Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 35

Wed, 09 Mar 2011

• 1. Re: Moshe Rabeinu and his family (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Rav Chazkel Levenstein On The Capture Of Adolf Eichmamm ym"s (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Moshe Rabeinu and his family (Arie Folger)
• 4. Moshe Rabbenu and his family (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: Moshe Rabeinu and his family (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Moshe Rabeinu and his family (Eliyahu Grossman)
• 7. Re: yotzros (Arie Folger)
• 8. Molad Alert (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Molad Alert: Friday night (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 10. should women go to shul for megillas esther (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: Molad Alert: Friday night (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: yotzros (Simon Montagu)
• 13. Re: BCI and Melacha on Shabbos and Other Issurim (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: "she-asani kirtzono" (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: should women go to shul for megillas esther (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Moshe Rabeinu and his family (Zev Sero)

On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:53:23PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: RB wrote:
:> After he was an infant, how did Moshe Rabeinu know who his family was?
:> We know his sister watched our for him, and was picked up by Bat Pharoa,
:> but did Bat Pharoa know that the one who nursed Moshe was his Mother?
...

: Is that not wonderful evidence for 'Hazal's contention that Bitia (NOT
: BATYA, ain't no such name - check your Chronicles) was a ba'alat
: teshuvah? ...

Only if you think Open Adoption is a mitzvah.

Seriously, though, how does the revealing or not revealing her guess
that his nursmaid was his mother a function of her willingly accepting
ol 7 mitzvos?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:07:39PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
> On 2/24/2011 3:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:30:24AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
>>> The variation on this theme that I heard, from Rabbi Meir Schlesinger,
>>> is that Reb Chatzkel if you gave your typical yeshiva bachur 007 license
>>> to kill, with exemption from punishment in both this world and the next,
>>> he would become a serial killer (perhaps he said mass murderer - it
>>> amounts to the same thing).

>> I'm curious to know RCL's intent. I could read this at least two ways:
...
>> 2- Yeshiva bachurim get used to positing abstract rules without a
>>     general gefeel for morality, and thus would do evil if there were
>>     no rule against it.

> It was presented to us as more of the latter (#2).

This reminds me of a contrast made by RABrill between RYAmital and
RALichtenstein <http://www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/BRILL_5_2.pdf>,
pp 5-6:
    The second story concerns the scenario where one is in an extreme
    situation and has this choice: whether to either eat human flesh or
    pork. The standard halakhah designates pork as a biblical prohibition
    and human flesh as only a rabbinic prohibition (assuming the flesh
    is already dead and there is no question of murder); hence one
    should eat the human flesh. R. Lichtenstein is wont to go further
    and consistently point out that the punishment for the consumption
    of pork is only lashes while eating fruits from the priestly portion
    that has not been taken is excision (karet). In contrast, R. Amital
    almost shouts out from his soul that human flesh should be repulsive
    to everyone's natural sense of morality so that one should eat the
    pork, and the reason that the prohibition was not stated in the
    Torah was because this revulsion is a natural intuition not needing
    to be stated. R. Amital also adds a more halakhic reason that the
    calculation of choosing to violate a rabbinic prohibition over a
    biblical one is itself only rabbinic.

I heard it put this way (semi-seriously), if the two were to survive
a plane crash with only the proverbial two choices for food, both
would choose the pork over the bodies of those who didn't survive. The
difference is RAL, the Brisker, would feel guilty about it afterward.
Whereas R' Amital... Well, let me continue quoting RABrill's article:

    He further cites as a paradigm for his thought the famous statement of
    Rabbi Moses Samuel Glasner (1856-1924) in his Introduction to Hullin,
    where he states that just because something is not forbidden does not
    mean that it is permitted, e.g., the case of choosing to eat human
    flesh over pork. R. Amital guards himself in the halakhic realm by
    noting that some say R. Glazer went too far -- and may not be correct
    as halakhah. However, for R. Amital, R. Glazer's approach can still
    serve as our paradigm of ethics and as a rejection of legal formalism
    by affirming mandates outside of texts (page 40). Once again we are
    left without criteria about when to rely on this moral sense;...

