Avodah Mailing List
Volume 04 : Number 157
Sunday, November 28 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 20:45:08 EST
From: Pawshas@aol.com
Subject: Re: Tzelem Elokim and Women
R' Dratch wrote:
> While we're on the subject of Tzelem Elokim, note Abravanel's comment on
p.
> 69 of Vol. 1(5724 edition). In a nutshell: Note the language of the
verse,
> he says, "be'tzelem Elokim bara OTTO, zachar u-nekeivah bara OTAM."
Tzelem
> Elokim refers only to ADAM, the male, not Chava, the FEMALE. He, after
all,
> was the purpose (hakavanah ve-hatachlik ha-atzma-it) and the ikkar
> ha-beriyah. Woman was created only to be an ezer ke-negdo and for
> procreative purposes and as keli tashmisho.
I don't have access to an Abravanel here, so I'll take it as you cite it, but
the Gemara in Eruvin (18a) doesn't read the Pasuk that way. The Gemara asks
about the apparent contradiction of "Zachar UNekeivah Beraam" and "beTzelem
Elokim Bara Oso" and concludes that HaShem initially intended to create Adam
and Chavah as separate beings (Beraam), and then HaShem decided to create
them as one (Oso).
Implicitly, then, the Gemara is saying that both Adam and Chavah are created
beTzelem Elokim.
Mordechai Torczyner
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf
Congregation Ohave Shalom, Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
Go to top.
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 21:25:11 EST
From: DFinchPC@aol.com
Subject: Re: Tzelem Elokim and Women
In a message dated 11/27/99 7:45:32 PM US Central Standard Time,
Pawshas@aol.com writes:
<< I don't have access to an Abravanel here, so I'll take it as you cite it,
but
the Gemara in Eruvin (18a) doesn't read the Pasuk that way. The Gemara asks
about the apparent contradiction of "Zachar UNekeivah Beraam" and "beTzelem
Elokim Bara Oso" and concludes that HaShem initially intended to create
Adam
and Chavah as separate beings (Beraam), and then HaShem decided to create
them as one (Oso).
>>
Exactly.
David Finch
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:29:42 +0200 ("IST)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject: expenses / Israel
I spent this shabbat with a relative from Long Island. He has 4 children
ages 10-18 and spends about $40,000 a year on education. Next year he
hopes to send his son to YU which is $25,000 including dormitory.
That will bring his education costs to about $55,000. Camp is another $15,000
for a total of $70,000 (after taxes) direct expenses.
No wonder he claims that one needs a minimum income of $100,000 after taxes
for 4 kids in a MO yeshiva/university & camps.
In contrast in Israel elementary school is either free or "cheap" depending
on whether one uses a religious state school or a various private schools
that receive state subsidies like chinuch atzmai etc.
High school is either free for state schools or most haredi yeshivot
while Bnei Akivah is about $3000 including dormitory.
Bar-Ilan is about $2,500 and considerably less if one attends the kollel.
Even those that send their kids to summer camps the cost is considerably
less than the US.
Thus, I still claim that for the professional in Israel (scientist,
accountant, lawyer etc) the left over income is higher after yeshiva
than in the US. Of course this is a generalization and is highly
dependent. Thus, an American doctor makes considerably more than an
Israeli doctor (at least before malpractice insurance). Obviously, the
top of the line American lawyer can do better. However, my friends in
Israel who are (successful) lawyers and doctors are doing quite well.
Thus, within the restricted class of religious professionals and
business people I contend that the free income in israel is frequently
higher than in the US.
As to the cost of apartments they tend to be high in Israeli cities
and renting is difficulty. Twersky pointed out in his article than
in the US a religious Jew does not have the option of moving to the
"sticks". However, in Israel this is more of an option.
My son recently moved to a yishuv in the Shomron within a 40 minute
commute from the center of the country (and his work). It is near
Ariel and has almost no security problems. The housing is quite cheap
which is a major plus in addition to the quality of life of living
in a completely religious yishuv. Of course this necessitates a car
but that is a small price. It is also close enough that they can
come into the major cities for major purchases.
Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 18:36:49 +0200 (IST)
From: <millerr@mail.biu.ac.il>
Subject: 1.Tradition Magazine 2.Torah V'Mada
Due to an interest in some posts on this list I sent a check and request
to immediately begin a subscription to Tradition. I also asked for a
receipt for the check that I sent.
I received my check and letter back saying that
1. A subscription cannot be started in the middle of the year.
2.I cannot receive a receipt. "Your check is your receipt"
Could anyone help me understand what is going on? Anything that I can do
to begin my subscription from the present issue -vol33/2 - and to yes get
a receipt?
3. How do I subscribe to Torah V'Mada???
| Reuven Miller |
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 18:38:20 +0200 (IST)
From: <millerr@mail.biu.ac.il>
Subject: Avodah - MailJewish
What is the difference between Avodah and MJ?
| Reuven Miller |
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 18:41:08 +0200 (IST)
From: <millerr@mail.biu.ac.il>
Subject: Tradition Magazine
Does anyone have an e-mail address for Tradition????????????
reuven
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:20:50 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Tradition Magazine
In a message dated 11/28/99 11:41:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,
millerr@mail.biu.ac.il writes:
<<
Does anyone have an e-mail address for Tradition????????????
reuven
>>
The RCA , which publishes Tradition , gives Rabbis@Rabbis.org on their
publications web page (www.yerushalayim.net/rca/publications.htm) as the
place to contact them
Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 14:41:40 -0500
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject: Re: Rambam and asceticism
I recently read "A Halakhic Approach to Suffering" by Rabbi JB Soloveitchik
(Torah U'Madda Journal, vol. 8, 1998-99), which is a paper the Rav presented
in 1961. I noticed the following paragraph (which is somewhat tangential to
the point of the paper) relating to the discussion I had with R. David
Nadoff regarding the Rambam's view of sexuality:
pp. 21-22: <<[Judaism] endorsed [sexual life], completely rejecting the
Aristotelian negative approach which Maimonides had somehow accepted. Sex
can be a sacred performance if treated properly, if placed in a worthwhile,
dignified perspective. In one's sexual life, the dignity of man is the most
important factor. It determines the whole character of the sexual life,
whether it is low, primitive, hypnotic, orgiastic, or dignified and
sacred.>>
Kol tuv,
Moshe
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:44:44 -0500
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject: Hasidei Ashkenaz
In answer RYGB, my posting on Wednesday was in answer to the argument that
R. Yehuda Hachasid was a ba'al haTosafot. Dr. Soloveitchik believes that
the Hasidei Ashkenaz were essentially separate (to a great extent) from the
Baalei Hatosafot.
(I also take exception to the characterization of either Dr. S's writing or
my excerpting as gibberish. I believe that the rules of lashon hara should
prevent one from making such characterizations [the classic example being,
"Reb Ploni's shiur was boring, etc."], as opposed to merely writing "I
didn't understand" or "I disagree because of XYZ.")
A separate issue, which I will deal with now, is Dr. Soloveitchik's view of
the extent to which Hasidei Ashkenaz pietistic practices were rejected by
other religious leaders of the time. Again (in response to a query how the
article may be obtained), the article is:
Haym Soloveitchik
Three Themes in the Sefer Chasidim
AJS Review v1 1976
It may be obtained in any good academic library (sorry, it's 46 pages long,
so I'm not faxing it).
Here are some excerpts:
p.329: <<The appearance of new ideals of personality and patterns of conduct
which its traditions had never known evoked feelings of antagonism and
contempt in those in whom the new movement did not strike a sympathic chord.
