Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 192

Fri, 05 Nov 2010

• 1. A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND QUESTIONS (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Fwd: Re: Truth and the Rambam (David Riceman)
• 3. Re: A Question About Yitzchok Taking a Canaanite Wife (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Fwd: Re: Truth and the Rambam (Micha Berger)
• 5. answered tfilos (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 6. Life's Role / Gender Roles (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: answered tfilos (Rich, Joel)

 From http://tinyurl.com/28v6lhw

A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND QUESTIONS

By: Eli Genauer

Amongst all the difficult tractates of the Talmud, Eruvin stands head 
and shoulders above most. The Gemara tries to describe in words what 
would normally take a picture to understand. Thankfully, our printed 
editions of Eruvin contain many diagrams, in the body of the text, in 
Rashi and in Tosafot. These diagrams help us make sense of what is 
going on. Truthfully, I don't know how one could learn this Gemara 
without the diagrams.

I would like to analyze one such diagram and trace its history in the 
printed editions of Eruvin. At the end of my analysis, I will leave 
the reader with a few questions to ponder.

See the above URL for the rest of this article


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20101103/dfcdb659/attachment.html>

RMB:

<<There is a philosophical problem called akrasia, why people make bad

choices. Rather than invoking middos or taavos, according to Aristo,
the ultimate source is bad opinions.>>

You've confused Aristotle with Socrates.  See Guthrie, A History of 
Greek Philosophy, vol. 6, pp. 338-339, and the sources he cites.

<<The Rambam agrees, although he is more

specific in what kind of knowledge, and he uses that idiom as well.>>

The whole thrust of H. Deos and the 8 Perakim is against this opinion.

<<Aristo also has no room in his logic for fuzziness. Something is either
blue or it isn't.>>

Aristotle distinguished between theoretical and practical knowledge.  See
Guthrie, cited above.  He leaves room for fuzziness in practical knowledge,
and ethics is a branch of practical knowledge.

<<The Rambam's problem with machloqes and with the notion that two valid
interpretations of an existing din could exist I think stem from Aristo's
Logic.>>

But where does the Rambam say that he has a problem at all?

<<And his problems with interpretation, with pesaq that is non-legislative,
shows up in the Rambam's preference for his own understanding of the
mishnah rather than the gemara's (and he'll push the gemara into fitting)
and his own understanding of the gemara over that of the geonim.>>

What problems with interpretation? Are you introducing a new idea here? If
he interprets the mishna according to his understanding of the gemara's
understanding of the mishna, how is that a repudiation of the gemara's
understanding? Why shouldn't he reject the geonom if he holds that no
post-Talmudic interpretations are binding? Why are these two phenomena in
the same paragraph?

<<I thought you were arguing that the Rambam was attempting to start a
new school!>>

He was, but he failed.	If you study his tshuvos you'll see that he learned
and paskened like a student of the Rif; but he wanted his students to start
with MT, which would have meant a new methodology.

<<But a bigger
problem is that you lack the flow of the pesaq through time until the
Yad, you usually lack any indication of sevara, etc... Guessing at davar
mitokh davar just from final conclusions is way too error prone.>>

But according to the Rambam "Guessing at davar mitokh davar just from final
conclusions" is the art of talmud, and according to the BhT "error prone"
is hard to define. So from whose perspective is this paragraph written?

RMB:
: Notice how Hil' Mamrim never mentions the word "pesaq" or some other
>>: language that would speak to the interpretation of law.
Me:

> >  H. Talmud Torah 3:3.
RMB:
I think this is a typo. Pereq 3 is about the importance of talmud Torah. 
I see "lo yafsiq" as in don't stop learning in order to do a mitzvah 
someone else could, but nothing about pesaq.

You're right.  I meant 5:3: "haya beino uvein rabo 12 mil mutar 
l'hashiv.  ul'hafrish min haissur afilu befnei rabbo mutar l'horos."

<<That's a topic we discussed before, "shenayim she'amru ta'am echad".
That's judgment in dinei nefashos, not pesaq.>>

I think this distinction is immaterial.

David Riceman

On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 01:37:37AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: Of course I was mistaken.  Aner, Eshkol and Mamre were Amorites --  
: descendants of Canaan.  If Eliezer had not found a suitable wife for  Yitzchak in 
: Aram, or she wasn't willing to come to E'Y, then Yitzchak would  indeed have 
: married a Canaanite woman.

