Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 103

Thursday, January 26 2006

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 04:51:12 -0500
From: "Samuel Svarc" <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com>
RE: women, mitzvot and sachar

[Seeing that an entire digest passed with no one pointing out what to me
is an obvious point I will stop lurking to respond. - MSS]

From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>
>Maybe this would be a good time to go back to a question posted in the
>past by Chana Sassoon (Luntz). I'll be paraphrasing it according to
>my understanding, but I hope the other women will also chime in:
>So, we have 3 major categories that impact women's lives, take many
>hours and much energy, but for which they, apparently, have no Sachar:
>Having children;
>Educating children;
>Mitzvot SheHaZeman Gerama.

I do not believe that women get no schar for those actions. Someone
who gets someone else to learn doesn't have a share in the learning (to
farleg zich on one "man" mitzvah)? This goes against R' Akiva's punchline
("It's all because of..."), as well what the gemoro gives as the reason
that women will have t'chiyas hamaisim (without crawling through all
the technical details of the gemoro - but to look at the bottom line).


Yes. I believe that a woman shares with her husband the world to come
equally. They remain forever a team (for lack of a better word). The
gemoro, in different stories makes this almost explicit, as well
as showing that a woman is a baal(!) deah on their shared afterlife.
Remember the lady that had her husband (eventually) get a foot of their
(future) table and then return it? Or that a kohen can't testify about his
wife (in the case of a city captured by NJ's) that her hand never left
his because they are one entity (ishto kegufo) and one can't testify on
himself. Or that Hashem made Adam and Chava as one, therefore Chava's
neshomah was originally part of Adam's (and this is the model for all
future marriages). Etc.

So, even if I would grant that those categories garnish no schar (which
I emphatically do not) it is of little consequence to the place where
the schar counts, the afterlife, where they will share equally THEIR
schar. It can be viewed similarly to a couple where one spouse works
in a six figure job and one tends the house. Don't they spend the money
equally (I'm referring to an ideal situation - which the afterlife most
definitely will be.)?


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:35:17 EST
From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
(no subject)

> Here's an example where it doesn't work. In the days of the Chashmona'im,
> there were three orders for the parshiyos in the tefillah shel rosh. As
> is well known, the machloqes doesn't reach print until the rishonim,
> where only two options are described. If someone drew a chaqirah between
> Rashi a Rabbeinu Tam, they're likely to fail. No?
> And what  about when one is making a chiluq between two similar-seeming
> cases that have different dinim? There one is relying on the absence
>  of a middle option Iby assuming from silence where the assumption is
> even shakier.

I did not grasp the exampe entirely but one would approach a three sided
machlokes by positing two possibilities and then a "twist" on one of
the possibilities that results in a third shittah.

There is an approach of posing a three sided chakirah - that of the
Rogachover. I refer those who are interested to Ishim V'Shittos of
R. Zevin for a discussion.

Here are some non-Brisker thoughts on the tefillin machlokes. I am sorry
-it's pasting in with track changes enabled and i cant figure out how
to take them off.

M. Levin

R. Reuven Margolios Margolies in his edition of ג€˜She'eilot and
U'Teshuvot min Min Hasheamayim' discusses these questions with his
customary thoroughness and erudition, and concludinges that these
commandments were from the start to be fulfilled in two different
ways. In other words, two distinct manners of observance were prescribed
at Sinai;: one for the common folk and another for mystics. The mystics
could be trusted with this knowledge, for they are were aware of the
spiritual power that can be invoked by performing these commandments
in an alternate fashion. [1]. According to the Zohar, [2] ftn2), both
phylactery arrangements are correct, but Rashi's version is for periods
of suffering and dispersion while R. Tam's arrangement befits the time
of redemption. [3]. The Zohar also says something very similar about
the two modes of shofar blowing.

[1] The idea that there may be more than one way of fulfilling these
commandments was first offered by no lesser a figure than R,. Hai Gaon,
as cited in Ritba Ritva, R"HRosh Hashanah 33b.

[2] R. Margolies cites a number of passages in this work that explicitly
state this such a ruling regarding both tefillin and shofar blasts.

[3] Divrei Shaul (MegilaMegillah 16b) suggests that this is why the
tefillin that were discovered in the grave of the prophet Ezekiel were
written according to Rashi, for Ezekiel lived in exile and tefillin of
R. Tam are not appropriate outside the Land of Israel. See Be'er Ba'er
Heitev (38,:5) in the name of the Ari.