.. . . The adherents of Hasidism soon learnt to associate their way of life
with the blanch of humiliation, and from the outset, proclaimed the
cornerstone of Hasidut to be the capacity ot persist in G-d's will despite
scorn and mockery.>>
p.330 ff. <<Much depends, of course, on just who was considered
"unrighteous" or "wicked," for only too often the Pietists' epithets have
been taken at their face value. . . .[W]e see that, by the Pietists' own
admission, the rasha is a scholar who makes contributions of some permanence
to Halakic thought, and, not surprisingly, sits on the courts, or, at the
very least, gives influential rulings on religious problems. . . . Wherein
lies, we wonder, his wickedness? . . . . [The answer is] "Wicked" to the
Hasidic mind meant, then . . .even scholars, poets, and men of quality who
took less time in reciting the Psalms than the Hasidim deemed appropriate,
or in any way fell short of their novel and exacting standards. >> [see f.n.
73]
p.336 <<The number of Hasidim in most towns was small . . . . Frustrated in
their efforts to effect communal reform, the Hasidim retreated into
themselves.>>
p. 337 <<The Hasid was opposed not only by the communal leadership but also
by the intellectual establishment, and minds trained in distinction and
riposte could, and did, make short shrift of many a Hasidic argument. . . .
The struggle of Haside Ashkenaz with those who did not see their light, and
their humiliations and frustration at the hands of their opponents, only
intensified the streak of harshness which can be detected in Hasidic
thought, and their posture towards the reshaim assumed chilling proportions.
If one who had thwarted them fell sick, it was forbidden to pray for his
recovery. . . .>>
Kol tuv,
Moshe
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 23:54:20 +0200
From: Hershel Ginsburg <ginzy@netvision.net.il>
Subject: Brave New World or Retroactive Fatherhood
A recent story in the Israeli press raises some interesting theoretical
halachic questions (I don't know to what extent, if at all, these questions
applied to the story as it appeared in the press) which I would like to
pose for discussion here.
But first the story as reported on Kol Yisrael & Galei Tza"HaL:
An Israeli District Court ruled last week that a childless, 22 year old
widow could be impregnated with sperm taken from her dead husband. The man
was killed 11 months ago in a traffic accident, two weeks after they were
married. Sperm was removed from the body shortly after death (hgNote: I
don't know if he was brain dead or heart/respiration dead), and frozen.
The attorney general's office raised questions whether or not the
impregnation (I assume via in vitro fertilization, as opposed to artificial
insemination) should be permitted, but the courts ruled in favor of the
widow, her mother, and mother-in-law (the latter two pledged their support,
and indicated that (among other things) it was necessary to prevent the
widow from committing suicide).
And now some questions:
a) Is it permitted to obtain the dead man's sperm for the purposes
outlined above or is it nivul hamet?
b) Assuming the dead man had a brother (I don't know if he did or did
not), the moment he died, a connection of Yibum was established between the
dead man's brother and the widow. This raises a few questions:
1. Is the widow permitted to become pregnant by her dead husband's
sperm, before she has undergone Halitzah?
2. If she does become pregnant, and assuming it is permitted, would
that now obviate the need for Halitzah or Yibum? Is there still a
possibility of Yibum?
3. If she does become pregnant, and assuming it is **NOT** permitted,
is the baby a Mamzer?
4. If she does become pregnant, and again assuming it is **NOT**
permitted, is there still an obligation of Halitzah or Yibum? Is there
still a possibility of Yibum?
c) Does the baby become his dead father's heir retroactively? Prospectively?
d) If the dead father was a Cohen, is the baby a cohen if a boy or a
bat-cohen if a girl?
e) Assuming the dead father was a Yisrael, and the baby is a boy, does he
have the din of a B'chor? (I guess this question presupposes that a boy
conceived via in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination would have
the din of a B'chor, irrespective of the source of the sperm).
f) Does the answer to any of the above questions change, the longer one
waits from the time of death untill conception (by any means) using the
dead man's sperm?
g) What would be the kid's name, i.e., plony-almony Ben who????
h) Assuming the dead man's sperm was used to impregnate several different
women, would the resulting kids be considered siblings (halachicly)?
These are the questions that I could thing of, off the top of my head. If
anyone can think of other questions, please add them. More importanly, if
anyone can thing of any answers, please provide them!!
hg
.............................................................................
Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
Registered Israel Patent Attorney and Biotechnology Consultant
P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
Efrat, 90435
Israel
Phone: 972-2-993-8134 FAX: 972-2-993-8122
e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il
.............................................................................
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 03:04:42 -0500
From: shlomo yaffe <syaffe@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #148 Consumption
The Ramban holds that Kadeish Atzmechah Bemutar Loch is a Mitzvah which
means that we siply not consume or possess luxuries just for the sake of
enjoying them for the pleasure of the body or the eye etc.
How we draw the line between "neccesary and leshaim ta'avah is something
I would very much like to hear from avodah members about.
SDY
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 17:43:08 -0600
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Hasidei Ashkenaz
----- Original Message -----
From: Feldman, Mark <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
To: Avodah (E-mail) <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 1999 2:44 PM
Subject: Hasidei Ashkenaz
> In answer RYGB, my posting on Wednesday was in answer to the argument that
> R. Yehuda Hachasid was a ba'al haTosafot. Dr. Soloveitchik believes that
> the Hasidei Ashkenaz were essentially separate (to a great extent) from
the
> Baalei Hatosafot.
>
Sorry, this I understand quite well, now, and reject. If, as R' Josh Backon
noted, R' Yehuda He'Chasid is quoted in Tosafos, and, to boot, their is a
Tos. RYhC on Berachos, one cannot esacape the conclusion that he was a
member of the club.
> (I also take exception to the characterization of either Dr. S's writing
or
> my excerpting as gibberish. I believe that the rules of lashon hara
should
> prevent one from making such characterizations [the classic example being,
> "Reb Ploni's shiur was boring, etc."], as opposed to merely writing "I
> didn't understand" or "I disagree because of XYZ.")
>
I believe I said it was gibberish to me. Which fits your rules of LH. But, I
disagree with the rules. Theoretically, if I were to regard something as
nonsense, it is perfectly legitimate for me to declare it as such. Knowing
Dr. Soloveitchik's reputation, I bet he would not hesitate to so do himself.
But that was not my intent.
> A separate issue, which I will deal with now, is Dr. Soloveitchik's view
of
> the extent to which Hasidei Ashkenaz pietistic practices were rejected by
> other religious leaders of the time. Again (in response to a query how
the
> article may be obtained), the article is:
>
Deleted. Not a single mareh makom? So, is this documented or Dr.
Soloveitchik's "Chiddush"?
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila ygb@aishdas.org
Go to top.
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 22:33:51 EST
From: DFinchPC@aol.com
Subject: Re: Hasidei Ashkenaz
In a message dated 11/28/99 5:45:25 PM US Central Standard Time,
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
<< I believe that the rules of lashon hara
should
> prevent one from making such characterizations [the classic example being,
> "Reb Ploni's shiur was boring, etc."], as opposed to merely writing "I
> didn't understand" or "I disagree because of XYZ.") >>
RYGB's shiurs are, almost without exception (and entirely without exception
when his students behave themselves), among the most exciting and fascinating
classes I've ever attended, on any subject, in any setting. That said, I do
not understand why simple, constructive, and relevant truth -- real emes --
should be silenced merely because it might be personally hurtful. Why can't
one say, "Reb Ploni's shiur was boring" -- if it was, in fact, boring, and if
the listener can learn something useful from such information (i.e., to
attend someone else's shiur)? Or is the focus instead on showing respect to
Reb Ploni because he's a Reb? I understand the idea of saluting the uniform,
not the man wearing it, but we're Jews, not West Point plebes, and
intellectually honesty is supposed to have a big role in our way of life.
Same with the word "gibberish." Gibberish is an extremely polite, if pointed,
descriptive noun where I come from. Lashon hara it ain't, compared with its
blunter and more expressive synonyms.
RYGB is no more capable of lashon hara than I am of running a four-minute
mile. In fact, given its untruthfulness, it's lashon hara to accuse RYGB of
lashon hara.
So there!
David Finch
Go to top.
*********************
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/ ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]