Perhaps mibenos Kenaan didn't refer to Canaanite women but to women from
the land of Canaan?

I wanted to say that Aneir, Eshkol and Mamrei were "nefesh asher asu
becharan", freed from their genetic and cultural origins. But then, so
was Eliezer. So then the thought crossed my mind that maybe Eliezer's
living in Eretz Kenaan exposed his daughter to influences that the
converts in Trans-Jordan were not subject to.

And who other than the avos attended the yeshivos of Sheim vaEiver?
Wouldn't any of them have daughters? But again, they too would be
living in Kenaan.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 12:57:54PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> RMB:
>> There is a philosophical problem called akrasia, why people make bad
>> choices. Rather than invoking middos or taavos, according to Aristo,
>> the ultimate source is bad opinions.

> You've confused Aristotle with Socrates.  See Guthrie, A History of  
> Greek Philosophy, vol. 6, pp. 338-339, and the sources he cites.

BH! At least my ability to get muddled isn't limited to Torah!

But here I got my impression from Ethics 1147.b.6-7 and 1152.a.6-7.
Practical knowledge banishes akrasia and akrasia ends when his ignorance
does.

He might be saying that akrasia happens when opinion is weaker than
desire, kind of like RYS's notion that the yh"t is seikhel, and the yh"r
is dimyon and taavah. Or Aristo might be saying that taavos come from
the wrong opinion that the joy of tasting chocolate is the greater good.

But the bit of Aristo I was looking at does *seem* to be saying that
man's perfection lies in gaining knowledge. Yes, in this case - practical
knowledge.

>> The Rambam agrees, although he is more
>> specific in what kind of knowledge, and he uses that idiom as well.

> The whole thrust of H. Deos and the 8 Perakim is against this opinion.

Only if he believes that middos aren't merely the consequence of da'as.
Leshitaso, AIUI, knowledge and opinion cause dei'os. Thus his placing
it in Hilkhos Dei'os in Sefer Mada. As well as the masqanah of the Moreh,
which places truth decision as being above ethical decision.

...
>> The Rambam's problem with machloqes and with the notion that two valid
>> interpretations of an existing din could exist I think stem from Aristo's
>> Logic.

> But where does the Rambam say that he has a problem at all?

I meant to say: The Rambam's not saying that a machloqes means that two
valid interpretations of existing din could exist (ie his problem with
machloqes as understood by other rishonim), I think stems from Aristo's
logic.

>> And his problems with interpretation, with pesaq that is non-legislative,
>> shows up in the Rambam's preference for his own understanding of the
>> mishnah rather than the gemara's (and he'll push the gemara into fitting)
>> and his own understanding of the gemara over that of the geonim.

> What problems with interpretation? Are you introducing a new idea
> here? If he interprets the mishna according to his understanding of the
> gemara's understanding of the mishna, how is that a repudiation of the
> gemara's understanding? Why shouldn't he reject the geonom if he holds
> that no post-Talmudic interpretations are binding? Why are these two
> phenomena in the same paragraph?

The case that started all this going in my head was one where Rashi chose
a dochaq peshat in the mishnah but one that smoothly fit the gemara,
but the Rambam chose the simple peshat in the mishnah at the expense of
creating a dochaq peshat in the gemara.

That conversation (off list, and parts of which were even non-electronic)
with RZL was happening at close to the same time I encoutered the Rambam's
letters to Luneil about how he used to follow the ge'onim's peshatim in
the gemara, but he found it to be too error prone. In both cases, the
Rambam is trusting his own assessment of the original text over later
development. Although admittedly, he doesn't reject the gemara as much
as force it to fit his understanding of the mishnah.

In both cases, the Rambam isn't saying that an earlier, and perhaps even
accepted lemaaseh (nispasheit) peshat in a din is reason to choose that

Just as in Hil' Mamrim... He says that a Sanhedrin that is split as to
how to pasqen in an existing law should follow the majority. But anyone
afterward who assesses they made a mistake should follow the actual din --
ie the din as they themselves understand it. There is no authority given
to pesaq in the sense of how existing din is understood / interpreted. The
only time one needs a beis din of greater formal authority is when
overturning legislation -- derashah, taqanah, gezeirah or minhag.

