Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 030

Sunday, October 10 1999

• Re: Avodah V4 #27
• Rav Soleveitchik's Torah
• Re:
• Rabbi Ariel and Rabbi Aviner
• Tenability
• NCSY
• Re:
• Re: Mapic in Aramaic
• Re: Avodah V4 #29
• Re: Women Yoatzot
• Re: Women Yoatzot
• Re: Women Yoatzot
• Re: Women Yoatzot
• Changes in Nature and Hil. Niddah

>Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:27:54 -0500 (CDT)
>From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
>Subject: Re: The Demise of Mizrachi?
..
<snips>
..
>In any event, a philosophy that places its proof events in the distant
>future, I should think, is virtually untestable, and therefore not very
>tenable.

From the American Heritage Dictionary (Third Edition):

ten-a-ble (adj.)
1. Capable of being maintained in argument; rationally defensible: a
tenable theory.
2. Capable of being held against assault; defensible: a tenable outpost.

Ain't nuttin' here about any testability or time frames.  Furthermore,
since when are time frames for testability dependent on anyone in
particular's lifetime?  I should also point out that Judaism in general,
and orthodox Jewish philosophical argument and halacha in particular is
full of untestable and unprovable events, ideas, propositions etc., many of
which have been spouted forth on this list.  Does that make Jewish thought
etc. "untenable"?

However it has been noted by some in these parts (Eastern shores of the
Mediterranean) that the two greatest miscalculations of the 20th century
Jewish history have been that of Rav Kook zt"l and Ben-Gurion; the former
for thinking that all the hilonim would be chozer b'tshuvah, and the latter
for thinking that religious Jews would join the dodo bird as an extinct
species....

.... some add to this list the WW2 Belzer rebbe who told his chassidim to
stay put in Europe since their frumkeit would keep them safe from the
Nazis, but that is another thread...

hg



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  Hershel & Susan Ginsburg               Internet: ginzy@netvision.net.il
  P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27           Phone: 972-2-993-8134
  Efrat,  90435                          FAX:  972-2-993-8122
  Israel

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Rav Michel Shurkin just published a volume of some of the chidushim
that he heard from Rav Soleveitchik concerning Moadim - from Rosh
Hashanah to Purim.

It is distributed  by Girsa Seforim 02-538-1211 in Jerusalem
Rav Shurkin can be reached at 02-6518793 in Har Nof

One second people.

I didn't deny that Aramaic or Yiddish actually have kedushah. I wouldn't
compare the kedushah of Yiddish, which was not as universally used and
didn't make it into Tanach, with Aramaic -- but I consider the difference
to be one of quantity, not kind. In both cases, their kedushah is a function
of their association with us as a people. In particular: the role they
played in our being the "k'laf" on which the Torah sheBa'al Peh is written,
the connection they provide us "midgets" to earlier eras of "giants".

Hebrew, OTOH, actually reflects creation. Or is it creation that reflects
Hebrew? There is something inherently holy to the language, regardless of
the role it played in history. According to both Rashi and the ibn Ezra (and
I presume the many others who also wrote on dikduk -- even if they didn't say
so explicitely) studying Biblical Hebrew is Torah study. The language itself
is part of Torah. Each word and letter, even tagim on the letters, are
Torah and therefore are sacred.

As Aramaic lacks that inherent nature, I can't see it the same way. Aramaic
is holy because it was used by millenia of Jewry, including Daniel -- to
the extent that as such, it best framed his thoughts. The process is two
directional -- Aramaic was shaped by the community that used it as well.

However, all we've said about Aramaic gives it sanctity ONLY because of its
connection to the Jewish people. Therefore, I would think that the variant that
best incapulates that holiness is Aramaic-as-it's-spoken. Not the midakdeik's
"technically correct" version.

Unlike Hebrew, where Hebrew-as-it-ought-to-be-spoken was the first step in
ma'aseh B'reishis.

To put it another way, Aramaic is part of Toras Imecha, Hebrew has elements of
Mussar Avicha as well.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  9-Oct-99: Shevi'i, Bereshis
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 50b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Sat, 9 Oct 1999 toramada@netvision.net.il wrote:

> It is funny that Rabbi Ariel and Rav Aviner are mentioned on the same
> side -- as they are very much opposed to each other's views, as we know
> here in Israel <g>. 
> 

Could you please explain the differences?

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Hershel Ginsburg wrote:

> >From the American Heritage Dictionary (Third Edition): 
> 
> ten-a-ble (adj.)  1. Capable of being maintained in argument; rationally
> defensible: a tenable theory.  2. Capable of being held against assault;
> defensible: a tenable outpost. 
> 
> Ain't nuttin' here about any testability or time frames.  Furthermore,

Funny. I see both definitions as requiring testability/time frames.

> since when are time frames for testability dependent on anyone in
> particular's lifetime?  I should also point out that Judaism in general,
> and orthodox Jewish philosophical argument and halacha in particular is
> full of untestable and unprovable events, ideas, propositions etc., many
> of which have been spouted forth on this list.  Does that make Jewish
> thought etc. "untenable"? 
> 

It would indeed. This gets back to one of our debates sometime ago. As I
am of the opinion that judaism is not faith based but evidence based, the
pshat is as follows: Jewish theology is based on the event of Mattan Torah
and its credibility. Its credibility underlies the Torah and the
accompanying Mesorah. Since the test event has already occurred, it
validates the contents of the accompanying document.

