necessarily a contradictory opinion.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Rav Henkin in "Equality Lost" has a chapter on women reading Megilla with a
very clear analysis of sources and concepts.  He also holds that women can
read for women.  

Noam Stadlan

Micha wrote:

Thus explaining the shift from Daniel's "Madei uParas" to Esther's
"Paras uMadai". Under Achashveirosh, Persian thought was ascendent.

<<<<<<<<<

Except for Esther 10:2.

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 12:40:56PM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote:
:> Thus explaining the shift from Daniel's "Madei uParas" to Esther's
:> "Paras uMadai". Under Achashveirosh, Persian thought was ascendent.

: Except for Esther 10:2.

You mean, after Purim (and possibly other nudging from his wife) convinced
Achashveirosh of the vaue of suporting monotheism?

Thanks for picking that up -- it reinforces my guesswork.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

R' Wolpoe wrote:
<Contrary to seder olam, modern historians have identified
achashveirosh with Xerxes the great. This means that the 2nd beis
hamikdash was standing already.

There is only 1 small problem. The same Chazal who identified
Mordechai as a member of the Anshei Knesses Hagedola state in many
places (not just Seder Olam) that the story of Purim happened before
the second Beis Hamikdash was built.

Here is 1 example:
The Gemara in Megilla (11b) comments  on the pasuk "bishnas shalosh
lmalcho asa mishteh" that Achashverosh only made the party after he
calculated that more then 70 years of Galus had passed and therefore
the Jewish people would not be redeemed and the Beis Hamikdash would
not be rebuilt. For this reason at the party he took out the utensils
from the Beis Hamikdash.

I don't see how we can accept the opinion of modern historians when
everything we have from Chazal (various Gemaras in Megilla, medrashim,
seder Olam) and the Rishonim (see for example the first Rashi on the
Megilla)  all say that the story of Purim happened before the second
Beis Hamikdash was rebuilt. What happened to following the mesora?

> Rav Henkin in "Equality Lost" has a chapter on women reading Megilla
> with a very clear analysis of sources and concepts. He also holds that
> women can read for women.
> Noam Stadlan

The Avi Weiss article in Torah uMada is the best survey of sources that
I've seen.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

    In my previous post (Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 44), I noted that RO
    Yosef is also quoted "as permitting one to read from a Megilla written
    by a woman. There is nothing new here either and this has been his
    public position since 1983. See: Yabi`a Omer 8, Orah Hayyim #55,
    starting from the middle of sec. 3."
    I should add that this is an extensive mahloket haPoskim (As ROY
    ke-darko bakodesh cites extensively) and hence Rav Ovadiah is matir
    only be-di-avad - where one read from such a Megilla already or there
    is no other megilla available. 

--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail: Fri...@mail.biu.ac.il
Tel: 972-3-5318610; Fax: 972-3-7384053
Tel Home: 972-8-9473819/9470834
Cellphone: 972-54-7540761
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090303/7a06bcd1/attachment-0001.htm>

Please see

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/taleley/birkat-2.htm

for a comprehensive discussion of sources.

Also

https://www.kipa.co.il/ask/show.asp?id=137061

Marty:
> There is only 1 small problem. The same Chazal who identified Mordechai
> as a member of the Anshei Knesses Hagedola state in many places (not
> just Seder Olam) that the story of Purim happened before the second Beis
> Hamikdash was built.

> I don't see how we can accept the opinion of modern historians when
> everything we have from Chazal (various Gemaras in Megilla, medrashim,
> seder Olam) and the Rishonim (see for example the first Rashi on the
> Megilla) all say that the story of Purim happened before the second
> Beis Hamikdash was rebuilt. What happened to following the mesora?

I mentiined Seder Olam because AISI all the other sources are built
upon its assumption.

AFAIK all of the statements are aggadic or drush

Rav. S. Schwab has already suggested there is something "funky" about
seder olam's dating scheme during this period.

As I said, the mikra works out well with historians. (E.g. 17? rulers
in 160 years vs. 51 years) The various and sundry Hazal's do not work
ouit so well. .

Re: mesorah, I don't know what to say...perhaps as rav Schwab suggests
there was a hidden agenda.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

For those familiar with Rambam's naturalism, especially in Shemonah
Perakim chapter 8 and Commentary to Avot 5:5, that miracles are
pre-implanted at creation, and that "hakol biydei shamayim hutz
miyirat shamayaim" means that G-d controls only natural law, and that
ALL else is in our hands, the following may be interesting:

Professor Charles H. Manekin
"Divine Will in Maimonides' Later Writings"
in Maimonidean Studies, ed. Arthur Hyman, pp. 189-221
http://books.googl
e.com/books?id=6AYvt0zwTPQC&;pg=PR7&source=gbs_selected_pages&am
p;cad=0_1#PPA189,M1
(Google Books except, contains the entirety of the essay in question.)

I haven't yet read this article, but based on a book of Professor
Manekin's which I just read (On Maimonides, Wadsworth Philosopher
series), the basic thesis will be as follows:

In Rambam's earlier writings, he was much more of an Aristotelian
naturalist, and scarcely differed from Aristotle, at least relative
what one would expect from the rabbinic leader of Jewry.