There is archaeological evidence for the idea that more than one mode of
observance coexisted historically. Aruch Hashulchan [1] cites a number of
sources that reveal that two different arrangements of for phylacteries
already existed already in the times of the Geonim, much before times
ofearlier than Rashi and Tosafot. The earliest pair of tefillin that
has been examined in regard to this question is the one discovered in
the burial place of prophet Ezekiel, and it was written according to
Rashi. [2]. How far back in history can the disagreement between Rashi
and R. Tam be traced? Interestingly, excavations in Massada have unearthed
many pairs of tefillin; some of them follow the view of Rashi and others
of R. Tam. [3]. Is it possible that some followers of the messianic
pretender Bar Kochba rearranged their tefillin in accordance with the
view later reported by R. Tam because they believed that Redemption has
already arrived? [4]

[1] O". CHh. 34.

[2] Piskei Tosafot to Menachot 34b write that in Nehardea and Jerusalem
two pairs of ancient phylacteries were found, one in accordance with
Rashi and one in accordance with R. Tam.

[3] S. Goren, Torat Hamoadim, pp. 496-510, and Machanayim 62 (1961),
5-14, 1961. Pairs that are arranged in a way not brought down by any
Rishonim were also found Massada; ג€"these contain a number of other
serious deviations from the Halacha and may be tefillin of various
sectarians who joined the Zealots in Massada. Such pairs of tefillin
were also discovered in Qumran, ג€"in a community that clearly did not
follow the traditions of the Sages.

[4] In Sefer Emunat Chachamim, as quoted by R. Margolioes, R. Abiad
Sar Shalom suggests that Rashi tefillin of Rashi were used after the
destruction of the Temple, and of those in accordance with R. Tam while
it was still standing. See GittinGittin 58, a where it is said that
forty baskets of tefillin were found on the heads of those who were
killed in Betar.,

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:09:43 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Chaqiros and Dichotomies

On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 07:40:22PM -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: WRT to the Brisker shitta using a dichotomous approach, I remember (it
: has been a while, and don't have it at work) in Zevin's Ishim veshittot,
: in talking about the Rogatochover, that he said that while the Brisker
: shitta was tzvei dinim, the Rogatchover found three....

Both are problematic, IMHO, because you're limited in the kinds of
answers you can propose by it. To my mind, if a methodolgy directs
you toward certain kinds of answers, it should insure that you
can identify which questions to use it with.

My point I was trying to make about tefillin was archeological. Yigal
Yadin found three kinds of tefillin in the Chashmonai caves. (The
same three had been earlier found in Qumran. Now, while
it's possible the third parashah arrangement was sectarian, it too
conforms to the Beraisa in Menachos of placing Shemos on the
right and Devarim on the left -- the same source as Rashi and
R"T. See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol13/v13n051.shtml#12>

(And I don't think Tzeduqim ever wore physical tefillin, never
mind ones that fit a requirement that appears only in TSBP.)


Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
micha@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:39:38 EST
From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
Shiras HaYam

> By the way, I've been advocating in my posts that shira could merely
> mean poetic recital without a melody. No one asked my source, which has
> saved me from further embarassment, because I can't find a definitive
> one. (It's one of those things "I've always known.

The expression - Malachei Hasores OMRIM shira and other similar
expressions - amry shira al hayom.

M. Levin

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:25:50 -0500
From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
RE: Shiras HaYam

>> By the way, I've been advocating in my posts that shira could merely
>> mean poetic recital without a melody. No one asked my source, which has
>> saved me from further embarassment, because I can't find a definitive
>> one. (It's one of those things ""I've always known.

> The expression - Malachei Hasores OMRIM shira and other similar
> expressions - amry shira al hayom.

Y'yashar kochacha. This still leaves open the question, however, regarding
whether Shiras HaYam could have been tuneless, since the verb there is
"az yashir."

Zvi Lampel

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:37:34 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Shiras hayam

On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 04:00:58PM +1100, SBA wrote:
: Does shirah means poetry with or without a tune?
: Ayen Sukkah 50b the machloke about 
:  "...Ikkar shirah bik'el" or "Ikkar shirah bepeh.."

: And what about "Hashir shehaleviyim hoyu "OMRIM"  beBHMK"?
: Seems to indicate that 'shir' can be 'said' and not sung.

I think the shoresh refers to the lyrics -- and therefore includes both
song and poetry. We're trying to make a chiluq where there is none.

But it's interesting to note that "hashirah hazos" has the verb "yashir",
not "yomar", and is accompanied by instruments. However, when the
lashon zakhar conjugation is used, "hashir shehalviim hayu omerim".
Perhaps the difference is that "shir" is poetry, but "shirah" is

Aside: There is a machloqes as to whether mecholos were a hollow wind
instrument, or a kind of marimba -- a xylophone like instrument where
the surface struck is a hollow tube rather than something flat.


Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
micha@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:36:15 -0500
From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
whatever happened to havineinu?

We were chatting about havineinu at dinner last night. We had no trouble
finding the text in a Hebrew siddur, but somehow none of the siddurim
with English translation we checked included it. Why not?

David Riceman 

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:51:03 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Tefilas Haderech nowadays

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 01:06:03PM +0000, saulweinreb@comcast.net wrote:
: There is no problem of bracha levatala when you are saying a tefila which
: is a bakashas rachamim. As long as you are being mispallel to Hashem it is
: an appropriate tefila....

Then why don't we make tefillos nedavah anymore? Chayei Adam 27:17
requires a certain level of kavanah which we are unlikely to
achieve. Otherwise one risks a berakhah levatalah.

Benching is hoda'ah, not nehenin or mitzvah. Yet it's an exception to
safeiq deOraisa lechumrah because safeiq berakhos lequlah -- again,
because of the risk of berakhah levatalah.


Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:02:16 -0500
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
RE: Emunah, Perakim and the Mabul

> I do want to point out that we do not find any RIshon of stature, to my
> knowledge, ( I exclude Aristoteleans such as R. S. ibn Tibbon and others)
> who wrote that anything after the Maaseh Breishis is a moshol.

There are allegorical interpretations of gan eden (IIRC abarbanel, and
different mefarshim of the rambam, and rav kook seems to endorse it as
well), although this is close to ma'aseh breishit.

Furthermore, depends on your definition of allegory. The rambam's
statement that any events wherea an angel appears did not occur literally
but in a prophetic dream applies also after ma'ase breshit - eg, to the
beginning of parshat vayera. Would understanding the flood not as a
moshol, but occuring in noah's prohetic vision be better?

> The Rashbo's comments about those who claim that Avraham and Sara were
> chomer and tsurah and the 12 Shevatim represent 12 segments of the
> Zodiac are well known. Extreme allegorizations seems to have been
> rejected long ago and we need to find other answers for the problems
> of archeological evidence.

The rashba's comments indicate that that was a thread - which is far more
extreme than anything proposed - and we know that it was held by major
rabbanim in Provence (the Meiri defended them against the rashba, even
though he doesn't himself necessarily advocate that). Dismissing people
as aristotelians doesn't mean they don't count....

Of course, bringing the rashba into the thread does point out something
else - that recent attempts at declaring threads of interpretation as
kfira and being ruled out of the mesora do hark back to the attempts to
ban the rambam - something that is essentially being tried again..

Meir Shinnar

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:22:26 -0500
From: Gil Student <gil.student@gmail.com>

Meir Shinnar wrote:
>Therefore, allegorizing the mabul is not fitting torah around science -
>it is realizing that the essence of torah is completely unrelated to the
>historical reality of the mabul - something that there is a strong case in
>hazal for...

Micha Berger wrote:
>All you've shown is that denying the mabul isn't kefirah. Not that it
>isn't whittling mesorah down to fit science.

I think this raises an important point: What is the status of
non-ikkarim? Is the fact that a belief does not have the status of an
ikkar emunah mean that one has the right to disagree with it at will or
just that someone who disputes it does not receive the stigma of heresy
but is still wrong.

To make an halachic analogy, let's say that disagreeing with an ikkar
is assur. Is disagreeing with a non-ikkar mutar or patur aval assur?

In Menachem Kellner's introduction to his translation of Abarbanel's
Rosh Amanah, he states that Rambam's positing that there are ikkarim make
philosophy possible while Abarbanel's final position that everything in
Judaism is an ikkar makes philosophy impossible. He seems to be taking
the stance that disagreeing with a non-ikkar is "mutar" and not "patur
aval assur".

Anyone have any mareh mekomos on this issue?

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:12:19 -0600
From: "Gershon Seif" <gershonseif@yahoo.com>
the Torah's response to sex offenders

I was learning with someone who is not afraid to speak his mind,
ever. We've been learning sefer hachinuch and he recently learned
that a man who rapes a woman has to marry her (if she agrees) and pay
a fine. This halacha upset him very much. He wanted to know what if he
raped a very young minor? What about jail time? What about rehabilitating
the offender? Does the Torah do anything about the fact that this man
will be back on the street doing it again and again?

Now of course, I have faith that the perpetrator of the crime will get
his just punishment by Hashem. But this person was asking me in what
way will this person be deterred or prevented from repeating the crime.