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

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Only if you think Open Adoption is a mitzvah.

> Seriously, though, how does the revealing or not revealing her guess
> that his nursmaid was his mother a function of her willingly accepting
> ol 7 mitzvos?

I see I did not express myself clearly enough. I don't claim that
Bat Par'oh (who, as R' Grossman pointed out, doesn't need to be Bitya
of Chronicles - though I stand by the fact that Bitya wasn't called
Batya) told Moshe who his birth mother was, nor that she knew (though
the narrative strongly implies this was clear to all participants -
but that narrative also makes the adoption final, as the birth mother
accepts being demoted to a wet nurse). No, what I claim is that Bat
Par'o imparted a Jewish identity and a sense of justice to Moshe.

And I didn't say a word about 7 mitzvot BN - who would have been the
talmid 'hakham who would teach her those? We don't know, as the text is
silent about this. But Moshe emerges with a strong sense of justice,
and a strong sense of who his brothers are, so those feelings had to
come from somewhere, and what's more natural than that it was imparted by
his adoptive mother who had defied her father and saved a Hebrew boychik?

[Email #2. -micha]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Seriously, though, how does the revealing or not revealing her guess
> that his nursmaid was his mother a function of her willingly accepting
> ol 7 mitzvos?

I should add that any Midrash claiming that she went to immerse in
the Nile to cleanse herself migilulei beit aviha need not be taken
literally. She surely occasionally took baths, and they didn't all need
to be ritual ablutions. I do not think that the Midrash is trying to
teach us about the kashrut of a river as a mikveh (which is a matter of
disagreements among Rishonim, based on the gemara), but rather to tell
us that in noticing and caring about Moshe, it is evident that she had
turned her back on her father's ways. The tevilah language is simply the
lomdishe way to say that, but the baalebatishe way need not be incorrect;
it could be the truth, with the lomdishe description being exactly that,
a way to hammer home how significant her turnaround was.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* The Onset of Death in Halakha IV: In the Media
* The Onset of Death in Halakha III: Noteworthy Discussions
* Audio-Schiur ? Psalm 126 ? Gedenklernen fr Herrn Heinz Althof s.A.
* Le psaume 92 - cours multimdia en franais
* Is Outsourcing Ethical?
* Kalendernotiz: Neue Vortragsreihe zum Thema Gebet

<<As one who loves and delves into Midrashim, I believe that it is important
to ALWAYS introduce a midrash by declaring it to be one. Rather than saying
"Her name was Batyah", one should say "There is a Midrash [site source if
you recall] that gives her name as Batyah." >>

Just came from a shiur of R. Benny Lau and he pointed out that most of our
impressions of Mordecai and Esther and the Jewish community come from
midrashim.
Basing himself strictly on the pshat and what he admitted was a minority of
midrashim he had a completely different take on the entire story (He just
published a
book on the topic)

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110309/5bc18830/attachment-0001.htm>

On 9/03/2011 2:15 PM, Arie Folger wrote:
> I don't claim that Bat Par'oh [...] told Moshe who his birth mother
> was, nor that she knew (though the narrative strongly implies this
> was clear to all participants

How is it implied, strongly or weakly?  On the contrary, I think the
text implies that she did *not* know.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

I had responded because of the answer that was given:

        " He grew up in his parents' house for two years; by the time he
went back to Bat Par`o he was old enough to have started forming memories,
and would remember them."

Nowhere does it say that in the text, and I stand by that.

Midrash Berasthi Rabbah 1:26, however, says that he was weaned for 2 years,
not Sepher Shemot. 

Nor does the text say that he grew up in his parent's house (although,
granted, the vague language of the text can permit one to read it that way
if one wishes). That very same Midrash also has a nuance in the language to
indicate that she did not rear the child, but simply weaned him, being
available when needed, which permits one to read the location differently.

Anyhow, I was simply explaining the problem with mixing text and Midrash
without indicating it, and it can confuse someone who isn't aware of the
mixture. That was all. I hope this clarifies my point. Thanks.