The Rambam's blurring between "made a mistake" and "according to
my understanding made a mistake" shows up both in Mamrim and WRT his
second-guessing geonim. He assumes the poseiq's own assessment is fact,
not just another assessment no more grounded than the existing ones.

...
>> But a bigger
>> problem is that you lack the flow of the pesaq through time until the
>> Yad, you usually lack any indication of sevara, etc... Guessing at davar
>> mitokh davar just from final conclusions is way too error prone.

> But according to the Rambam "Guessing at davar mitokh davar just
> from final conclusions" is the art of talmud...

I don't see "just from final conclusions". On the contrary, Hil TT
1:10 ncludes "yaskil acharis hadavar *meireishiso*" and he should judge
using the middos until he knows "heiakh hu iqas hamidos vehei'akh yotzi
ha'asur vehamutar". Talmud appears to me to include knowing enough of
where the existing din came from to know how to extrapolate from it.
Not just using raw conclusions.


> RMB:
>: Notice how Hil' Mamrim never mentions the word "pesaq" or some other
>: language that would speak to the interpretation of law.

> ...            I meant 5:3: "haya beino uvein rabo 12 mil mutar  
> l'hashiv.  ul'hafrish min haissur afilu befnei rabbo mutar l'horos."

The need for distance is the chiyuv of morah harav, as per 5:4.

But in any case, the Rambam doesn't discuss authority. A rav does give
pesaq to his talmidim, but it has nothing to do with what anyone else
in the future thinks the same din should be. There is nothing in the
Rambam to stop me from following a new peshat in Chazal if I am truly
convinced that my peshat in the original taqanah / deOraisa is right
and the bulk of the rishonim and acharonim before me -- including the
Yad! (as he tells chakhmei Luneil) -- erred.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine

http://havolim.blogspot.com/2010/11/toldos-breishis-2521-vayeiaseir
-lo.html 
 what is the price/nisayon that  tfilos that are answered comes with...


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101104/0e640818/attachment-0001.htm>

Some excerpts from a discussion on Cross Currents
<http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2010/11
/02/women-and-talmud-study-a-hashkafic-perspective>
or <http://bit.ly/aopUqD>, parts that touched on topics we discussed
here in the past. It was difficult to trim and leave the conversation in
tact, but I didn't want to include some of the more areivim-esque pro-
and anti-feminism comments.

BTW, anyone able to answer R Bob Miller's question?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Women and Talmud Study
By Guest Contributor, on November 2nd, 2010
by Rabbi Heshy Grossman

[Editors' Note: As a follow-up to a recent discussion, Rabbi Grossman
sent us this article, which presents the oft-misunderstood theoretical
framework underlying the traditional Orthodox perspective on women
and Talmud study. It was originally published in Tradition magazine
(Vol. 28:3) as part of a symposium on women's education.]

Present-day discussions on this theme often overlook an obvious
question: how do men and women differ in Torah's eyes, and what are
their respec?tive roles in G-d's eternal scheme? Once this matter is
understood, the differences in Torah study for men and women are seen to
be a natural, organic outgrowth of the way the classical Jewish tradition
views the sexes.

The biblical difference between men and women is literally expressed
in their given names, ish and isha. The letters yod and heh mark the
differences in these names. The Talmud (Menahot 29b) says cryptically:
This world was created with the letter heh; the world to come, with the
letter yod." Maharal and others write that the yod, the man's letter,
represents the metaphysical -- a world of pure thought -- that which
transcends the earth. Therefore the yod, a simple dot, floats above the
line of text, for it symbolizes that which is devoid of such physical
ballast as time, matter, or space -- the letter of the world-to-come. The
heh, the woman's letter, is the direct counter-balance to the yod. It is
the letter which is formed only by a breath. Just as G-d gave us life
by breathing His breath into us, so every human utterance is formed by
human breath. As such, the heh reflects the creation of the physical
universe. The yod symbolizes the floating dot of transcendence, while
the heh symbolizes maintenance of this earth. (Note that yod and heh in
the same word form the name of G-d.)

That this mystical concept is rooted in reality is illustrated by
calligra?phy and biology. Calligraphy: the heh is rooted solidly on
the line of text. This is the letter of the woman, not a nebulous dot
suspended in space without earthly moorings -- as is the yod of the man --
but firmly planted with?in the boundaries of this world, the embodiment
of the very breath of life. Further calligraphy: just as the written heh
conceals within itself the tran?scendent yod, so does each woman conceal
within herself the ability to combine the physical and the transcendent,
and thus to imbue physical life with sanctity.

