Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 018

Saturday, May 21 2005

• Re: The Rambam and Korbonos
• Re: re:kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: Reality of the Universe
• Re: Kedusha
• Re: wearing Tzitzis out
• hashkafa and psak
• Re: authority of poskim in the realm of hashkafa
• Re: hashkafa and psak
• Hebrew Counting
• Re: Sefira question
• RE: Sefira question
• Re: Kedusha
• Kedusha
• Re: Kedusha
• Re: What should a kohen do?
• Re: Sanhedrin Overturning a Previous Drash
• SheLo Asani Isha

On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 08:46:57AM +0200, Shalom Berger wrote:
: The Rambam's well-known comment in the Moreh about korbanos being a
: response to pagan worship does not include any statement about the future,

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> See also the Narvoni ad loc, quoted by the Abravanel in the haqdamah
> to seifer Vayiqra. The Narvoni understands the Rambam as saying that
> qorbanos dress an innate human need, which we find emerged in AZ. This
> also explains the Ramban's question about Noach's qorban (at a time when
> no ovdei AZ lived) or the fact that Kayin and Hevel gave qorbanos before
> there ever was AZ.

There is a very nice defence of the Rambam [to the Ramban's harsh words]
on this subject in Tosefes Brocho, [who is slowly but surely becoming]
my favourite writer Rav Boruch Epstein [of TT fame]. Vayikro p. 6.

I have scanned it and can email it.

SBA
sba@sba2.com 

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
>> Perfect justice means that HQBH would not work things out for that juror's
>> co-worker's mother-in-law to get snapped at if she didn't deserve it.

>> By transforming a person's pain into the kehillah's pain, you make it
>> that mouch more likely that there is someone who doesn't deserve that
>> share of the communal suffering. Not to mention the cheshbon of the
>> kehillah itself as a corporate entity.

[R' David Riceman :]
> But perfect justice also means no less suffering for the sick person
> than he deserves. How does helping the co-worker's mother-in-law mean
> that it's perfect justice to mitigate the disease?

I should have added that, as far as I know, this is a modern
reinterpretation of schar va'onesh. In Hazal and rishonim it generally
means that the sum total of reward and punishment for the whole life -
including olam haba - is balanced (see, e.g. the Rambam's formulation
of his 11th principal, where he emphasises the importance of heaven,
and Hazal, cited in Rashi Vayeshev 37:2 s.v. "Eileh Toldoth Yaakov" -
"lo dayyan latzadikim mah shem'tukan lahem l'olam haba?", and think about
why the Ramban has to mention gilgul to justify God's treatment of Iyov).

David Riceman

On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 01:29:05PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
:               Now that I aired that out, I would like to prove to you
: that the Rambam holds like RZL. Ready? (drum roll please...) In Halachah
: alef the Rambam is magdir three items that one must know about Hashem:

: 1) he is the original (or first) matzuy
: 2) he is mamtzeey all the nimtzaim
: 3) any nimtzaim that exist are only due to the truth (meaning the reality)
: of his metzius

: In Halachah beis and gimmel he qualifies #3 and #1 respectively, and
: in halachah dalet he brings the pasuk of Hashem Elokim Emes that you
: and RZL are arguing about. My proof is that since Halachah dalet is a
: biblical source for the Rambam's previous three halachos, and the second
: category in halachah aleph is "mamtzeey kol nimtza" which translated means
: perpetuates (present tense) all that exists, thus, the metzius of Hashem
: is qualitatively different from the rest of the nimtzaim even during
: the duration of the existence of creation because he is actively being
: mihaveh (mamtzeey) them, just as RCV says....

Not necessarily.

Suppose I turn the crank on a hand powered flashlight. The light only
exists only while I'm turning the crank. Does that make the light less
real than I am?

I think one only sees this ontological progression, rather than a causal
one, when you compare Hil Yesodei haTorah pereq 2 with Plotinus, and see
he's likely describing the same shitah. I've argued on Avodah in the past
that due to Averroes' error in publishing Plotinus under Aristo's name,
the Rambam was likely a neo-Platonist. I'm not sure, though, that he
took the position this far. It would have made his argument for First
Cause FAR simpler than the begining of Moreh cheileq 2.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 25th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          taking control too extreme?

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 02:11:14PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: First it must be stated that Kedusha is a spiritual concept of
: purity... of removal of Tumah. Kedusha is in no way a physical concept.