Eliyahu Grossman
Efrat, Israel

> From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Moshe Rabeinu and his family

> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 10:00:45AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> > That Moshe was raised in his parents' home until he was weaned is not
> > a medrash, it's explicit in the Torah.

> To be specific, RZS is referring to Shemos 2:9-10. 2:9 isn't clear
> that the wet-nursing was being done outside Bas-Par'oh's home. However,
> 2:10 begins, "Vayigdal hayeled vativi'eihu leVas-Par'oh..." That does
> pretty compellingly imply he was living with Yocheved not Bas-Par'oh.
> 
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

RMB asked:
> There are yotzeros for 4 parshiyos? I knew about piyutim during
> "Shemoneh Esrei" (I should say "Amidah" for accuracy), but not
> during birkhas Yotzeir haMe'oros.

Absolutely, And those yotzros are very, very beautiful. Calender buffs
should definitely do the one for IIRC parschas hachaudesch, which
mixes math with poetry.

The zulas is also rather important for these five or six weeks (there
are even piyutim for the in between weeks lacking special leining, the
so called hafsoko rischauno and hafsoko schenijo).

KT,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Audio-Schiurim: Die Schomre-Thora-Vortr?ge zu Gebet
* Multimedia Shiur: Was Esther Slow on the Uptake?
* The Onset of Death in Halakha IV: In the Media
* The Onset of Death in Halakha III: Noteworthy Discussions
* Audio-Schiur ? Psalm 126 ? Gedenklernen f?r Herrn Heinz Althof s.A.
* Le psaume 92 - cours multim?dia en fran?ais
* Is Outsourcing Ethical?

<<I agree. But then why do we announce it? Is it to reassure us that Rosh
Chodesh is on a day that makes sense? Or what?>>

There is a debate among rishonim about the validity of the calendar of
Hillel II.
Did they declare in advance the kiddush of every month or do the Jews of EY
do the
kiddush today as representatives of the entire nation. RYBS postulates that
announcing the time of the molad and our prayers are the re-enactment of the
kiddush hachodesh by bet din in each synagogue

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110309/eae2341b/attachment-0001.htm>

Many thanks to R' Zev Sero for an excellently detailed post.

I had written:
> And, for the nit-pickers: More precise calculations would show a
> 19-minute difference, as opposed to 20.

and he corrected me:
> Huh?  Surely it's nearly 21 minutes. 19 minutes, at J'm's
> latitude, would put you somewhere near Gedera.

Thanks for the correction. To tell the truth, I carefully did my
calculations while I was writing that post, and when I got to the end, I
had calculated that midday in Yerushalayim occurs at 12:20 Time Zone Time.
I looked at that and said, I *know* that's wrong, I *know* that it is
*before* 12:00.

I had to reread the calculations several times before I found the error: My
current galus in the Western Hemisphere, and my frequent calculations to
the nearby 75? West line, had caused me to get many of the additions and
subtractions reversed. So too again with this last one-minute adjustment.

Thanks again
Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Enter to WIN...
a 7 to10 Day Europe cruise for two with Holland America Cruise Line!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d77e1d450d9e54a0dst06vuc

<<The Chelkas Yaakov answers that the mitzva of Megila does not need a
Minyan. However there is a special mitzva of Pirsumei Nisa of
publicizing the Nes. This aspect he said does not apply to women upon
who the pasuk says, "Kol Kivuda Bas Melech Pnima". Especially given
that it is much more difficult to hear each word in the women's
section and it would be hard for them to be Yotzei anyway.>>

<<Of course, the opinion of those who hold that one can (should) read
the megillah to women at home presumes that one has a kosher megillah
and that one is able to read it properly.  This is certainly not the
case for many men.>>

In an interesting modern twist those women who go to a women's megilla
reading
hold that women don't need a minyan


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110309/4376f227/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 11:27:42AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> And, for the nit-pickers: More precise calculations would show a
>> 19-minute difference, as opposed to 20.

> Huh?  Surely it's nearly 21 minutes.  19 minutes, at J'm's latitude,
> would put you somewhere near Gedera.