Biology: while the man provides the initial root of conception, the
woman nurtures and develops the fetus into life, providing it with her
own heh/breath of life. This pattern continues after birth. Man is the
sustaining force behind the home; woman maintains the basic framework
which brings the home's potential to fruition, nursing the children
into maturity.

This partnership of heaven/man and earth/woman underlies the famous
discussion in Bava Metzia 59a: "He who follows the advice of his wife
falls into Gehenna.... But people say, "If your wife is short, bend to
listen to her"? [The statements are reconciled, because]... this refers
to heavenly matters, and this, to worldly matters." That is, in worldly
matters, the husband must listen to her, because she alone is capable
of carrying out G-d's plan in the physical world. Once again a careful
balance is struck between the male and the female.

(This, according to our classical thinkers, is the meaning of the woman's
blessing, she-asani kiretzono -- loosely translated as "Who has made me
according to His will." That is, she acknowledges G-d for having created
her with the express purpose of actualizing G-d's will -- kiretzono,
literally, "as His will." That is, she carries His will into the temporal
world. The man, on the other hand, whose ideal state is not of this world
and whose essence yearns to escape from earthly restraints, recites the
negatively worded "who has not made me a woman". That is, man's essence
is rooted in transcendence and not on earth which is represented by isha).

Thus, traditional gender classification and even biological gender
differences are merely surface paradigms for deeper metaphysical
differences. An understanding of these different creation-roles should
clarify, for example, that if men emphasize Torah sheb'al peh and women
do not, this is not due to some obtuse masculine desire for power, any
more than the woman's -- and not the man's -- ability to conceive a child
reflects a feminine desire for power. In each case it is a reflection
of the way G-d structured His creation.

All of which leads to the issue at hand: Torah study has two
purposes. Firstly, knowledge of Torah is the basis for living by the
Torah and is the source of moral values. An ignorant Jew, man or woman,
can hardly live a halakhic life without knowledge. In this regard,
we study Torah in order to know what to do and how to behave.

But Torah study, specifically Talmud study, has another purpose as well
-- to direct man's consciousness towards transcendent, non-worldly
con?cerns. The oft-heard complaint regarding the impracticality of
Talmud study is thus totally off the mark, since the purpose of Talmud
study is not merely to know what to do. For this, one studies Shulkhan
Arukh. Further, it is not knowledge per se that is the focal point of
Talmud study. Rather, it is the act and process of study itself that is
the focal point -- not this-earthly, but transcendent; not utilitarian,
but simply engaging one's mind and soul in a non-earthly abstraction.

This dual purpose of Torah study -- knowing how to live as a Jew on
earth, and study as an exercise in non-earthly concerns -- reflects the
differ?ent roles of women and men in creation. While the success of the
man is measured by the extent to which his mind is fully occupied with
Torah, the success of the woman is measured by the extent to which she
gives material life to that Torah.

Certainly a woman's mind is capable of comprehending Talmudic
analysis. This is not the issue. The issue is that Talmud study -- Torah
sheb'al peh -- symbolizes un-actualized ideas -- and is not congruent
with the woman's role of "actualizer-on-this-earth."

For this reason, the current calls for 'greater exposure of women to
classic rabbinic texts' strikes an artificial note -- not because women
should be barred from the texts or because they cannot absorb them. The
texts are not the issue. Those calls not only echo secularist concerns;
they also reveal an oversight of the most basic aspects of the Torah
itself, which is that the differing roles of men and women in creation
result in differing roles in the study of that Torah which is the
blueprint of creation. The most esoteric and advanced of rabbinic texts
will not truly educate women unless this basic concept is understood.

Rabbi Heshy Grossman, former principal of Hanna Sacks Bais Yaakov High
School in Chicago, Illinois, is the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Ohr Yosef in
New Milford, N.J. He can be reached at Tel:(201) 921-4921 or via e-mail
at: rabb...@yahoo.com Share It:

Micha Berger
November 2, 2010 at 5:33 pm

Rabbi Grossman's characterization of gender roles are certainly
consistent with current yeshivish thought. In particular, the
belief that "the success of the man is measured by the extent
to which his mind is fully occupied with Torah", where Torah
study has a dual purpose "knowing how to live as a Jew on earth,
and study as an exercise in non-earthly concerns -- reflects the
different roles of women and men in creation. While the success
of the man is measured by the extent to which his mind is fully
occupied with Torah, the success of the woman is measured by the
extent to which she gives material life to that Torah."

