Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 172

Wed, 12 Dec 2012

• 1. Re: ISHA RA'A (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: G'neivas Daas? (Arie Folger)
• 3. Genetic Mutation Rates as Paleontological Age Marker (Arie Folger)
• 4. Re: ISHA RA'A (Lisa Liel)
• 5. Re: ISHA RA'A (Micha Berger)
• 6. Conscientious Objector (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: ISHA RA'A (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: ISHA RA'A (Lisa Liel)
• 9. Re: ISHA RA'A (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: ISHA RA'A (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: ISHA RA'A (Lisa Liel)
• 12. Re: ISHA RA'A (Akiva Miller)
• 13. Re: ISHA RA'A (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: ISHA RA'A (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Chana Luntz)

On 12/12/2012 2:48 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Do we have any indication Mar Berei deRavina stopped saying this techinah
> after he got married? To be saved from an evil 2nd wife was an unlikely
> risk, given that we don't know of any of Chazal who were polygynous. Or
> it could require believing that he had problems with his wife.

There was always the possibility of marrying another wife, either in
addition to the current one, or after that marriage ended.  And there
was the possibility of a good wife turning bad.  Or it's a generic
prayer, not one specifically tuned to his particular needs at any one
time; I'm sure he had needs that came up from time to time, and it
stands to reason that he'd include them on an ad hoc basis, but they're
not mentioned as part of the standard prayer he "would" say; so maybe
he also sometimes omitted parts that weren't relevant just then.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

The example RProfAL gave is advertising with so called weasel words, like a
detergent that washes whiter than white, which is nonsense. He proceeded to
suggest the focus group idea, and suggested that when push comes to shove,
once people think about it, they see through many of these tricks, and then
they would be permissible. The question is how focus groups would react on
this case.

--
mit freundlichen Gr??en,
with kind regards,
Arie Folger

visit my blog at http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
sent from my mobile device
On Dec 12, 2012 8:21 PM, "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 02:00:05PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
> : According to R' Prof Aaron Levine z"l, the way to definitely assess its
> : permissibility (feasible for large companies, but not harder for a
> : photography studio) is to have a focus group see the installation at work
> : and judge the package in comparison with that of another competitor. If
> the
> : practice is seen by enough people as mere advertisement, then it is
> : definitely not sheqer.
>
> I'm not sure what this means. "Mere advertisement"? It's not something
> that announces "ich bin du", it's something that creates the impression
> that more is being done to guarantee the perfect picture when in fact
> nothing more is being done.
>
> I would think the criterion would be if it's reasonable for someone
> (ie "enough people" in the focus group) to assume the quality is
> different. And I will for the moment assume that's what you're trying to
> describe here. (Rather than wait for RAF to reply, given our time-zone
> difference.)
>
> But then the question becomes moot. If he thought it's not common for
> people to assume that his doing better work because it looks like he's
> using more lighting equipment, he wouldn't be doing it. In terms of
> intent, he is /trying/ to do something my above guess at R/P AL's intent
> would deem a sin. And now the question is whether he is succeeding at
> actually sinning. He should stop either way.
>
> I wonder if we can deduce something relevent from SA CM 228:16.
> The SA discusses two cases of mixing crops into a single bin for sale.
> In general it is mutar. But if you make a point of creating a reputation
> that you buy everything from the good field, it's assur. Now for the
> deducing part: This is even though they can see the actual quality of
> the final product that they are buying, so the reputation of the source
> field shouldn't be relevant to the actual value or to any attributes
> someone might want to shop for.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
> mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
> http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
> Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121212/a23a3749/attachment-0001.htm>

Rabbosai,

A few weeks ago, I mentioned how for example the book The Seven Daughters
of Eve demonstrates that we possess a genetic diversity that is hard to
explain based on a 5771 year old world (plus the present year and the year
that lasted five days until beriyat ha-adam).

In all fairness, while the following blurb does not provide much hard data,
and likely does not resolve the problem fully, nonetheless, it is worth
showing that genetic mutation rates may not be constant even within
contemporaneous members of the same species.

