Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 052

Tuesday, November 28 2000

• Re: Contact Lenses/Shabbos
• Re: Nishmat
• Re: Women's education: the views of RYBS and RSYW
• Re: Tav L'meisiv
• Re: Nishmat
• Re: M'aras HaMachpeila
• RE: DY-33b
• Re: Patur
• Avos was : Women's education: the views of RYBS and RSYW
• Re: Tav L'meisiv
• Nishmat
• Re: Nishmat
• Re: Women's education: the views of RYBS and RSYW
• Re: Avos was : Women's education: the views of RYBS and RSYW
• RE: Kol y'mei chayecha
• Re: Kol y'mei chayecha
• Tefillin--T'nai
• Re: Contact lenses/shabbos
• Re: Tzedek uMishpat
• Re: Patur
• Re: Tav L'meisiv
• Re: Contact lenses/shabbos
• Fwd: Re: Contact lenses/shabbos
• Re: Contact lenses/shabbos

On 24 Nov 00, at 11:55, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
> I do even understand what the issur is to launder here - are you not
> allowed to clean up a spill or pick up a dust speck on your plastic
> tablecloth?

I'll go a step further - since when do we worry about things that 
aren't nireh la'ayin (as is the case with the dirt on contact lenses)? 
We don't worry about bugs that we cannot see unassisted, we 
don't worry about using a Brita filter on Shabbos (so long as we 
would drink the water even without one). Why do we worry about 
the specks of "dirt" we might clean off contact lenses?

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

In message , Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes
>     Without advocating a position, we must note, that you are not being 
> medakdek. RSYW (R' Weinberg) is very clear: Women who want to learn, and 
> perhaps (rather, likely) even be taught by their parents may do so. His 
> opposition is to formal inclusion in curriculums and educational 
> encouragement in the system.

This, of course is a matter of one's reading of the particular piece as
it was posted.  While I did look for this distinction I did not find it
anywhere within this piece. Nowhere in this piece is there any
suggestion that women who want to learn may do so.  Rather, there is the
suggestion that the women who turn out OK are those who do not want to
learn even in the face of formal inclusion in curriculums and
educational encouragement in the system.  And while I admit that the
piece I repeated on this section (repeated above) does not make the
wider opposition as clear as some other parts, given its explicit
reference to schools, take this one:

RSYW:
> Therefore, to learn Torah shebeal peh with a girl is to make [boys and
> girls] the same-and to destroy Klal Yisroel.  And all the sophisticated
> explanations are destroying Klal Yisroel!  I don't care who the gadol is,
> and how wise a man he is-he is destroying Klal Yisroel when he says that
> it's alright to teach girls Torah shebeal peh.  It's not all right.  It
> happens also to be a prohibition, one whose effects are immediate.

This clearly talks about teaching girls, and not about the particular
educational context (I might even hazard a guess that your being
medakdek in RSYW's words might well fall within his characterisation of
"sophisticated explanations").  And of course the issur to which he is
referring says nothing about schools and institutionalised
encouragement, it talks about a prohibition on a father teaching his
daughter.

But I am happy to leave it up to the general Avodah olam to decide -
whether on reading the piece they were of the view that this was
addressed at mass education or also at the teaching of individuals.  The
fact that the individual who posted the piece posted it under the
heading "Nishmat", I think suggests that he, at least, did not read it
the way you do.  Although Nishmat is an educational institution,  it is
one geared at an extremely high level (at least the aspects of it that
were under discussion are) and it caters for an exceptional, limited
number of individuals who, by definition, already have significant
skills in the learning of Torah shebaal peh, and whom must pretty
uncontroversially already come under the rubric of those who themselves
wanted and want to learn.

Shavuah tov
Chana

> No. Without advocating a position, we must note, that you are not being 
> medakdek. RSYW (R' Weinberg) is very clear: Women who want to learn, and 
> perhaps (rather, likely) even be taught by their parents may do so. His 
> opposition is to formal inclusion in curriculums and educational 
> encouragement in the system

Ain haci nami.However, RYBS was of another opinion both in Boston and New 
York. Who are we to say that either derech was right or wrong , depending on 
the population, high level of secular education available to women and other 
factors which the Chafetz Chaim  and other Gdolim felt mandated the creation 
of the Beis Yaakov movement?  