In contrast, I offer Rav Shimon Shkop's perspective on the meaning
and purpose of life, as it appears in the opening to his introduction
to Shaarei Yosher...:

    BLESSED SHALL BE the Creator, and exalted shall be the Maker, Who
    created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure",
    and planted eternal life within us, so that our greatest desire should
    be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in
    the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything
    He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed),
    [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that
    we walk in His ways. As it says "and you shall walk in His Ways" --
    that we, the select of what He made -- should constantly hold as our
    purpose to sanctify our physical and spiritual powers for the good
    of the many, according to our abilities. In my opinion, this whole
    concept is included in Hashem's mitzvah "Be holy, [for I am Holy].""

Qedushah, holiness, is commitment to this job of "providing good to the
many, according to our abilities." And it would seem that both genders
are measured by their commitment to Chesed.

Isn't this also a point Rav Dessler makes in his Qunterus haChessed in
Michtav meiEliyahu volume I? " Man has been granted this sublime power
of giving, enabling him too to be merciful, to bestow happiness, to give
of himself. 'G-d created man in his own image.'" (tr. R' Aryeh Carmell,
"Strive for Truth" vol. I, pg 119)

What then is the role of Torah study? As Rav Shimon famously says later
in the introduction:

    Although at first glance it seems that feelings of love for oneself
    and feelings of love for others are like competing co-wives one to
    the other, we have the duty to try to delve into it, to find the
    means to unite them, since Hashem expects both from us. This means [a
    person must] explain and accept the truth of the quality of his "I",
    for with it the statures of [different] people are differentiated,
    each according to their level.

    The entire "I" of a coarse and lowly person is restricted only to
    his substance and body. Above him is someone who feels that his
    "I" is a synthesis of body and soul. And above him is someone who
    can include in his "I" all of his household and family. Someone who
    walks according to the way of the Torah, his "I" includes the whole
    Jewish people, since in truth every Jewish person is only like a
    limb of the body of the nation of Israel. And there are more levels
    in this of a person who is whole, who can connect his soul to feel
    that all of the world and worlds are his "I", and he himself is only
    one small limb in all of creation.

The role of Torah is to know the way of Hashem, to realize our role as a
"limb in all of creation" so that we can be capable of providing Hashem's
Chessed to others.

In this worldview, it is not limited to women to measure success "by
the extent to which she gives material life to that Torah", as Rabbi
Grossman puts it.

-micha

...

Micha Berger
November 2, 2010 at 6:01 pm

... According to this formulation of gender roles, shouldn't it be women
more than men who are given roles of communal leadership in their job as
"actualizer on earth"? How can tzeni'us take a front seat to their entire
reason for being?

-micha

Baruch Friedman
November 2, 2010 at 6:02 pm

Rabbi Berger: Your citation of R. Shimon's formulation raised the folowing
ruminations in my mind:

1) The formulation of the entire Shaarei Yosher, dealing as it does
with the theoretical and philosophical aspects of what to do with
the creature which may be either frog or lizard, found in a region
populated by two people in the wnter but three in the spring, as well
as whether the woman who was assumed to be a virgin but turned out to
be anything but that, is eligible to one or two hundred silver coins,
as well as the differences in Halacha between these two cases, was all
in order to facilitate R. Shimon's bestowing good upon others in a more
elevated way. Are you aware of any significant legacy or contribution of
R Shimon in gemilut chassadim, specifically something that would justify
thousands and thousands of hours of intensive thought on the aformentioned
topics? 2) Presumaby,had R. Shimon spent those thousands of hours visiting
the ill, helping widows and orphans, establishing chessed orgniztions,
etc., he would have accomplished moe in the way of bestowing of God's
goodness to others. Am I missing something?