From
http://www.tnr.com/article/polit
ics/magazine/110861/how-older-parenthood-will-upend-american-society?page=0
,1#

We have been conditioned to think of reproductive age as a female-only
concern, but it isn?t. For decades, neonatologists have known about birth
defects linked to older fathers: dwarfism, Apert syndrome (a bone disorder
that may result in an elongated head), Marfan syndrome (a disorder of the
connective tissue that results in weirdly tall, skinny bodies), and cleft
palates. But the associations between parental age and birth defects were
largely speculative until this year, when researchers in Iceland, using
radically more powerful ways of looking at genomes, established that men
pass on more de novo?that is, non-inherited and spontaneously
occurring?genetic mutations to their children as they get older. In the
scientists? study, published in
*Nature*<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7412/full/nature11396.html
>,
they concluded that the number of genetic mutations that can be acquired
from a father increases by two every year of his life, and doubles every
16, so that a 36-year-old man is twice as likely as a 20-year-old to
bequeath de novo mutations to his children.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Schnellkurs im j?dischen Grundwissen: I. Der Schabbat (Audio)
* Warum beschneiden Juden ihre Knaben ? Multimedia-Vortrag
* Beschneidung, die aktuelle Rechtslage ? Multimedia Schiur
* Was mir in Holocaust Museen fehlt
* Beschneidungslerntag ? Schlu?worte (Multimedia)
* Paneldiskussion zur Beschneidung ? Audio-Datei
* Welche B?nde gibt es zwischen Mensch und G?tt? (Multimedia)
* R?ckblick Gedenkfeier F?rstenfeldbruck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121212/df09a0d1/attachment-0001.htm>

On 12/12/2012 1:48 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:18:46PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>    
>> On 12/12/2012 1:15 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>      
>>> I'm failing to see the question. "Save me from ... an evil woman"
>>>        
>    
>> Doesn't it mean "a bad wife"?
>>      
> Do we have any indication Mar Berei deRavina stopped saying this techinah
> after he got married? To be saved from an evil 2nd wife was an unlikely
> risk, given that we don't know of any of Chazal who were polygynous. Or
> it could require believing that he had problems with his wife.
>    
It could be in some undefinable future.

Lisa

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:03:18PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
> It could be in some undefinable future.

But why go with a "could be" when the translation I offered works?
The line opens by asking to be tempted to pursue positive things (pesach
libi besorasekha ve'acharei mitzvosekha tirdof nafshi). So why are we
taking efforts not to assume the woman is someone pursued, a tempter,
not a wife?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Just encountered an interesting gemara on Y-mi Sotah 8:9, 39a.

There is a machloqes in the mishnah about who are the "yarei verach
leivav" who are allowed to go back and provide food, drink and work on the
roads for the military effort rather than fight according to the tana qama
in a milkhemes reshus (in contrast to a milkhemes mitzvah) or according
to R Yehudah in a milkhemes mitzvah (in contrast to a milkhemes chovah).

R' Aqiva says it's someone who can't stomach warfare.

R' Yosi haGelili says it's someomne misyarei min ha'aveiros.

R' Yosi appears to agree with his namesake, adding that therefore
someone who married someone they aren't allowed to (eg a kohein married
to a gerushah) should go back. In contrast to the tanna in the earlier
mishnah discussing which chasanim should go home, who excludes chasanim
whose marriage is a cheit.

Now on this, the gemara has a question about whether the chasanim and
men with new houses, vinyards or orchards need to prove their exemption.
The gemara quotes a beraisa that says they do, unless his comrades in
arms testify for him.

The gemara asks, okay, according to the one who says "she'eino yakhol
la'amod beqishrei hamilchamos vecherev beyado". But according to the one
who says he's misyarei for his sins, how could you say these other men
need ra'ayos? Then it would be clear who is going back because they're
just starting a new stage in life, and who is a sinner! It must be this
beraisa is according to R' Aqiva.

Okay... so we see from here that the Torah didn't expect someone to be
embarassed by having to admit they can't handle the sight of blood.

Does this mean that R' Aqiva is speaking of not being able to handle
seeing other people getting injuured, or having to wound or kill the
enemy. Not someone afraid for his own safety?

Judging from prior exchanges, I think some here would even consider that
a chiddush -- that one shouldn't be embarassed of being too much of a
softy to kill the bad guys.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 12/12/2012 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:03:18PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> It could be in some undefinable future.
>
> But why go with a "could be" when the translation I offered works?
> The line opens by asking to be tempted to pursue positive things (pesach
> libi besorasekha ve'acharei mitzvosekha tirdof nafshi).

Who says that's the same line?  What makes you punctuate it like that?

> So why are we
> taking efforts not to assume the woman is someone pursued, a tempter,
> not a wife?