> I think R' Y. Weinberg defined it pretty well:

WADR, I do not how we can say that Avos, a mesecta of mishnayos , is 
relegated to "mussar". It's part of Shas. It would seem to have more shem 
TSB than tzeenah ureenah.
                                     Steve Brizel
                                      Zeliglaw@aol.com

In message , Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes
>: It seems hard to say that this describes some existential desire of
>: woman for a husband, predicated on the banishment of loneliness.
>: Firstly, because she is actually getting her pleasure from illicit
>: relationships (which could be one or many), and secondly because it is
>: clear from Abaya's statement that what is key is to be seen among the
>: other women...

>Both of which are known forms of self-medication for avoiding feelings
>of loneliness.


Perhaps, but that would that would seem to suggest that the options are
either:

a) an appropriate marriage (ie not just with any husband, but with a
suitable one); or
b) znus; or
c) female social recognition,

as a cure for such loneliness.

Which I think takes us back to what was an implicit assumption in our
initial discussion (which may not have been a valid one, or shared by
all, but was certainly the way I understood things) which was that tav
l'meisiv as an existential fact inherent in women meant it was a good
thing for a woman to get married even if the husband was less that
suitable.  Whereas, the way I am reading what you are saying now is that
because of this existential need to avoid loneliness, it may be worse
for a woman to enter into a bad marriage than for a man to do so.  Is
that right?


>:                                      Tosphos states that this has to be
>: talking about a situation where she fell to yibum during the erusin, not
>: after the nissuin.  Now this is particularly interesting.  Because
>: during erusin she is not living with the husband, but remains where she
>: was before the kiddushin (which certainly does not help from a
>: loneliness point of view).  Thus the *only* benefit that can be said to
>: accrue to her from the erusin is the status of marriage which is now
>: conferred ...
>
>And the lack of loneliness. Have you already so successfully ruled out the
>notion that we're speaking of loneliness that you don't need to consider
>it a possible explanation here?

It seemed to me obvious this was not the relevant factor here (at least
not vis a vis the husband) because in an erusin situation there is most
likely no diminishment of loneliness.  That is, in the classic erusin
situation (especially where the husband is living in a different town,
but even when he is not), it would not necessarily be expected that the
woman would see her husband between the kiddushin and the nissuin a year
later.  So unless you are talking about a metaphysical diminishment of
loneliness despite the absence of a physical husband, I could not see
how loneliness was a relevant factor here.

Shavuah tov
Chana

In message , Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes
> Apparently they are contradictory. If so, how can one person have both
> Midos? Where as Mishpat implies hard. cold, and impartial justice be
> applied, Tzedakah implies a spirit of charity" ie a spirit of "giving the
> benefit of the doubt". His answer was that when a person judges himself
> he should use the attribute of "Mishpat" and deal "harshly" with himself
> in order to improve his character. But when dealing with one's friend,
> he should use the attribute of Tzedakah, the generosity of judging one's
> friend favorably.

Yes, but that is the gemorra's point.  They are contradictory, and while
within Avraham one can offer this explanation, this is a description of
what Dovid did vis a vis others, so this explanation does not work.
Hence you need to search for something which embodies both of these
contradictory elements at the same time.

Shavuah tov
Chana

In a message dated 11/24/00 11:38:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:
> In Avraham's request to Efron he mentions purchasing just m'aras
> hamachpeila, but Efron in his reply sells not only the burial cave, but
> the surrounding field as well. Thought this might be based on the din
> in B"B of 'hamocheir b'ain ra/yafeh hu mocheir' - Efron (gematria=ain
> ra) was selling b'ain ra. Had Avraham just purchased the cave Efron
> could withold access to it since a path to get there would not have been
> included; therefore, Avraham had to purchase everything.

Last year a friend of mine suggested the same, I added, that the Possuk says 
that all trees in Sdei Efron went over to Avrohom, perhaps the reason for 
mentioning this, is so that Efroin shouldn't be able to argue that a seller 
who leaves the trees has a Chelek in the Karka (Machlokes Rambam and Raavd, 
Hil. Mechira 24:8), or that he shouldn't be able to argue that the path is a 
Derech Hakever which he may not be Koneh (Rambam and Raavd 21:10).
 

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@segalco.com>
> Anyone hear a good explanation how this ended up the only daf with no
> gemora?
No, but I did hear an explanation about another favorite amud for daf yomi
learners:  Baba Kama 77a (only two lines of gemara) from Dayan A.D. Dunner,
who I had the pleasure of hearing speak last night.