Nisht azoi pashut. As I wrote last Fri
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n033.shtml#08>:
    In the mid-4th century, the currently announced molad would have
    been accurate for mid-way between the Nile and the Euphrates....
    But the tides are still there and the month is still getting shorter
    ...
    At this point, the molad is something like 108 chalaqim
    off. Alternatively, we could keep the molad correct and say the
    "timezone" is sliding east. Not sure why we would want to, but enough
    web sites and books do this excercise. So, we could say that we now
    compute the molad accurately for Kandahar, Afghanistan.

But as far as I can tell, it was never actually for Y-m. It was for the
center of the Jewish world in the final days of the Sanhedrin.

Another point I already addressed that seems to have been missed (since
people are still asking and answering... From last Thu
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n032.shtml#14>:
    The reason I learned too long ago to remember when is also found in
    Shaar haKolel. (R' Avraham David Lavut...).

    When BD was / will be meqadesh the chodesh, they make a se'udah that
    included saying berakhos for the new month. Our Birkhas haChodesh is a
    legacy of that se'udah. The announcement of the molad takes the place
    of when the eidim would arrive.

    Something I picked up either here or on Mail Jewish was that it was
    enacted laafukei the Qaraim, who to this very day go al pi re'iyah.
    (E.g. see <http://karaite-korner.org/kknmr.shtml>....)

    The Shaar haKollel's (and my father's or early-grade rebbe's) explanation
    implies that the qehillah should know what the time of the molad means
    in terms they think in. This second reason doesn't, since the only point
    is reminding the masses it's precalculated.
    ...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Arie Folger <arie.fol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RMB asked:
>> There are yotzeros for 4 parshiyos? I knew about piyutim during
>> "Shemoneh Esrei" (I should say "Amidah" for accuracy), but not
>> during birkhas Yotzeir haMe'oros.
>
> Absolutely, And those yotzros are very, very beautiful. Calender buffs
> should definitely do the one for IIRC parschas hachaudesch, which
> mixes math with poetry.

Are the texts available online?

On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 04:31:48PM -0500, eliez...@aol.com wrote:
: I have been wondering about using a brain/computer interface mechanism
: to do melacha on Shabbos.

In his blog entry at <
<http://havolim.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-discussion-about-computers-
and.html>
REB put up some updates...

    UPDATE I
    Over the last two days, I spoke about this to several Talmidei Chachamim.

    * One said that it is muttar mid'oraysa. Melacha requires a physical
      act on my part. This person is a highly respected posek. He also
      holds that Rav Elyashiv's issur to walk where motion activated
      cameras will turn on is completely wrong, as does Rav Wosner.

    * One said that it is a melacha gemura. Interesting svara offered
      by the second person: He said, a melacha was done. The question is,
      to whom to be meyacheis the melacha. So, if a person tells a goy to
      do a melacha, the melacha is mis'yacheis to the goy. But if I make
      the computer do the melacha, it's mis'yacheis to me. great unknown
      says that this svara is contradicted by Reb Akiva Eiger in the
      Teshuvos #8 where he argues on the Nesivos regarding mis'asek.

    * Another talmid chacham said that it is no different than the brain
      telling the hand to light a fire. The hand's action is my action.
      The computer here becomes my hand, and the melacha is a ma'aseh
      be'yadayim.

    UPDATE II

    An excellent and helpful comment posted by the antipodean bar nash
    pc directs us to the Gemara in Sanhedrin 101a. The Gemara says that
    it is muttar to 'paralyze' an animal via a lechisha/incantation, even
    though it essentially traps the animal, and trapping is an Av Melacha.
    He said that the reason for this hetter is the absence of an act of
    Tzeidah. This is highly debatable, as will soon discuss. But Reb
    Chaim Kanievsky assumes that is the pshat in Rashi in the following
    paragraph. (And the tzushtell is notable for another reason, as well-
    he wants to be machria the issue of whether melekhes machsheiv is
    called me'lekhes machsheves from a case of me'leches mekhasheif.)
    ...
    According to his first teretz, there is a difference between the
    concept of the issurim of Shabbos and the issurim of the rest of
    the Torah. He says that Shabbos prohibits the human act, while other
    dinim prohibit causing a result....
    Magical incantations are not included in the legal definition
    of Melacha, simply because they are supernatural... According to
    this, Rashi is dealing with an entirely different issue, that of
    "ein zeh tzeidah tiv`is" , and this has nothing to do with BCI.