That would make qedushah synonymous with taharah.

Because RYGB raised the question, I finally cleaned up a blog entry I
was working on based on my notes for a derashah I gave last parashas
Qedoshim.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/05/qedushah.shtml>.

My own conclusion:
> [Developing Rav Shimon Shkop's idea i]n other words (my words), qedushah
> isn't merely separation; it's separation FOR a given purpose. "Qedoshim
> atem Lashem..." Or the formula for marriage, "Harei at mequdeshes li" --
> and there the purpose isn't G-d's it's to be united with her husband's
> goals! In my humble opinion, this unites the position of the Rambam and
> Rashi with that of the Ramban. They focus on the word "separation?", he,
> on the "for". It's a definition of being qadosh that would explain both
> descriptions of what it means to act qadosh.

BTW, I'd say taharah is separation /from/, qedushah is separation /for/.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 25th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          taking control too extreme?

About 2/3 free and 1/3 chulios... While the gemara (Menachos 39a) calls
it "noi techeiles", Rashi says that it's true for tzitzis in general.
It sounds to me akin to our speaking of "netilas lulav" or "lulav and
esrog" when we mean all 4 middos.

While "ure'isem oso" can't refer to tzitzis (which I believe would be
"osah"), it could refer to the resulting gedil. Or, to put it another
way, if ure'isem oso only refers to techeiles, where do we know that
lavan are only during the day?

But the gemara is clear: pasuq is only referring to zeman. This is at most
an extension of the idea, in consonance with "lema'an tizqeru". For that
matter, RSMandel (in the aforementioned canonical post on the subject)
cited acharonim who hold that tallis qatan is entirely mnemonic, and
"only" on the level of minhag rather than qiyum hamitzvah. Which would
be true even if we needed to extend it beyond techeiles to laval as well.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 25th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          taking control too extreme?

RSC wrote:
> 1) I'm not convinced that R' Gershon is referring necessarily to
> science. As far as I'm concerned, he is asking a simple, straight forward
> question. Why should it be assur to say that Chazal erred? Period. In
> any field. This interpretation of his meaning is supported by the fact
> that he quotes the term "machish mageedeha" which applies to all words
> of Chazal, not just science. Frankly, the question is a very good one
> and cannot merely be swept aside

That's correct. Basically, what I was hoping that what would evolve
would be a summary of the mekoros, chazalim, Gaonim, Rishonim, Achronim,
of both sides of this discussion. Personal opinions are not what I'm
looking for. I'd actually like to formulate my own, after learning this
whole thing us like a sugya, with all the mekoros opened up in front of
me. But I think in all of the shakla v'tarya, I've lost my focus on the
sources. So... let's try and keep this simple if possible.

If you have a Rambam, let's hear it. (OK, Gil Student already has that
in his article - but read the article, that Rambam's not so black and
white as RGS explains there)

Rav Hai Gaon? Where can I find it? RSRH, where's that? Rav Aryeh Carmel,
Rav Aryeh Kaplan? Where can I find that? What are the mekoros they based
their decisions on? Rav Dessler? What volume, page...

It seems that Rav Elyashiv is paskening on this too... That's what
I started with. Anyone want to venture what his mekoros are? I know,
some have asserted that he backed off and it's not quite a psak, but
that really confuses me :-(

If this is already listed somewhere on Avodah, please show me where and
that'll be great!

RG Seif wrote:
> What is the name of the issur of saying chazal were fallible? I've heard
> the words makchish magideha. Where does that term come from? Anyone know
> if it's been used in the past in a similar way?

RS Coffer wrote:
> 1) I'm not convinced that R' Gershon is referring necessarily to
> science. As far as I'm concerned, he is asking a simple, straight forward
> question. Why should it be assur to say that Chazal erred? Period. In
> any field. This interpretation of his meaning is supported by the fact
> that he quotes the term "machish mageedeha" which applies to all words of
> Chazal, not just science. Frankly, the question is a very good one and
> cannot merely be swept aside; however, I contend that whatever answers
> resolve the acceptance of their infallibility in Torah will automatically
> put the scientific issues in context as I will attempt to illustrate in
> number 2 biezras Hashem.