Were Judaism to pin its credibility on some future redeption it would
suffer from the same flaw as any other philosophy based on some event long
in the future.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 13:53:40 EDT
> From: BDCOHEN613@aol.com
> Subject: NCSY
> 
> Our esteemed list owner asked the current status of the mebership in NCSY. 
> While generalizations are never 100% accurate, it is safe to say that many 
> NCSY members are already observant before beginning their participation. 
> Although NCSY has a focus on kiruv, al teast in most metropolitan areas, they 
> are primarily a MO youth organization. Mostof their members are in Yeshiva 
> high schools At least that is my empirical observation.
>     As to who is doing the kiruv work, that's a good question. Maybe we need 
> YU to revive the Torah Leadership Seminar program for teens.
>     Shabbat Shalom,
>     David I. Cohen

Even back in the 60s the Miami Chapter was almost 100% students of Hebrew 
Academy/Mesivta.

Micha Berger wrote:



> I didn't deny that Aramaic or Yiddish actually have kedushah. I wouldn't


I'm not even sure Aramaic has kedushah. But I see a need (at least in
myself) to be medakdek in my pronounciation of it in my tefilot. The
tefilot have kedushah even if the language doesn't. I've spent quite some
time learning to say my tefilot correctly (not that I'm so perfect at it
even after the effort), and would like to try to be as correct with the
Aramaic parts as well.

I find Aramaic "dikduk" to be horribly confusing. The exceptions to
standard Hebrew vocalization rules are numerous enough to make me wonder
about the validity of the rules as applied to Aramaic. And the answers I
got to my questions on Shabbat validate my confusion. R' Emanuel Golfeiz
of Ner Israel (and the Rav of by Beit K'nesset) told me essentially what I
said on Friday, that our "Aramaic" is a transliteration into the ktav
meant for Hebrew, and it's not valid to assume that any of the rules apply
as understood in Hebrew. Basically, no-one knows what's right, so it's
done the way it would be for Hebrew by convention, and the "exceptions"
that bother me are unreconcilable.

Like arguing about the transliterations we do on this list, except we know
what we expect to hear.

There's also an excellent sefer (in English) called "Grammar for Gemara",
by a Rav who's probably a contemporary of some of you, but whose name
escapes me at the moment. He says pretty much the same thing.




> However, all we've said about Aramaic gives it sanctity ONLY because of its
> connection to the Jewish people. Therefore, I would think that the variant that
> best incapulates that holiness is Aramaic-as-it's-spoken. Not the midakdeik's
> "technically correct" version.


Possibly. I don't think I'll stop thinking about it, though, being one who
is afflicted with medakdek-hood.


---sam

In message , Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes
>I want to ask an even more extreme question than Michael Poppers'.
>
>Is Aramaic dikduk even important? Okay, Hebrew is Lashon haKodesh, there are
>depths and nuances, most of which even modernized versions (by which I'm
>including Mishnaic Hebrew) haven't eliminated. "V'romamtanu mikol halshonos".
>
>Aramaic's only sanctity is in its association with the Jewish people, as
>a vehicle in which we studied and taught Torah, lived halachic lifestyles,
>etc...

I don't think this is true:

See for example, Megilla 9a which points out that there are words in the
Torah which are Aramaic.

See also Sanhedrin 38b (Adam HaRishon spoke Aramaic).

NB according to this week's Jewish Tribune in their torah snippets (I
haven't seen this inside), the Tosphos Brochas said that is why Adam
called Chava Chava (the Aramaic) and not Chaya, which would be the
Hebrew (of course there are other explanations)

>- -mi
>

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

>  
> First, the article may be found at
> http://www.thejewishweek.com/jwcurr.exe?9910082.
> 
> Second, I just wish to emphasize that it is clear (even according to
> the charedi viewpoint)--as noted in the article--that women can issue
> psak halacha if they are "learned."  The issue is merely what is
> considered "learned"--is it sufficient that they have become expert
> in Hilchot Niddah, or must they be expert in all areas of halacha,
> since all halacha is intertwined.
> 
> BTW, I have heard that one of the women poskot mentioned in the
> article is reputed to know all of Shas.
> 
In a different article that I read the women made clear that they
were the FIRST address for questions. If they felt that the question
was too complex they have poskim that they deal with to pass on
the question. They are not the FINAL decisiors unless it is a clear
cut question.