Because the line is about being saved from bad things that could happen
to a person; yetzer hara is one, but the others are not related to it.
"Pega` ra" and "kol ra`ot" are not tempations, so why should "isha ra`ah"
be?


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On 12/12/2012 4:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:03:18PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
>    
>> It could be in some undefinable future.
>>      
> But why go with a "could be" when the translation I offered works?
> The line opens by asking to be tempted to pursue positive things (pesach
> libi besorasekha ve'acharei mitzvosekha tirdof nafshi). So why are we
> taking efforts not to assume the woman is someone pursued, a tempter,
> not a wife?
>    
Because there's no reason why he'd specifically mention a bad woman.  I 
have a hard time understanding how it's possible to understand it as 
anything *but* wife.

Lisa

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:55:31PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Because there's no reason why he'd specifically mention a bad woman.  I  
> have a hard time understanding how it's possible to understand it as  
> anything *but* wife.

Sex sells. He's listing taavos. Taavah for someone who would lead him
astray fits the list quite well. How do I know it's all about taavah?
Because that's how the Avudraham, Ri ben Yaqar and the Gra explain
this bit in the siddur.

An evil wife doesn't fit the motif of what the heart pursues. It's not
the pursuit of the wife that is in error, but the wife herself.

Look, there is nothing to commend "wife" over "woman". "Ishah" could be
translated either way. I find the elevation of my translation to this
level of argument to be pointless. You don't like it, fine. I think you're
missing much of the point of E-lokai Netzor (even in our nusach which
doesn't have this bit), but obviously I can't convince you otherwise.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. 
mi...@aishdas.org        "I want to do it." - is weak. 
http://www.aishdas.org   "I am doing it." - that is the right way.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk

On 12/12/2012 6:10 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Sex sells. He's listing taavos.

Is he?  Which other taavos does he list?

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On 12/12/2012 5:10 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:55:31PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
>    
>> Because there's no reason why he'd specifically mention a bad woman.  I
>> have a hard time understanding how it's possible to understand it as
>> anything *but* wife.
>>      
> Sex sells. He's listing taavos. Taavah for someone who would lead him
> astray fits the list quite well. How do I know it's all about taavah?
> Because that's how the Avudraham, Ri ben Yaqar and the Gra explain
> this bit in the siddur.
>    
Pega ra is temptation?

Lisa

Cantor Wolberg asked:

> Brochos 17a has the famous prayer of Mar ben Ravina: "...P'sach
> libi b'sorasecho uv'mitzvosecho tirdof nafshi v'satzileinee
> mipega ra, miyetzer hara, u'mei-isha ra-a..."
>
> I am curious how you would explain the isha ra'a as not being a
> gender bias.

We'll get to this question shortly. But first, I'd like to echo a comment
R' Micha has made, that even if one does not yet have the answer to a
question, there is great value and comfort in learning how to not be
bothered by the question in the meanwhile.

One application of that idea, which I experienced in my yeshiva days, was
this: Occasionally I'd see a gemara which bothered me greatly, for whatever
reason. This was compounded when I saw that the halacha actually follows
the gemara which had bothered me. But if I learned the sugya well enough, I
would often find someone who raised the exact same objection that I had
raised. Other poskim overruled the one who voiced my objections, but the
question no longer bothered me so much. I was vindicated. One of our great
gedolim saw it as I did, and that satisfied me. I was now able to follow
the halacha of rov poskim with a clear conscience. Even though I felt my
objections to be sound and strong, and I even had a posek who felt as I
did, nevertheless, those objections had been overruled, for reasons which
are surely good ones, even if they were unclear to me personally.

Back to Cantor Wolberg's question. I note that the tefilah in question does
appear throughout our siddur, at the end of every single Amidah, with the
phrase "isha raah" OMITTED. I submit that perhaps Cantor Wolberg was not
the first person to be bothered by that phrase, and perhaps that's why the
phrase did not survive the transition from the gemara to the siddur.

(I note that a few other phrases, before and after "isha raah", also got
omitted. Those other phrases don't suffer from gender bias, but perhaps
there were other objections.)

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
OVERSTOCK ipads: $30.93
Get 32GB Apple iPad for as low as $30.93. Limit 1.Day. Grab yours Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50c9364e6f2a7364e270dst04vuc

Just to recap:

1- There is no more misogyny in saying he wants to be saved from those
women who are evil then there is misanthropy in general when we say
"mishakhein ra". It's the difference between worrying about *an
evil woman vs saying all women are evil. Mar Berei deRavina clearly
said the former.