It's similar to the machlokes betweeen R' Akiva and the chachomim (IIRC)
about if a beid din should try and prevent putting murderes to death
or not.

I want to hear what the olam has to say about this question in relation
to what is now a given (at least in every country that I know of) - that
there are psychological illnesses that people have. The Torah seems to
be treating this as if it is just a simple crime, and the only issue is
the punishment.

I think he's asking a fair question. How should I respond?

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 06:04:02 -0500
From: Yitzchok Levine <llevine@stevens.edu>
Why is Honey Kosher?

>If an enzyme needs supervision, why is honey kosher?

 From http://www.jewishcooking.org/kosherfood/honey.html and 

Why is honey Kosher?

The Mishna in Tractate Bechorot states:

"That which comes from something which is Tameh [non-Kosher] is Tameh,
and that which comes of that which is Tahor [Kosher] is Tahor." The
product of a non-Kosher animal is not Kosher.

So why is bee honey Kosher?

The Talmud in the same Tractate quotes a Beraita (a Halachic teaching
from the time of the Mishna) which says:

"Why did they say that bee-honey is permitted? Because even though they
bring it into their bodies, it is not a *product* of their bodies [it
is stored there but not produced there]."

All the Sages of the Mishna agree with this ruling. One of them, Rabbi
Yaakov, disagrees with the *reasoning*. He claims that bee-honey is
Kosher based on his interpretation of Vayikra 11:21. According to him,
the verse prohibits one to eat a flying insect, but *not* that which is
*excreted* from it.

<http://www.milechai.com/judaism/rambam.html>Maimonides codifies bee-honey
as being Kosher, as does the Shulchan Aruch.

You may wonder: How could one even think that bee-honey is not Kosher
-- the Torah refers to the Land of Israel as "a Land flowing with milk
and honey"! Certainly the Torah would not choose a non-Kosher product
as a means for describing the beauty of the Land of Israel! This may
come as a surprise, but the honey mentioned in the verse about "milk
and honey" is not bee-honey -- rather it is fig-honey. The Talmud in
Tractate Berachot tells us that another verse "It is a Land of wheat,
barley, grapes, figs and pomegranates -- a Land of olives and *honey*"
-- is referring to date-honey.

    * Tractate Bechorot, pages 5b, 7b.
    * The Codes of Maimonides, Laws of Forbidden Foods 3:3.
    * Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 81:8.
    * Tractate Megillah, page 6a, Rashi.
    * Chumash, Book of Devarim, 8:8.
    * Tractate Berachot, page 41b, Rashi.

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:39:02 -0500
From: Shaya Potter <spotter@yucs.org>
Re: Why is Honey Kosher?

On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 06:04 -0500, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
> From http://www.jewishcooking.org/kosherfood/honey.html and
> http://www.ohr.org.il/ask/ask018.htm
>                          Why is honey Kosher?
> The Mishna in Tractate Bechorot states: 

I know all that. the point (as I understand it) is that while the enzyme
does change the "ingreidents" into honey, it doesn't add anything to it.

so perhaps I should have been a little less mysterious with my question.

if an enzyme needs supervision, why did the gemara say honey is kosher,
as enzymes in the bee are what produce the honey.

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 13:09:42 -0000
From: joshua.kay@addleshawgoddard.com
Pas Akkum - Kashrus

<<Actually I believe that most of France does indeed rely on this today
and it is the general practice to eat the baguettes there.>>

Dayan O Steiner, of the Manchester Beth Din, informed me that is no
longer the case, and that one may not eat a "stam" baguette in France
any more. I am not sure when this changed.

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:49:33 -0500
From: "L. E. Levine" <llevine@stevens.edu>
Pas Akum - Kashrus

At 06:30 PM 01/25/2006, you wrote:
>Secondly, how 'questionable' are these emulsifiers and other additives?
>Are they edible and do they have other Kashrus-altering effects on the
>finished bread, e.g. Nosen Ta'am?
>Jacob Farkas

Is the implication of your questions that organizations like the OU
are wasting resources giving supervision on ingredients that do not
require supervision? I sincerely doubt that this is the case. After all,
as others have pointed out on Areivim, there are times when the OU uses
(appropriate) heterim to allow the use of certain ingredients.

Rabbis Y. Belsky and H. Schechter are the ones who pasken these sorts of
shailos for the OU. I doubt that they are simply creating "busy work"
for the OU by paskening that the OU supervise ingredients that do not
require supervision.

Yitzchok Levine 

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         ]

< Previous Next >