As far as your categorization of R. Grossman's thoughts as being in
line with current Yeshivish thought, you are surely not unaware of the
followig, and endless similar, sources: 1) Rambam in hakdama to peirush
haishnayot, who states that man's goal is attainng te highest levels of
intellect. 2) Tosafot in Sotah 22a who states that stam Talmid chacham
costantly thinks about Trah. 3) The verse in Mishlei abt. "be'ahavata
tishge tamid", as well as 4) the gemar in Shabbat abt. Rava who had no
idea what was going on because he was so involved in his learning. I
would go on and on, but I am acutely aware that there is not a single
source I could produce that you didn't know by heart -- verbatim --
before my parents were married...Assuming R. Grossman's statements do
not fit the teachings of R. Shmon (why should they?!), why your cynicism
and ignoring of earlier precedents?

heshy grossman
November 2, 2010 at 8:23 pm

Thank you, Micha Berger for providing the citation from R. Shimon
Shkop. Of course, I agree that 'Olam Chesed YiBaneh' and it is central to
human existence. My article however deals only with the different nature
of male and family in regards to Torah sudy, and not 'the meaning and
purpose of life' -- find it odd that you would cite R Shimon Shkop as
a paradigm for one who does not have his head fully occupied with Torah.

There are numerous classical sources for the ideas I describe, among
them: Breishis Rabbah Ch.11:9, where every day of creation is the 'Bas
Zug' for another. In that context, a female is defined as actualizing
and bringing to fruition the original plan of the male partner. The
Rambam, in varied places in Moreh Nevochim characterizes the male-female
relationship as Chomer/Tzurah and explains the focus of Sefer Mshlei
-- with the Isha Zara and Isha Zona -- as an in juncion against the
man losing his identity by submitting to the lures of the physical
world. These ideas are likewise expressed by Maharal in Derech Chaim,
commenting on the Mishna in Avos 1 -- 'Al Tarbeh Sicha Im HaIsha'.

While at Hanna Sacks, I certainly did teach the girls Maharal and
Shem MiShmuel, a level of thought which contribute to developing an
appreciation for Torah and enhanced Yiras Shamayim. No, this type of
study in no way compares to Shnayim Ochazin B'Tallis, and there should
be no reason to explain this to a learned audience.

I am not sure if dinner banquet programs reflect any deep ideological
truths. Usually, school policies are decided by balancing the views of
competing factions and trying to offend as few people as possible. Of
course, your daughter will remember that there is no behemoth in the
school adminisration called 'they', who are the unnamed subject of your
critique. Undoubtedly, anyone willing to offset the dinner budget can
have sizable influence in determining next year's program.

Larry Lennhoff
November 3, 2010 at 9:13 am

Biology: while the man provides the initial root of conception, the
woman nurtures and develops the fetus into life, providing it with her
own heh/breath of life. This pattern continues after birth. Man is the
sustaining force behind the home; woman maintains the basic framework
which brings the home's potential to fruition, nursing the children
into maturity.

This biology is wrong. Man does not supply 'the root'. Even given an
external source for 'nurturing and development' the man's contribution
alone will produce nothing. Only the combination of the man's contribution
and the woman's contribution can create a human being -- either one
without the other is doomed to sterility. This equality continues after
birth -- without both a home maker and a provider (although both of these
roles can be fulfilled by both parents) a family is doomed to failure.

Dovid
November 3, 2010 at 11:09 am

I find the thesis of this post problematic in several ways. Though I
recognize the sources and the basic idea of the respective roles of
men and women, I believe they are misconstrued here. To begin with,
I think it is a mistake to characterize Torah sheb'al peh as intended
in part "to direct man's consciousness towards transcendent, non-worldly
concerns...[and is] not utilitarian, but simply engaging one's mind and
soul in a non-earthly abstraction." I find it especially problematic to
suggest that "the purpose of Talmud study is not merely to know what to
do. For this, one studies Shulkhan Arukh."

Although Torah sheb'al peh certainly provides access to this higher
dimension, we are intended to relate to it primarily within the
framework of halacha. The shulkhan aruch is far from ideal and is in
fact a crutch that was never a part of G-d's plan -- we are supposed
to learn torah sheb'al peh 'l'asukei shmaata aliba d'hilchsa." That is
how ALL the rishonim learned -- with a focus not on abstractions but
on l'maaseh. For that matter, the sanhedrin itself -- described by the
Rambam as the presence of Torah sheb'al peh in this world (beginning
of hilchos mamrim) -- was oriented around l'maaseh. Historically, it is
only since the rise of the Brisker derech that so much of learning has
leaned toward theoretical and away from halacha.