2- Let me quote Even Sheleimah 2:1:
    The sum of all evil middos are ka'as[1] (anger), ta'avah (desire),
    and ga'avah[2] (egotism), which are "haqin'ah vehata'avah vehakavod
    -- jealousy, desire and honor".[3] Each includes two [parts]. Of
    ka'as: ra (evil) and mirma (duplicity). Ra is revealed, and mirmah
    is "echad bepeh ve'echad beleiv -- one thing in the mouth, and one
    thing in the heart".[4,5] Ta'avah: ta'avah and chemdah (longing):
    Ta'avah is [for] the pleasure of the body itself, such as eating,
    drinking, and the like. And chemdah is like [for] silver/money,
    gold, clothing and houses. In ga'avah [the two subspecies are] gei'ah
    (conceit) and ga'on (snobbery). Gei'ah is in the heart and ga'on is
    the desire to rule over others.

    All this is included in the tefillah of "E-lokai netzor leshoni meira
    usfasi midabeir mirmah."[6] "Velimqalelai nafshi sidom -- and may my
    soul be silent to those who curse me" is against ga'avah. "Venafshi
    ke'afar lakol tihyeh -- and may my soul be like dust before everyone"
    is against ga'on. "Pesach libi biSorasecha -- open my heart with
    your Torah" is the opposite of ta'avah, which wants to sit in his
    home in menuchah (rest) to fulfill his ta'avos, and also for Torah
    he needs to sit in menuchah. And they say in the medrash [7],
    "Before the person prays for Torah ideas that they should enter
    his innards, he should pray that food and drink shouldn't enter his
    innards." "Uvmitzvosecha tirdof nafshi -- and my soul chase after
    your mitzvos" is the opposite of the people of chemdah, because it
    is their way to constantly run ahead, "for a person doesn't die with
    [even] half of his ta'avah in hand.[8]"[9]

    Footnotes:
    1- Nedarim 22a, 22b; Pesachim 66b, 113b
    2- Sotah 4b, 5a; Sanhedrin 98a; Avos 4:2
    3- Avos 4:21
    4- Michlei 4:24
    5- Pesachim 113b; Bava Metziah 49b
    6- Beracho 17a
    7- Yalkum Shim'oni 830
    8- Koheles Raba 1:13
    9- C.f. Bei'ur haGr"a Mishlei 1:11; 2:12; 4:24; 7:5; 12:25; 23:27;
       24:11; 30:10

And evil wife, an external oppression, would go with "kol hakhoshvin
alai lera'ah" not with "umiyeitzer hara", no"?

(I would also note that Mar Berei deRavina in particular is someone we
could assume was concerned with ta'avah. We're talking about someone
who fasted every day but Shavu'os, Purim and Erev YK. (Pesachim 68b).)

So, what's more plausible, that we excuse the fact that we have no
indication he only said this while in the shidduch market, or that he
was concerned (even if needlessly) about his libido shlepping him to
bad company, sticking to the theme of the previous line?

But in any case, the question of misogyny doesn't get started regardless
of how you translate "ishah" here.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 06:25:24PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Pega ra is temptation?

Pega ra is a spiritual ill. There is a sequence moving outward from the
core self: G-d, save me from (a) a flaw of the soul, (b) the yeitzer hara,
(c) a woman who would prove a negative influence, and (d) all sorts of
evils tht come suddenly upon the world.

There is no "hafeir atzasah" like we have when MBDR does get to people who
want to make his life miserable. The problem isn't that she is plotting
to cause him pain, but that pursuing her could take him off the path.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)

RMicha Berger wrote:

>Bemechilas kevod the Lub Rebbe, I do not see it.

>People knew Chanukah better than matzah? Shofar blowing? When they said
Shema every day?

While I may also have some difficulty with these  - the flipside seems to me
to make a lot of sense - ie write down more about things that are unfamiliar
- hence lots about tumah and tehara and zvachim and menachos and things that
are slipping out of people's memory because they are not practiced that much
anymore.  That logic would indeed justify spending, as you say, an enormous
quantity of meseches Shabbas on hotza'ah - because it is the one where the
details are most likely to be forgotten.

RAM wrote:

>By the way, many in this thread have wondered: if indeed it is so difficult
to have a real reshus harabim, then why were Chazal so machmir on Hotzaah?
>Isn't it a gezera to a gezera? My understanding is that there is a simple
answer, namely that Shabbos is an exception to the "no gezera to a gezera"
>rule.