    According to his second teretz, Shabbos and the whole Torah are the
    same, and l'chisha would be muttar in all cases because it does not
    involve a human action. The Torah only prohibits a human action,
    not thoughts that result in action. If so, a BCI ma'aseh would be
    muttar in kol hatorah kulah.

    Let me point out that Reb Chaim Kanievsky's point that speech
    is neither action nor legally actionable is not contrary to the
    generally accepted issur on talking into a microphone or using voice
    recognition software to write or control a computer on Shabbos.
    The difference is as follows...

What about derabbanan, like amirah le'aku"m? Anyway, having recently
learned Zera'im, I was going to raise the subject of hafrashas terumah.
But REB beat me to it:

    UPDATE III

    Tosfos in Gittin 31a DH B'machshava says that a melacha that is
    done with intent alone (Tosfos is talking about being mafrish Truma
    with machshava and the issur of mesakein) is assur on Shabbos.
    The Chida in his Pnei David on Beshalach 16:23 brings a raya from
    Tosfos to the Maharsh Primo who said that since the Mahn that fell in
    the Midbar could be changed into whatever form you desired by intent
    alone- you could make it into baked, or cooked, or broiled simply by
    desiring that it be so- it was assur to make this change on Shabbos.
    The Teshuvos Har Tzvi (OC I 174) says that this really is clear
    in the passuk ... because the Mechilta says it means that the Mahn
    actually cooked/baked/broiled itself according to the owner's intent,
    and it's clear in the passuk that this change had to be done before
    Shabbos began. (It's not clear to me, though, because according
    to Reb Akiva Eiger's pshat in the Rambam 9 Shabbos 3 ... bishul of
    the Mahn could not be de'oraysa. It's a great kashe on the Rambam,
    but irrelevant to the halacha.)

    However, the Chida, in his sefer Yosef Ometz (92:2) brings that
    Tosfos in Menachos 55 says the opposite, that if the hafrasha is
    done with thought alone, it is muttar on Shabbos. The Chida's
    resolution of this stira, and a discussion on the topic as a whole,
    can be found in the Sefer Sdei Tzofim on Menachos, page 402 (page
    408 on Hebrewbooks.org , or if that doesn't work, then go here and
    then go to page 408).

    I know that some people are going to point out Reb Akiva Eiger's
    Teshuva in 159 about making a kinyan before Shabbos that will be
    chall on Shabbos. I say it's irrelevant. I'm too lazy to discuss it,
    and just wrote this so nobody should say "Ha! You forgot Reb Akiva
    Eiger's teshuva!" I didn't.

    Lastly, let me point out that the Rashi in Sanhedrin 101 is not at
    all clear as to why it is muttar, as indicated in Reb Chaim's two
    teirutzim. Concordant with Reb Chaim's first pshat, the Levush and
    the Mishna Berura (328 SK 143) learn that Rashi was mattir either
    because it's not the normal derech or because it's supernatural.
    According to both the Levush and the MB, we have no proof that
    Rashi would be mattir machshava. In fact, it is very likely that
    if Rashi held that machshava is bichlal not a ma'aseh melacha, he
    (or the people who read into him) wouldn't have to come up with
    other hetteirim like shinui or not derech hateva. Since he (they)
    did, it proves that machshava can be considered melacha. Therefore,
    according to these pshatim in Rashi, our case, which is natural and
    will soon be common, might be assur gamur:

    According to the Rambam, who holds that the lachash is a meaningless
    superstition, the Gemara is no raya at all, since the lachash
    doesn't work.

    FINAL UPDATE

    What we end up having is the following:

    * A stirah in Tosfos, Gittin 31 (Assur) and Menachos 55 (Muttar).