But, in his later writings, we see Rambam emphasizing G-d's volitional
character more. For example, in the Moreh, Rambam says that upholding
Aristotelian eternity would deny G-d the ability to craft natural law
and create miracles; such require a volitional character, whereas
Aristotle had reality and natural law arising inexorably from G-d.

Manekin proposes that G-d's will is eternal and unchanging (given
Aristotelian metaphysics), but that this consistent and unchanging
will exerts a constant effect on the will, depending on the
recipient's status. For example, G-d's will will cause the righteous
to prosper, while it causes Sodom to be obliterated. Manekin likens
this to a flame: some objects will be burnt, others melted, others
tempered, even though the flame is constantly and unceasingly
unchanging.

Manekin tells me that his paper was quite controversial, given that it
makes Rambam much "frummer" than the academics are accustomed to.

Michael Makovi

R' Rich Wolpoe asked about an alleged shita (held by some Sefaradim)
that there is no such thing as Minhag Avot, only haMakom. He
challenged this, based on al titosh torath imecha, and also
> If Sephardim subscribe to no minhag avos
> that would imply that following 1492 there were no more Sephardim born?
> Also minhag EY at time of GRA could not have been Sepharidc since all
> Spanish natives were long gone. Similar argument for America circa 1654.

I have no sources for anything, and I have no sevara for how to
explain al titosh, but the second challenge, I'll reply with a
non-mekor sevara for the anti-minhag-avot-ists:

When the Spanish left Spain in 1492 and spread across North Africa and
the Middle East, they were indeed no longer Spanish in the sense that
the Spanish minhag no longer applied to them, since they had left the
makom.

BUT, in their new homes, if they reestablished the old minhagim, then
it is a question of terminology; minhag haMakom of Morocco, Israel,
Tunisia, Turkey, Greece, whatever, would be a reproduction of minhag
haMakom of Spain.

Perhaps, then, in their new homes, had they put the matter up to a
vote, and asked whether or not to continue the old minhag haMakom of
Spain, they could have decided to drop that whole minhag and adopt a
new one. But once the new makom adopts the minhagim of the old makom,
the decision is done.

Personally, I'd argue that today, Ashkenazim and Sefaradim are no
longer bound by those minhagim; there is no minhag haMakom today, as
evidenced by the fact that a Sefaradi can eat kitniyot in full plain
view of Ashkenazim, without reprisal. Were there minhag haMakom, a
Sefaradi couldn't eat kitniyot in an Ashkenazi locale. But this is a
separate issue, I'm just opportunistically taking a moment on my
soapbox.

Michael Makovi

This is a hashkafa trade-off.

There is a hizzuq here for the nach
We know who achashveirosh is
The story fits history
Etc.

We now can counter Bible Critics with solid "ammunition"

But this model conflicts with Hazal's model big time.

Q:  is this trade-off worthwhile to YOU?

To me it is because I prefer the supporting evidence and meanwhile I
can live with a tzaruch iyyun on those Hazal's.

If OTOH one cannot live with this, then just fuhgedabbout it. Just 'cause
it works for me, does not mean it's the right solution for others.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

The topic drifted back to an old perennial -- are Chazal's historical
pronouncements part of "mesorah" and were they meant as literal historical
statements to begin with?

(With that connection made explicit, the long-timers here can fill in
what the others are going to say, and we can skip actually saying it.

... and the third old man on the porch said "42", but no one laughed.
"You have to know how to tell it.")

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507

>                                          ... I'll reply with a
> non-mekor sevara for the anti-minhag-avot-ists:

> When the Spanish left Spain in 1492 and spread across North Africa and
> the Middle East, they were indeed no longer Spanish in the sense that
> the Spanish minhag no longer applied to them, since they had left the
> makom.
...
> Perhaps, then, in their new homes, had they put the matter up to a
> vote, and asked whether or not to continue the old minhag haMakom of
> Spain, they could have decided to drop that whole minhag and adopt a
> new one. But once the new makom adopts the minhagim of the old makom,
> the decision is done.

> Personally, I'd argue that today, Ashkenazim and Sefaradim are no
> longer bound by those minhagim; there is no minhag haMakom today...
> Michael Makovi"

Follow up question. Some of the same Sephardim assert that
When ashkenazim came in numbers they should have followed minhag hamakom
in. Both EY and NYC. And to surrender their minhag avos.
Why?

If Michael's model is accurate it might make
Sense if they had voted and established it already.

Otherwise if Sephardim were following minhag avos from Spain then
Ashkenazim should follow their minhag avos too.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Nat bar nat
Or
Nat bar nat NOT!

I asked a high-level official @ the OU

Q: Why no DE label anymore?
A: nat bar nat is too complex.  We use D only to avoid confusion.

I was taken aback. Can't OU educate the public on its website w/o
"dumbing down its labels"?