I would think that the Kessef Mishneh in Hilchos Mamrim 2:2 implies
that there is no issur in saying that Chazal erred, even in an halachic
matter. He asks why one cannot pasken against the Gemara and then *does
not* answer that Chazal were always correct. He gives a different answer.

This only refers to an *issur* in the matter. It does not refer to the
*advisability* of disagreeing with people who were close to Sinai and
spiritual giants.

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 12:40:00AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: 2) Infallibility implies the impossibility of error. Despite the most
: unassailable reasons one might forward for Chazal's infallibility,
: it is obvious that certain items in the Gemara simply don't "shtim"
: with modern day science. There are several ways to approach this seeming
: contradiction to the infallibly of Chazal.

: A) One is to say nishtanu hativ'im which means that at the time of Chazal,
: the various material conditions which existed perfectly coincided with
: Chazal's conclusions in science although in later generations those
: conditions became altered.

As in RGS's essay (and "Shemiras HaNefesh), that's not the only peshat
in nishtaneh hateva.

I know of three:
1- The laws of physics or biology changed since.

2- Breeding, diet and/or medicine changed, so that things turn out different
now than they would have in chazal's day. The problem is that this answer
doesn't cover non-biological cases, nor explain how a 7 month permature
baby would be healthier than an 8 month one.

3- R' Avraham Ben haRambam translates it as "scientific theory changed".
I don't know where, I saw this in ShN, a secondary source. This position
is that chazal were using contemporary theories that we now consider wrong.
Sound familiar?

: B) Another is to say that Chazal never meant to condone the scientific
: conclusions represented in the Gemara; rather, they were used to
: illustrate their Torah conclusions just as a mashal is used to illustrate
: a nimshal

Mashal has two meanings, both of which I've heard applied to this subject.

1- Mashal venimshal. The Ramchal writes that Chazal's science, like their
aggadic stories, were used as meshalim for which they only cared about
the nimshal. Illustrating a point doesn't require checking whether the
metaphor is good science or not. This only works for science cited in
aggaditos, though.

2- Lemashal. As an example. In this case, chazal's pesaq stands --
for a situation that didn't actually arise. One might say that if there
were rodents that grow from the dirt, or an equivalent case, that would
be the din. Without looking to whether the rodents in question actually
did. Picture today, if some scientific discovery is in the news, people
often ask famous rabanim about the implications. And they discuss the
case, saaying what would be the din if the discovery turns out to be
true. Not a declaration that the science is necessarily correct.

...
: "That is why it's so relevant that the Rambam, who (as far as we can tell)
: coined the term makchish magideha, did question not only their science
: but even halachic conclusions based on that science to pasqen lequla!"

: So, when I wrote above "This may be true but if Chazal used science to
: come to certain conclusions in Halachah, then what you are saying is
: that Chazal would then be fallible in Torah matters too, right?" and
: RMB responded "Wrong", I have yet to see precisely where I have erred.

See the above. Also, see my earlier post about pesaqim before the year
4001.

:> Why are you comfortable saying this about the Rambam, but not Chazal?

: Because the Rambam openly states, on many occasions, that he accepts Greek
: philosophical doctrines regarding this or that matter. Chazal do not do
: this...

They don't? Chokhmah bagyim taamin doesn't mean they sought the scientific
opinions of non-Jews?

...
:> Having a source does not mean having a concept of pesaq. Requiring
:> a source doesn't mean azlinan basar ruba, or that I can't revive the
:> position of a tanna that no amorah or rishon took.

: I have responded to R' Harry several times about this issue. All I can
: do is repeat. I am not discussing elective hashkafa. I am discussing
: mandatory hashkafa. If, for instance, one believes that Hashem has a body,
: his shechitah is treif (according to the Rambam).

Are you really willing to accept the implications of declaring this a
halachic position? See below.

On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 12:55:05PM -0500, Gershon Seif wrote:
: If you have a Rambam, let's hear it. (OK, Gil Student already has that
: in his article - but read the article, that Rambam's not so black and
: white as RGS explains there)

: Rav Hai Gaon? Where can I find it? RSRH, where's that? Rav Aryeh Carmel,
: Rav Aryeh Kaplan? Where can I find that? What are the mekoros they based
: their decisions on? Rav Dessler? What volume, page...

R' Hai Gaon: Sefer haEshkol (Jerusalem, 1984), vol. I, Hilkhot Sefer
Torah, pp. 157-158 and in B. Levin, Ozar haGeonim, Hagiga (Jerusalem,
1932), no. 66-69, pp 59-60.