L'maaseh does not mean, btw, learning what to do and therefore focusing
on what applies to me. Nor does it limit our focus to what might ever
happen. L'maaseh means that the nature of Torah b'etzem is that it
guides us in this world. That is what the Torah is and that is what the
word Torah means. In fact, the Maharal himself explains that if not for
this l'maaseh, Torah would be meaningless to human beings (even men)
who live in a world of maaseh (nesiv hatorah, towards the beginning).

Within this framework, the Torah unquestionably leads us to think in
the abstract and to connect with transcendent ideas. But the ladder is
"mutzav artza" -- it is planted firmly within this world. The meaning of
the letter yud is not to be "a nebulous dot suspended in space without
earthly moorings" and men have no place in an ivory tower. That is not
their proper role (leaving aside that some reach a madrega of closeness to
G-d that sometimes requires this). Though a full discussion is obviously
beyond the scope of a blog comment, the difference between men and women
is better described as follows: men bring the abstract closer to the world
and women bring the world closer to the abstract. Therefore, men are more
occupied with the abstract in their efforts to apply it to this world and
women are more occupied with this world in their efforts to connect it
to the abstract. But both live lives focused on the connection between
the two. There is much, much more to say about this but in closing,
the weight of the world is on men's shoulders and the Torah teaches
them how to carry it. The suggestion that men are somehow meant to float
above this world, engaged in transcendent thought while leaving worldly
matters to women is simply in error.

Bob Miller
November 3, 2010 at 11:36 am

I hope someone qualified will answer this in detail:

Are there instances in halacha or meta-halacha where a group of Jews
is characterized as having specific capabilities, leanings and proper
areas of concentration, but leeway is given to exceptional members of
the group to excel in their own best way?

Micha Berger
November 3, 2010 at 12:00 pm

I'm not sure where Baruch Friedman hears cynicism in my comment. What I
was intending to suggest is that while Rabbi Grossman's formulation is
consistent with one derekh, it does not explain gender roles in a manner
that is consistent with other concepts of what Yahadus is about. And
for that matter, other concepts that were actually common in earlier
generations of the yeshiva world.

It was not my intent to belittle R' Shneur Kotler's (eg) approach to
life. Rather, to raise the question about how people who do not ascribe
to it are supposed to relate to this explanation. AND, given that many
Orthodox Jews who do believe in different gender roles do not share many
of these assumptions, how do they/we answer the same question?

That said, I think the Orthdox community could use more fostering of a
chessed and ehrlechkeit centered perspective, and not only because Rav
Shimon was my rebbe's rebbe. But in particular to our problem, those
who have a problem with gender roles by and large aren't men who see
learning as their central avodah or even sign onto ideologies that say
they're supposed to. This answer only serves as a chizuq emunah for a
group of people who in general aren't bothered by the question.

Rav Shimon clearly valued learning, as Baruch Friedman and Rabbi Grossman
both note. RBF is quite correct in his comment that this is proven by
the very content of the book whose introduction I quoted very clearly
proves that.

What I was questioning was not the claim that learning is an essential
mitzvah for men, a role that may not be true for women. I was questioning
the particular notion that "the success of the man is measured by the
extent to which his mind is fully occupied with Torah".

Let's say that man's goal in life is chessed in the sense of contributing
as a "limb in all of creation", in "sanctify[ing] our physical and
spiritual powers for the good of the many", or as Rav Dessler put it,
to be a giver rather than a taker. Or, to actually take the notion that
Hillel's "Ma desani lakh... -- that which you detest, don't do to others"
is actually the central goal of the Torah at face value. Torah is then
essential, but as an essential tool for becoming a baal chessed.

And that, in turn, appears to me to undermine Rabbi Grossman's gender
distinction -- for people who aren't following the derekh he presumes. If
the job of every human being is to "give material life to that Torah",
how does one sustain the notion that this is a particularly feminine role,
and the man's role is not only learning itself, but that this learning
should produce a more lofty and other-worldly perspective? From within
the systems I'm referring to, the point of learning is to better know
what "tov" really is so that one can better share it with others, and
to become the kind of person more capable of sharing it.