I shared this privately with a Sephardic Hacham. I am quoting him with
anonymously with his reshus:

"Not nat bar nat!
Factory equipment is either cleaned with harsh chemicals or bleaching
agents (ozone). If anything is left, it is noten taam lifgam! And as
it is heter, there is no mevatel issur l'chatchilah (assuming we accept
your view that we are choshesh for this in gentile made products if we
give hashgacha.) These products are completely pareve! Did you ever open
a can (at least in the U.S.) and find that the product tasted of another
product? They have quality control people to make sure that this doesn't
happen. In mom and pop stores it can, but not in factories!"

Any sources?  Comments?
Insights?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:40:55PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Q: Why no DE label anymore?
: A: nat bar nat is too complex.  We use D only to avoid confusion.

It's not just nat bar nat, it's teaching the masses about sheish sha'os.

: I was taken aback. Can't OU educate the public on its website w/o
: "dumbing down its labels"?

I believe you're making more of it than necessary. There was a time when
hashgachos didn't say "D" at all. You were expected to know that if
were milchig, the OU (for example) would make sure the milchig product
was in the ingredient list. But not everyone knew things like sodium
cassienate are milchig, so they added the D.

The only people who wouldn't know that a D-labeled product isn't really
DE are the same people who don't know what to look on the ingredient
list. Anyone up the learning curve to know the halakhos of DE would
hopefully be in a position to make the determination themselves.

IOW, writing D vs DE is the dumbing down, not the other way around.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

RMR asked:

It is clear from the Gemara [and Rashi] of Bava Metzia 62a that according
to Rebbi Akivah the rule of ChaYecha KodMim DOES NOT always apply. In some
situations Rebbi Akiva Paskens that the water MUST be shared and both
should perish.

What is that case?

>>>>>

See Shu"T Havvot Yair 146 who limits the scope of R. Aqiva's ruling to
applying only to a situation in which both travelers will certainly die if
they share the water, but in the event that it is not certain that both
will perish if they share the water, yet it is certain that the one who
does not drink at all will die, R. Bakhrach paskens that the owner of the
water is obligated to share the water in accordance with the principle of
permitting, and at times, obligating one to endanger himself to save the
life of another.

B'virkat HaTorah,
David Eisen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090304/1c219b27/attachment-0001.htm>

Anyone know something about the background etc of the word "Choshen"?

(IIUC, the Ibn Ezra  this week 28:14 is also unsure.)

SBA

On Tue, March 3, 2009 11:57 pm, SBA wrote:
: Anyone know something about the background etc of the word "Choshen"?

R Matisyahu Clark's Hirchian Dictionary has
> ChShN: sheild, protect chest

> e[xplanation]/c[ommentary]: breast pocket, pouch (Ex 28:4 chosen
> ve'eiphod ume'il)
> c[ognate] m[eaning]: absorb and store [p[honetic] c[ognates] (A26)
> /ChSN/ store strength, /ChTzN/ arm, /AZN/ ponder, /ASN/ distress,
> /EShN/ concentrate smoke, /HTzN/ arm]

Lulei demitztafina hayisi omeir, RMC's root family A26 appears to be a
group of words RSRH didn't really know what to do with.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, March 3, 2009 8:00 am, Michael Makovi wrote:
: For those familiar with Rambam's naturalism, especially in Shemonah
: Perakim chapter 8 and Commentary to Avot 5:5, that miracles are
: pre-implanted at creation, and that "hakol biydei shamayim hutz
: miyirat shamayaim" means that G-d controls only natural law...

??? Where do you get this out of what the Rambam writes?

: Professor Charles H. Manekin
: "Divine Will in Maimonides' Later Writings"
: in Maimonidean Studies, ed. Arthur Hyman, pp. 189-221
...
: Manekin proposes that G-d's will is eternal and unchanging (given
: Aristotelian metaphysics), but that this consistent and unchanging
: will exerts a constant effect on the will, depending on the
: recipient's status. For example, G-d's will will cause the righteous
: to prosper, while it causes Sodom to be obliterated. Manekin likens
: this to a flame: some objects will be burnt, others melted, others
: tempered, even though the flame is constantly and unceasingly
: unchanging.

Where's the chiddush, that's Moreh III:18 explicitly!
From Friedlander's translation:
> This being granted, it must further be admitted that the result of
> the existing Divine influence, that reaches mankind through the human
> intellect, is identical with individual intellects really in
> existence, with which, e.g., Zeid, Amr, Kaled and Bekr, are endowed.
> Hence it follows, in accordance with what I have mentioned in the
> preceding chapter, that the greater the share is which a person has
> obtained of this Divine influence, on account of both his physical
> predisposition and his training, the greater must also be the effect
> of Divine Providence upon him, for the action of Divine Providence is
> proportional to the endowment of intellect, as has been mentioned
> above. The relation of Divine Providence is therefore not the same to
> all men; the greater the human perfection a person has attained, the
> greater the benefit he derives from Divine Providence.

It is also classical Aristo. See, for example, the position Rihal
places in the mouth of the philosopher in the Kuzari 1:1. The
philosopher achieves unity with the Active Intellect, thereby gaining
its gifts.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I had my student look into it:

the meaning is unknown. bdb speculates it is from Arabic "beautiful", "an 
ornament"

KT
RRE
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 45
**************************************

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..."