I got that from R' Michl Rosensweig's article in tradition. He makes a
well buttressed argument:
<http://www.lookstein.org/articles/elu_ve_elu.htm>

R' Yisrael Salanter's comment comparing aggadic language with Germany's
two-headed eagle is given in R' Dovid Katz's Tenu'as haMussar. The text
is written as a block quote. I haven't yet found the time to look for it.

RSRH's essay in Hebrew:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf>
In English, printed in Nevei Y-m's "Light Magazine":
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaEnglish.pdf>

Notes of a talk by RHSchachter are at:
<http://www.aishdas.org/articles/rhsEilu.pdf>
Aside from that, RHS can be called.

R' Aryeh Carmell: <http://www.yasharbooks.com/freedom%20to%20interpret.pdf>
R' Aryeh Kaplan: <http://books.lulu.com/content/86052>

RAK was and RAC is a baal machashavah. This is actually more their
territory than R' Elyashiv's or RHS's. We should recall that Torah is
vast enough for people to be specialists. True in chazal's day, al achas
kamah vekamah for our gedolim. Why assume that the generation's most
noted poseqim are our most noted aggadic thinkers?

: It seems that Rav Elyashiv is paskening on this too... That's what
: I started with. Anyone want to venture what his mekoros are? I know,
: some have asserted that he backed off and it's not quite a psak, but
: that really confuses me :-(

Pardon the following emotionally-loaded argument, but I want to make it
clear what we're really talking about.

If R' Elyashiv is giving a pesaq, then I have to be up-front with
the chevrah. Don't drink wine with me unless it's mevushal. After
all, if this is truly a pesaq one is obligated to treat wine that
I touched as that handled by a kofeir. Probably true for well more
than half of our chevrah. (IIRC, RYGB wrote that he believes in
a multiple-creation explanation for an old universe, and that most
rishonim held likewise. What about qiddush in his home?) In addition,
no yeshivish person should assume the kashrus of OU shechitah -- most
MO Jews do not take R' Elayshiv's position on ma'aseh bereishis. Vehulu.

Are you really ready to take that step? Or do you not really believe R'
Elyashiv was actually pasqening that it's kefirah lehalakhah -- with all
that that entails? And if the latter, where is the maqor for pasqening
on aggadita?

Gut Voch!
-mi

PS: As for assuming RGSeif was asking about chazal's science in particular,
much of the issue with RNS's book is his assumption that chazal's zoology
need not be accepted.

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 27th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507               taking control result in relationship?

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:51:51PM +0300, Simon Montagu wrote:
>: I'm not sure this is restricted to biblical Hebrew anyway. "Sho'alin
>: vedoreshin behilchot haPesahh kodem laPesahh sheloshim yom". Does
>: anybody have a counter-example?

> I bet you could think of at least two without opening a book:
>     Shiv'im leshonos

Where is this expression found?

>     Avos melakhah arba'im chaseir achas.

That's different. The mishna is not saying "there are forty-minus-one
categories", it's saying "the number of categories is forty-minus-one";
note that in English the verb in that sentence is "is", not "are",
because the subject is the number, not the categories.

But perhaps if the mishna ever actually said "there are forty-minus-one
categories" (note that the verb in English has changed to "are", because
in this form the subject is the categories, not the number) it would say
"yesh arbaim-chaser-achat av". Or perhaps, since arbaim-chaser-achat is
not actually a number, it would be "avot", but "there are 39 categories"
would be "yesh shloshim vatesha av".

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 06:17:30PM -0400, Russell Levy wrote:
: The sephardi sefirah sheets that the shuls (Moroccan) give out in
: Toronto are just like the ashkenazim (with ba'omer instead of la'omer
: of course).

Moroccans say "ba'omer" /after/ counting the weeks? Most Sepharadim
and Eidot Hamizrach say "... ba'omer, sheheim XXX shavu'os ve YYY yamim."

This is aside from the original number question, which I thank you for
checking for me.

In v15n17, I wrote:
: By measured, I mean things like "mayim", which not only looks plural,
: it takes plural adjectives and verb, such as "vayyashoku hamayim"
: (Ber' 8:1). Distance is measured, but the amos it's measured in are
: counted. Which is why in English we say "How many feet?", not "How much
: feet?" I couldn't see an example to know if "orech" gets a "hayah" or
: "hayu". But one or 20 amos are called "amah" in the Torah.