One of the main purposes of this system is to make women more comfortable
in asking questions. It seems that there is data showing that many
women prefer to be machmor rather than go to the rabbi with a question.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

moshe_feldman wrote:

<<  I'd be interested to hear from others if this is really clear.  I agree 
that 
 the statement was made in the article, but I wonder if it was meant as a 
line 
 in the sand (i.e. if they were trained for a decade they would be 
acceptable) 
 or was it a way of saying that we don't have to even think about it now  
 since they haven't reached that level but once they reach that level, then 
 we'll think if there are other reasons not to accept them. ( is this a run 
on 
 sentence :-)) >>

Of course, the "come back when you've learned more" argument is disingenuous. 
There will always be demands of more. These women came to Nishmat with an 
intense background in Talmud, studied for 2000 hours with poskim, talmidei 
chachamim and roshei kollel, and are extraordinary minds and yirei shamayim.  
(And, yes, one of them has learned Shas at least twice).  I had the zechus of 
meeting them and sitting in on a shiur last year at Nishmat.  Their 
understanding, analysis, and critical abililities were very impressive.  
Rabbanit Chanah Henkin has been very careful these past couple of years in 
setting only the highest standards and, through serious testing (both oral 
and written) over some 15 hours or more, by poskim in this area, has 
ascertained that these women "know their stuff."  Halavai, some of the 
younger rabbanim who get semicha tday should be as intellectually and 
educationally competent.  So the question IS one of cheftzah, not gavra (or 
giveret).

Mark Dratch

On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 MSDratch@aol.com wrote:

> Of course, the "come back when you've learned more" argument is
> disingenuous. There will always be demands of more. These women came to
> Nishmat with an intense background in Talmud, studied for 2000 hours
> with poskim, talmidei chachamim and roshei kollel, and are extraordinary
> minds and yirei shamayim.  (And, yes, one of them has learned Shas at
> least twice).  I had the zechus of meeting them and sitting in on a
> shiur last year at Nishmat.  Their understanding, analysis, and critical
> abililities were very impressive.  Rabbanit Chanah Henkin has been very
> careful these past couple of years in setting only the highest standards
> and, through serious testing (both oral and written) over some 15 hours
> or more, by poskim in this area, has ascertained that these women "know
> their stuff."  Halavai, some of the younger rabbanim who get semicha
> tday should be as intellectually and educationally competent.  So the
> question IS one of cheftzah, not gavra (or giveret). 
>

As you might have guessed, liberal as I am, I regard this new trend is
disturbing and dubious.

For now, I have a simple question: If such fabulous success can be
achieved with the girls, why, indeed, is it not happening with the boys?

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

To overgeneralize vastly, boys are not capable of serious abstract learning 
until they have come to grips with their hormones. Sometimes that occurs in 
their early twenties, or late thirties, or in any case hopefully after middle 
age. Also, boys, unlike girls, are not capable of combining abstract learning 
with true wisdom until they have experienced first-hand (personally or by 
immediate observation) a wide variety of the life issues addressed in Shas. 
The time needed to gain such experience varies: in the strife-torn Pale of 
Settlement, it happened when boys were young; in America, it happens when 
they reach their late thirties, or in any case hopefully after middle age. 

An argument can be made that today, in America, women on the whole are far 
better prepared intellectually and emotionally to receive and understand 
Shas. 

David S. Finch
DFinchPC@aol.com

In a somewhat related issue, the gemora in sota(21a) discusses what zchut can 
be toleh the punishment for a sota.  The gemora initially posits that it 
can't be limud tora because they are eino mitzuveh voseh.  In the end the 
gemora accepts that it can be zchut of tora because "nihi dpkudei lo mifkada, 
bagra dmakrin umatnin bnaihu vnatran lhu lguvreiyhu ad datu mbei midrasha mi 
lo plagan bhadaihu?"
Interestingly, the gemora soon after uses the language of liflog to describe 
a zevulun yissachar type relationship.

At the risk of showing my lack of knowledge(not the first time:-)), is the 
source for a woman's getting schar for her family's learning based on her 
facilitating the learning (in which case if she were learned and taught 
outside the family she might get "man" schar as well or is it the true 
zevulun yisschar approach (discussed on this list earlier) where the 
partnership (here family) pools all resources and receives schar as one unit 
(so outside teaching wouldn't work) ?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Can anyone point me to a discussion -- in Torah literature or in the
biology/gynecology
literature--that might help to understand the apparent discrepancy
between the
zman ha'talmuch (the time of the talmud) and today.  In particular:

A)  The rishonim discuss "hargasha" (a feeling/sensation), but most
contemporary
sources (e.g. R. Forst's book and every modern shiur I have ever
attended)
say that such hargashot are rare.

B)  The talmud seems to assume that  vest kavuah (a VERY regular
menstrual cycle, perhaps not just to the day, but to the hour) is the
norm.
Contemporary books and rabbis seem to say that such regular cycles
are today the exception.

This issue might be viewed as related to the ongong debate on this
and other lists about "nishtanu hateva" (nature has changed).
That something has changed is a lot more plausible in this case than
in some of the other cases.  There is considerable evidence that
menarche (the onset of menses)  and its continuation (or temporary
cessation)
is very sensitive to nutritional status and excercise.  The standard
scientific
source is a book by Tanner (I have it around somewhere; if I find
it I could send copies to those who might be interested).  Well accepted

field work suggests that the age of menarche has declined by (on the
order of)
five years (from the very late teens to the very early teens or earlier)

and varies (or varied) with socio-economic status as well.

Anybody have any ideas?  Something I should read?  There must
be something somewhere.

Yaakov Klerman

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


[ 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         ]