He explained that the two tosfos' on this amud were written by the baalei
tosfos while they were imprisoned during the crusades (and that they were
going to be killed the next day).  He was talking about how important it was
take one's learning seriously and the reward one gets if he does so.  Dayan
Dunner explained that the prominent position of these tosfos in our gemara
is attributable to the conditions under which they were written.

KT
Aryeh

>                       Here is a quote from Dr. Backon:
>> there are only 2 (actually 3, One is in Even Ha'Ezer)
>> instances OTHER than hilchot shabbat where patur aval assur is involved. 
>> This is in hilchot keshafim as per the gemara in Sanhderin; in hilchot
>> shevuot [because of CHATZI SHIUR]; and in Hilchot Kevod Rabbo.

Sanhedrin 57a says that a Jew who kills a nochri is patur. The Kesef
Mishneh in hilchos rotzei'ach (2:11) says that it means patur aval assur.

Gil Student

Steve Brizel <Zeliglaw@aol.com>:
> WADR, I do not how we can say that Avos, a mesecta of mishnayos , is 
> relegated to "mussar". It's part of Shas. It would seem to have more shem 
> TSB than tzeenah ureenah.

AISI, Avos is the Mishnayos (loosely Midrash Tannaim) dealing with
Tehillim/Mishle/Kohelles in a fashion analogous to the way the Mechilta
deals with Shmos, etc. (And the Bavos do too to an extent)

IOW, in Tanach we have a set "wisdom" Sforim and it has its parallel
corresponding TSBP {primarily} in Avos.

In this case, then if it is fair to call Mishle mussar (and I for one
think it IS fair) then Avos could be called Musar, too in that spirit.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

On 25 Nov 2000, at 20:01, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
> It seemed to me obvious [the lack of loneliness] was not the relevant
> factor here (at least not vis a vis the husband) because in an erusin
> situation there is most likely no diminishment of loneliness. That is,
> in the classic erusin situation (especially where the husband is living
> in a different town, but even when he is not), it would not necessarily
> be expected that the woman would see her husband between the kiddushin
> and the nissuin a year later...

What about "aina domah mi she'yesh lah pas b'sala l'mi she'ain la 
pas b'sala." Wouldn't that be diminished by the very existence of 
an arus?

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

RR Wolpoe wrote
; Aiui Peshita women are pturos from Talmud Torah and Birchas haTorah
; becaue the Nishma, hevu ameilim be'Torah is not their domain

; However, halacha psuka - in all realms of halacha pertaining to women,
; e.g. Kashrus, Niddah, Shabbas Pesach, etc. is shayach.

; The issue becomes framed thusly:
; Are the Nishma parts (i.e. the non-Na'asseh parts) optional or off-limits
; to women?

To rephrase in your language
RYBS (according to R Mozeson) held that R Eleazar ben Azariah's position, as
understood by Tosfot and paskened by the Rama, is that nishma is muttar in
all areas where women have na'aseh.  He doesn't understand the Rama and
tosfot as being merely mattir halacha psuka, as that is pashut.  The Rama
(by this pshat) is holek on the mechaber.  After all, even according to the
Rambam, does anyone hold that women can not learn halacha psuka??

Meir Shinnar

Chana
>But I am happy to leave it up to the general Avodah olam to decide -
>whether on reading the piece they were of the view that this was
>addressed at mass education or also at the teaching of individuals...

The speech was delivered at a convention of educators, for educators, as is 
evident by the conclusion, dealing with the l'ma'aseh of closing schools, 
quitting, etc. That is the context and import of said speech.

Nishmat, as an educational institution falls within that context.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

At 08:41 PM 11/26/00 -0500, Steve Brizel <Zeliglaw@aol.com> wrote:
>>           RSYW (R' Weinberg) is very clear: Women who want to learn, and
>> perhaps (rather, likely) even be taught by their parents may do so. His
>> opposition is to formal inclusion in curriculums and educational
>> encouragement in the system

>Ain haci nami.However, RYBS was of another opinion both in Boston and New
>York. Who are we to say that either derech was right or wrong , depending on
>the population, high level of secular education available to women and other
>factors which the Chafetz Chaim  and other Gdolim felt mandated the creation
>of the Beis Yaakov movement?