This tangent was both distracting, and -- now that I look at it --
probably an error. I heard this idea WRT sheim E-lokim, but I tried
searching for examples. There's mayim and chayim, but what else?
Orach isn't treated belashon rabbim, nor rochav, nor qomah, nor mishqal...

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 27th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507               taking control result in relationship?

Some more replies I recvd privately:

SBA:
Somebody asked me why until Asoro be'Omer we say yomim (shnei yomim,
asoro yomim) but after that we say only yom - achad osor yom, esrim yom,
shloshim yom.

==
From: "G
> BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH
> SEE BAIDBOR CHAPTER 11,  POSUK 19
> SEE DEVORIM CHAPTER 1 , POSUK 2
=
From: SG
Reb Shloimeh,
this question could be asked on various places in Chumish as well.
shnei yomim(2 days),  shloisho yomim(3 days),  but when you get to eleven
you say 'achad osor yoim(11 days), the same with shono and shonim -
sholoish shonim(3 years),  but esrim shono (20  years)

IJ:
It has nothing to do with Sefira.
That's the biblical counting method.  See Sara's age.

MK:
> Numbers which conclude with a number which is a multiple of ten (usually)
> take the singular.  We follow the majority of cases in the Mikra (Gr"a
> Hil.Gittin 129:44). This is dealt at length with in my forthcoming (IY"H) 
> book
> "Perurei Dikduk."  see also Bamidbar Perek 11, Pasuk 19 and Rem"a Hil.
> Gittin126:4.  veShalom al Yisrael
> Meshullam Klarberg
 ---
Shulchan Oruch 489,Mishna Brurah sif koton 9,
Shulchan orach Horav 489,sif 8. regards AMH

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 02:11:14PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
>: First it must be stated that Kedusha is a spiritual concept of
>: purity... of removal of Tumah. Kedusha is in no way a physical
>: concept.

> That would make qedushah synonymous with taharah.

The above statement is inaccurate and I mis-spoke. Of course Kedusha
does not mean spiritual purity. Tahara does. I was trying to say over-all
is that Tahara is a pre-requisite for Kedusha and that Kedusha itself,
rather than Tahara might in fact be the antithesis of Tumah. I thinkl
the Bnei Yisroel's descent into the Mem-Tes Sharrei Tumah as slaves in
Egypt reflects that idea.

> BTW, I'd say taharah is separation /from/, qedushah is separation
> /for/.

That makes it part of the same continuum and doesn't really differentiate
between Tahara and Kedusha. I look at Tahara's interscetion with Kedusha
as its pre-condition. This for example is the reason the Cohen Gadol
requires constant Mikva immersions as he continues his Avodah.

HM

To bite on RYGB's post on kdusha, and its criticism of MO responses
to his citations of the ramban, the MO thinker who has addressed this
most cogently is Yeshaya Lebowits. He has argued that there are two
intellectual traditions about the nature of kdusha, one that viewed kdusha
as something imbued in us by hakadosh baruchhu, and the other that kdusha
is something that inherently refers only to hakadosh baruch hu - and
to us only in a derived sense, to the extent that we strive for avodat
hashem, and to other objects by their relationship to avodat hashem.
By this second tradition, kdoshim tihyu is an imperative and an ideal,
not a statement of fact - ki kol haeda kulam kdoshim is the statement
of korach, not moshe rabbenu.

The first intellectual tradition is one that can be viewed as perhaps
more mainstream (RYGB before had a discussion where he distinguished
between thinkers and machshava - eg, that RYBS did not do "machshava"
in his meaning - and what he would consider machshava clearly adopts the
first viewpoint), as in Kuzari, ramban, maharal, and all kabbala oriented
writers...... The second one seems to be implicit (almost explicit)
in the rambam, and some more modern thinkers

The second position, or at least a variant of it (in dialectical
tension with the first), is, however, (IMHO), quite common today,
perhaps explaining the response to RYGB.

Meir Shinnar

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 02:11:14PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
> First it must be stated that Kedusha is a spiritual concept of
> purity... of removal of Tumah. Kedusha is in no way a physical concept.