And R Marty Bluke replied:

>The Gemara in Shabbos specifically cites the rule of no gezera to a gezera
in a number of places regarding gezeros on Shabbos, in fact regarding the
>prohibition of carrying.

Well yes and no.  Abaye on Shabbas daf 11b appears to specifically
contemplate the existence of a gezera l'gezera (note however that Rava does
not, and the standard rule is that machlokus between Rava and Abaye, the
halacha is like Rava).  Tosphos there (d"h "amar Abaye") understands Abaye
as holding this specifically for hotza'ah - noting that in other places
Abaye himself challenges on the basis that we do not make a gezera l'gezera.
Tosphos do also say that this is because (consistent with their position
elsewhere) hotza'ah is common - but one could, if one takes the approach set
out above (ie the Lubavitche Rebbe's approach) say that it is precisely
because it is not in fact common - ie if they did not make a gezera to a
gezera, and have whatever the halacha was in a reshus harabim apply in a
karmelis - then the halacha regarding reshus harabbim would be forgotten,
because it occurs so rarely.  

And one might add that if it were that the main place and time when there
was a reshus harabbim d'orisa was on the regalim in and around Yerushalayim,
then the gezeros might have an additional affect, that it served as a form
of zeche l'mikdash (even when it stood, and all the more so when it didn't).
If there were no gezeros l'gezeros eg in Bavel, when they did come to
Yerushalayim, three times a year, then it might be very confusing for them
(especially if camped outside the city walls - which would then become a
reshus harabbim d'orisa without walls).

And note that while on that particular place in Shas, ie Shabbas 11b, there
is a machlokus Abaye and Rava, and hence the halacha is like Rava - that is
in relation to the discussion specifically of the gezera of standing in a
karmelis and drinking in another reshus (and vice versa) - but over in
Shabbas 64b when discussing women's tachshitim Rav says (and this is quoted
by at least some poskim as halacha, although some poskim hold like Rav Anani
bar Sasson) - kol sheassur Chachamim latzes bo l'reshus harabim asur latzes
bo l'chatzer (with a couple of exceptions) which sounds awfully like a
gezera l'gezera at first glance (although the rishonim mostly appear to deal
with this by saying that this is one overall gezera that encapsulates both
reshus harabbim and karmelis).

>One additional point. The Ritva in Shabbos (64b) has a discussion about how
come in his day women wore jewelry outside even though there is a clear
>gezera not to do so. In his discussion, he quotes R' Baruch (author of the
Sefer Hateruma) who comments that in his day there were no Reshus Harabims
>but in Chazal's time there were (see
>http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14349&;hilite=56a4a313-d057-4d70-98
1f-01ebf746bd04&st=%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A&pgnum=303)
>and therefore the gezera did not apply in his day.

Yes but that is only one part of the machlokus quoted in the Shulchan Aruch
in Orech Chaim siman 303 si'if 18 as follows:

(1) kol sheassur Chachamim latzes bo l'reshus harabim asur latzes bo
l'chatzer sheano meoreves... (with exceptions)... and 

(2) there are those who say that anything that cannot be taken out it is
even forbidden to wear as a tachshit in the house and even more so in a
chatzer meoreves (except the exceptions) and 

(3)there are those who say that it is permitted to go out to a chatzer afilu
ano meoreves, and now our women who are accustomed to go out with all forms
of tachshitim:
(a) there are those who say it is assur m'dina, but that mutav shehayu
shogegos ...

(b) and there are those who are melamed zchus to say that they are
accustomed to go according to the last reason that they write that it is not
forbidden to go out with tachshitim to a chatzer sheano meoreves and now
that there is no reshus harabim gamur all our reshus harabbim is like a
karmelis and its din is like a chatzer sheano meoreves and it is permitted.

(Rema adds another reason that today tachshitim are common and so we are not
so worried she will take them off). 


So - according to those who hold that the reason women can wear jewellery
today is because there is no reshus harabbim d'orisa today, but was in
Chazal's time, you have a point - but not a huge one - because one can still
say that a three times a year occurrence is significant enough to legislate
against.

But those who hold that it is assur m'dina but mutav shehayu shogegos, that
might suggest that even in the time of the Mishna and earlier when the
gezeros were made there was rarely if ever any reshus harabbim, but the
overall gezera was made to encompass both reshus harabbim and karmelis
precisely so that the concepts were not forgotten.

Regards

Chana



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 172
***************************************

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..."