We say nothing. RSYW said he held RYBS was wrong.

>> I think R' Y. Weinberg defined it pretty well:

> WADR, I do not how we can say that Avos, a mesecta of mishnayos , is
> relegated to "mussar". It's part of Shas. It would seem to have more shem
> TSB than tzeenah ureenah.

He is defining TSBP as process.


KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Steve Brizel <Zeliglaw@aol.com>:
: WADR, I do not how we can say that Avos, a mesecta of mishnayos , is 
: relegated to "mussar". It's part of Shas. It would seem to have more shem 
: TSB than tzeenah ureenah.

Rich Wolpoe <Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com>
: In this case, then if it is fair to call Mishle mussar (and I for one
: think it IS fair) then Avos could be called Musar, too in that spirit.

I would say, and I think this is just a rephrase of RRW's point, that
your mistake is in considering classifying something as mussar to be
a demotion.

I also wonder why "Tzenah uR'enah" (TuR) qualifies as mussar... it's
the aggadic stories without the nimshalim. Sure, some of it is object
lessons, but without any digging, most of the message is lost. Nor
would I assume that most of those nimshalim are mussar and behavioral
or emotional rather than associated inyanei machshavah and philosophy.

Last, the name of the seifer tells you that it isn't intended to be
understood literally, as a story book. That one is supposed to seek
the nimshalim. Note that this means that TuR requires a lot of thought.
Not the analytic mode of shas, more comparative and imaginatory. (Is it
less reliance on da'as, more on binah???)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

jjbaker@panix.com:
> Yerushalmi.  They even indicate that it may not have been said *after*
> BZ's drasha, in terms of minhag.  But I don't know when the personalities
> in the Yerushalmi's little survey lived.

Last night my 7-year-old son was saying Krias Shma al hamitta and
he asked me fi he needed his tzitzis. I told him no, tzitzis are not
neede at night. He then asked me then why sya the 3rd paragraph and I
explained that it was due to zchiras YM and I mentioned that this was
in the haggadah...

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

In a message dated 11/27/00 11:13:52am EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
> He then asked me then why sya the 3rd paragraph and I explained that it was 
> due to zchiras YM and I mentioned that this was in the haggadah...

Actualy Mikar Hadin one does not need say the 3rd paragraph (if K"S was said 
Bizmana) the reason it is said is to have 248 words to protect our 248 
Eivorim, see M"A 239:1, (Derech Agav according to this one has to repeat the 
last 3 words in K"S She'al Hamita too).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

Does anyone have any information or opinion or m"m concerning whether
tefillin--klafim for parshiyos, hides for batim, retzu'os (are these
different issues)--may be processed/prepared/made or should/shouldn't be
made/prepared with a condition allowing other uses?  (I suppose this has to
do with lishma.)

If tnai is permissible, why isn't breira a me'akev, i.e. ain breira
be-de-oraisa, which tefillin certainly is?

There is an LOR where I live who thinks that tnai should be avoided, but I
spoke to a batim macher in Yerushalayim who insists that Rav Elyashiv
prefers that it be with a tnai.

Your thoughts and comments are welcome and invited.

Noach Witty

The SEFER REFUAT HASHABBAT [used by most frum doctors in Israel and which
has the haskamot of: Rav Ovadiah Yosef, Rav Nissim Karelitz, Rav Yitzchak
Zilbershtein, Rav Shmuel Eliezer Shtern, Rav Moshe Halbershtam] delineates
in Chapter 35 all eye diseases which engender the category of "choleh
she'yesh bo sakana". Included here under the rubric of "dalakot charifot
shel ha'karnit" are sclerokeratitis from Pseudomonas aeruginosa and
Acanthamoeba.

It is well known in the medical literature (//ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed)
that soft contact lenses are a major reservoir of bacteria and parasites.
The bacteria are bacterial biofilm that only hydrogen peroxide can
destroy. Severe sclerokeratitis from Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Acanthamoeba
keratitis causing corneal infections can lead to LOSS OF VISION.

Thus, the SEFER REFUAT HASHABBAT 35:23 states, "kemo chen, mutar lishtof
ul'nakot et ha'adashot im mei sabon O NOZLIM HA'MEYUCHADIM L'KACH b'shabbat
v'ein chashash l'issur kolshehu".