What Reb Harry writes is somewhat borne out by Reb Tzadok, who says taharah 
internally brings about kedushah externally. See Pri Tzaddik Pinchas #5 
where he discusses shetifah of a kos shel beracha inside and outside with 
the concept of tocho k'baro. I can't cite the Hebrew on Avodah, but I cite 
in my blog:

http://rygb.blogspot.com/2005/05/kedusha.html

At 09:40 PM 5/19/2005, [Micha] wrote:
>Because RYGB raised the question, I finally cleaned up a blog entry I
>was working on based on my notes for a derashah I gave last parashas
>Qedoshim.

>See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/05/qedushah.shtml>.

>My own conclusion:
>> [Developing Rav Shimon Shkop's idea i]n other words (my words), qedushah
>> isn't merely separation; it's separation FOR a given purpose. "Qedoshim
>> atem Lashem..." Or the formula for marriage, "Harei at mequdeshes li" --
>> and there the purpose isn't G-d's it's to be united with her husband's
>> goals! In my humble opinion, this unites the position of the Rambam and
>> Rashi with that of the Ramban. They focus on the word "separation?", he,
>> on the "for". It's a definition of being qadosh that would explain both
>> descriptions of what it means to act qadosh.

True - but Reb Harry raised an interesting nekudah that should somehow be 
reconciled with Reb Shimon: How does "kedushas keli" or "kedushas korban" 
or "kedushas ha'aretz" fit in, contextually?

YGG 

In Avodah V15 #17 dated 5/20/2005  R' Russell Levy writes:
> This morning, I davened at a shul at which I rarely daven on weekdays.
> They had 3 chiyyuvim -- to bar mitzvos, and a yarzheit (my zaidee's).
> The gabbai knows me, but I don't think he saw me. When Torah reading
> started, I didn't know that there were any bar mitzvos there, and the
> gabbai called out, "ein kan kohen, ya'amod", and i shouted, 'wait! i'm
> a kohen!'
> ....When I said it, they just kept going...

[I asked my husband, the resident kohen in our house. Below is his
answer --TK]

I understand that R. Moshe held that it is adequate for the gabbai to
say "bi'mechilas k'vod Kohanim" and not even ask the Kohanim to leave
as the assumption is that the kohanim would be mochel if requested to
do so. R. Soloveichik, on the other hand, held that the whole layning
is questionable if the first aliya does not go to a kohen.

 -Michael  Katz
=============

On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 01:19:16AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
:                                   R' Eliezer was a perfectly valid eid
: re'eeya however, Chazal were beholden to follow the kelaly hapesak and
: based on their drashos, they concluded that it needs to be written on
: two lines and thus overturned the previous method of doing it. (See
: Michtav MeEliyahu chelek dalet in the ma'amar titled Torah sheba'al peh
: uminhagim for a further clarification of this subject)

I would not have phrased REED's position this way.

Acccording to this ma'amar, in order for something to be TSBP, it needs
to either be a direct mesorah from Sinai or based on TSBK. Therefore,
what R' Eliezer reported doesn't have the power of Torah, but only of
minhag. Their pesaq, deriving from TSBK, /is/ Torah.

This pretty clearly relegates mimetic tradition to the realm of minhag,
and carries no halachic weight.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 27th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507               taking control result in relationship?

From: Zev Sero [on Areivim -mi]:
>> So, in halacha, women are supposed to be modest and subordinate to men.
>> That's why there is a bracha "shelo asani ishah."

> Not according to the sources I'm aware of, who say it's because women
> are obligated in fewer mitzvot than are men.

I never understood that answer. I hate to re-open the subject but I
will anyway.

What is so great about having more Mitzvos? If women have less Mitzvos
required of them it is because they are created in a more perfect state
than men are, in the eyes of God. It follows that women can achieve
the same level of holiness or reward in Olam Habah as men do by doing
less. Doing less is... bad? Why ...if the result is the same? What is
so great about doing... more?

The implication of saying that men thank God for giving them more
Mitzvos is that there is some intrinsic value in doing Mitzvos even
though the resulting status for men and women is of equal value in the
Eyes of God. This makes absolutely no sense. If men are thanking God for
not making them women there must be some advantage to being men that
makes being a woman inferior in some way. You can't be both superior
and inferior at the same time.

So I remain with the Kasha. Why do men make the Bracha, SheLo Asani Isha?

HM

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


[ 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         ]