    * An ambiguous Rashi (that Rav Kanievsky in his second pshat reads
      to mean Muttar for sure on Shabbos, and possibly in all isurim;
      but according to his first pshat, and according to the Levush (OC
      328) that Rashi was mattir because it's not the normal derech of
      Tzeidah, and the Mishna Berura in 328 SK 143 that Rashi was mattir
      because it's not derech hateva, we have no proof that Rashi would
      be mattir machshava, and most likely a proof that Rashi would asser.

    * The shittos of the Maharash Primo and Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Assur). 

    Bottom line:

    * Assur: Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank.
    * Muttar: Rav Kanievsky in his second pshat in Rashi. 
    * Most likely Assur in Rashi and L'halacha: Levush, Mishna Berurah,
      and Reb Chaim Kanievsky in his first pshat in Rashi.

Again, if I skipped too much for you, see
<http://havolim.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-discussion-about-computers-
and.html>

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 09:58:59AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: heard recently an interesting explanation of the bracha a woman makes
: ""she-asani kitrzono""

: When man was created it is stated in the plural "na-aseh": G-d "needed" to
: consult with the angels. When woman is created G-d no longer needs to
: "second opinion" as it is now obvious.
: The woman blesses that her creation was by G-d himself without consultation.

The problem with this answer is implied by your quote marks. The
consultation was to teach /us/ derekh eretz, not because of any
uncertainty on His part. In fact, the lack of "na'aseh" WRT Chavah
would imply that creating her was less of a big deal to the mal'akhim.

Instead, I would be more comfortable saying that "na'aseh adam" simply
refered to humanity as a whole, and the same consultation was intended
to include both.

A contrasting idea... The Zohar (haqdamah 1:1,2) says that the "na'aseh"
in "na'aseh adam" is from "na'aseh venishmah". Humanity exists on the
precondition of an eventual qibul haTorah. (Tena'im work lemafreia in
special ways when dealling with the One Who is lemaalah min hazeman.)
Cheit ha'eigel was a guy thing, so women remain *closer* to His original
"na'aseh adam" -- "kirtzono".

Since we're on the topic, another suggestion... The most essential Ratzon
of HQBH (kevayakhol) is to be a Borei. So, women are more like His Ratzon
since they create children.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

On 9/03/2011 3:03 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> The Chelkas Yaakov answers that the mitzva of Megila does not need a
>> Minyan.  However there is a special mitzva of Pirsumei Nisa of
>> publicizing the Nes. This aspect he said does not apply to women upon
>> who the pasuk says, "Kol Kivuda Bas Melech Pnima".

> In an interesting modern twist those women who go to a women's megilla
> reading hold that women don't need a minyan

*Nobody* needs a minyan.  What is needed, at least by men, is "berov am",
and it stands to reason that that can include women.  Those who go to
women's readings may hold that women also need "berov am", or they may
go just for convenience.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

On 9/03/2011 3:24 PM, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:
> I had responded because of the answer that was given:
>
>    " He grew up in his parents' house for two years; by the time he
> went back to Bat Par`o he was old enough to have started forming memories,
> and would remember them."
>
> Nowhere does it say that in the text, and I stand by that.

It certainly does.


> Midrash Berasthi Rabbah 1:26, however, says that he was weaned for 2 years,
> not Sepher Shemot.

Two years was the standard time for nursing.  The pasuk says his mother
had him until he was weaned; therefore that was two years.  There's no
need for any midrashim.  This is peshat, not derush.


> Nor does the text say that he grew up in his parent's house

It certainly does.  It says Bat Par`o gave him to his mother, and that
his mother gave him back after he grew up.  This obviously means after
he was weaned; what else could it possibly mean?  The language is not
vague.  Peshat does not mean hyperliteralism.


>  That very same Midrash also has a nuance in the language to
> indicate that she did not rear the child, but simply weaned him

Weaned him?  Did you mean nursed him?  Where did she do so?  If she
didn't raise him, who did?  It couldn't have been Bat Par`o, because
she doesn't get him back until after his mother is done with him.
In any case, I'm not talking about diyukim in medrash, I'm talking
about the plain meaning of the pasuk.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 35
**************************************

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..."