There are problems with simple soaking of these lenses in water since
the bacteria [living in biofilm colonies] and parasites wouldn't be
removed. The only alternative [not currently available commercially]
would be to squeeze methylcellulose gel [I have a US patent application
pending on this] on the lenses and then rinse off.

To reiterate: my chiddush here would be that because untreated Pseudomonas
aeruginosa corneal ulceration spreads rapidly and can cause perforation
of the cornea and loss of the eye within 48 hours, it most certainly lies
in the category of "choleh she'yesh bo sakanah"; non-disinfected soft
contact lenses can very well lead to corneal ulceration and keratitis.
Thus, one who uses soft contact lenses would be M'CHUYAV to disinfect
the lenses [Friday night].

Josh

> Better to worry if the other guy has adeqaute olam hazeh and for ourselves
> is our olam habba in order.

This Vort has been attributed to many Gdolei Yisroel, Lichishetimtza it is 
Mrumaz in Loshon Chazal (B"B 10b) Sela Zu Ltzdaka Bshvil *Shyichyu* (Olom 
Hazeh) Bonai, Ubishvil She'ezkeh *Lolom Habba*.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 11/27/00 7:15:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
hjweiss@panix.com writes:
> On SCJM a discussion came up regarding the term ayno chayav/patur.  
> Does this mean mutar or patur aval asur.  I was under the impression that
> it meant patur aval asur.

See Sifrei Haklolim, and among them the Sdei Chemed Kuntris Hakllolim 
Mareches Hapei Kllal 5-9 and Kllal 44 Ois 3.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In message <3A227645.8650.140BFD0F@localhost>, Carl M. Sherer
<cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes
>> It seemed to me obvious this was not the relevant factor here (at
>> least not vis a vis the husband) because in an erusin situation there
>> is most likely no diminishment of loneliness...

>What about "aina domah mi she'yesh lah pas b'sala l'mi she'ain la 
>pas b'sala." Wouldn't that be diminished by the very existence of 
>an arus?

It would seem not, at least according to Tosphos (Yevamos 37b d"h
"yechudei").  We are discussing a case where there was marriage and
yichud only, but not tashmish.  However Tosphos adds there that there is
here pas b'salo only because if he wanted to there *could* be bi'ah.

On the face of it, I would agree, this Tosphos would seem to contradict
the pshat in Ketubos 63a/b which would seem to include the category of
arusa (and shomeres yavam) in with nissua, chola and nida.  However, if
you are medayak in the language, you will see that the reference to pas
bsalo is said explicitly in relation to (and to explain) the case of
niddah, and not the others (and note that Rashi on 63a states that the
case of an arusa being addressed here is where she refused to go through
with the nissuin, different from what is being otherwise discussed,
which is refusal (according to at least the one opinion being discussed)
of tashmish).

Of course, the concept of pas b'salo may not map exactly onto pas
b'sala, but at least the way it is used vis a vis a man would suggest
that it is not applicable during the arus stage.

Regards
Chana

> To reiterate: my chiddush here would be that because untreated Pseudomonas 
> aeruginosa corneal ulceration spreads rapidly and can cause perforation
> of the cornea and loss of the eye within 48 hours, it most certainly 
> lies in the category of "choleh she'yesh bo sakanah"....

Why put yourself in a situation of choleh when you can just wear glasses on 
Shabbos?

Gil Student

From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
>To reiterate: my chiddush here would be that because untreated Pseudomonas...

Well, ee me'shum ha, you might just wear glasses...

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On 27 Nov 00, at 21:56, BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> Thus, the SEFER REFUAT HASHABBAT 35:23 states, "kemo chen, mutar lishtof
> ul'nakot et ha'adashot im mei sabon O NOZLIM HA'MEYUCHADIM L'KACH b'shabbat
> v'ein chashash l'issur kolshehu".

Could this be talking about hard lenses?

> The only alternative [not currently available commercially]
> would be to squeeze methylcellulose gel [I have a US patent application
> pending on this] on the lenses and then rinse off.

Why would this not raise issues of memachek, the same way that toothpaste
and Balmex do?

> To reiterate: my chiddush here would be that because untreated Pseudomonas...

Two other people already mentioned that s/he could wear glasses. I would
add that since most disinfecting systems do not require more than 20-30
minutes, why could s/he not disinfect before Shabbos and wear the lenses
overnight?

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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


[ 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         ]