In other words, if one believes that "great is Torah because it brings
one to action" really defines the central goal of Torah, then how can
one say that learning in and of itself is a man's ultimate purpose? It
would seem the purpose is the action, the implementation in this world,
which Rabbi Grossman's model relegates to be more feminine.

-micha

heshy grossman
November 5, 2010 at 12:02 am

I appreciate the many thoughtful comments.

Yes, it is ofen difficult to understand how the male/female definitions
of the Torah reconcile with the application of those principles in real
life. To do so, let us first clarify: each man and woman embodies both
male and female aspects of life as building blocks of their humanity. When
The Torah talks of male and female, bu the Torah's description of Maaseh
Breishis refers not to any human being that we recognize.Rather, the
creation reveals much more: the foundations of all existence, and the
traits and patterns of direction by which G-d brings existence into being,
and how He continuously directs and maintains all of life.

In answer to Nathan then, the 'Heh' does more than give life to physical
dust, instead, it gives life much broader than the physical and material
reality that we know (as the Targum explains: 'Ruach Mimallela' -- man's
speech -- his ability to express a world of thought is the definition
of human life, an idea bigger than just his body).

The point of my article was to demonstrate that the traditional gender
roles in Jewish life are not male inventions, nor are they the result
of social conventions, but rather, they parallel precisely the essential
and immutable traits built into creation. (In part, this is why 'Minhag
Yisrael Torah', for lessons can often be learned from patterns of behavior
commonly adopted by society -- there are no coincidences).

Recognizing that each human being contains both male and female aspects
also answers the question raised by Micha Berger -- though Torah must be
brought to life by every human being, the actualization of Torah into
Maaseh reflects the unity of male and female in creation. Of course,
every man must live his Torah 'Aliba D'Hilchasa' and every woman should
know what she is doing, but as regards the specific Mitzva of Talmud
Torah is more than performance, it is 'K'Neged Kulam'because Torah study
is a sate of being, not merely doing. In that context, the potential
of each person is best realized by Avoda that is individualized, and a
general rule of Avodas Hashem is that a person is best served by further
developing those traits for which he/she feels a natural affinity,
and for which they are particularly suited.

Torah Gadol SheMaivi L'Yedai Maaseh is true because when one's mind
is fully occupied with Torah studied properly, that Torah is bound to
spill out and over into the Olam HaMaseh, but it is not a dispensation
for one to involve his mind in other matters.

My purpose is not to defend the Yeshiva system, examine dinner
policies,promote gender separation, advocate for Tznius, or minimize
the leadership potential of women. Rather, the article points out that
Torah describes the essence of all reality, both physical and spiritual,
and in most cases, the customs adopted by Klal Yisrael are in synch with
these essential and eternal truths.

Though thse ideas are 'Aggada', they are misunderstood when taken as moral
lessons, or pithy aphorisms. Chazal are not speaking with hyperbole or
metaphor, but utilize this method to express Ikkarei HaEmunah -- concepts
upon which all of Jewish life is based -- in a concealed form. Hence,
one should be very wary to dismiss ideas expressed in that manner as
'not binding'.

(Of course, with all this, it is quite difficult to be faithful to these
principles when attemptingto apply them to real life, but that is a
different topic).

While Dovid is correct, and Torah SheBalPeh should, of course, be brought
to the Olam HaMaaseh, the study of Talmud is not the study of text
but reflects the process of TorahSheBalPeh. Man excels at the process,
and is usually not so good at the finishing touches, and hence so many
Yeshiva students are more comfortable with Lomdus and Sevara alone,
while asking them to learn in a manner that brings each subject to
Halachic conclusion is a feat nigh impossible for even the greatest of
Roshei Yeshiva. Have a good Shabbos!


[And last, from as-yet-unmoderated comments that I just submitted:]

WADR, Rabbi Grossman, in this last reply you retreat back to the yeshivish
derekh. I do not think Rav Yisrael Salanter (or Rav Wolbe, but you're
more in a position to speak to that than I am) supported a view of life
in which learning takes center stage over developing ehrlachkeit.

By answering from within the yeshivish assumptions, as opposed to those
shared by other derakhim, the answer itself becomes suspect. If man's job
is not "learning and another 612 mitzvos" in every derekh then why would
similar gender differences exist across our multiple communities? But
the bigger problem is that it reduces your answer to "... and therefore
these gender differences make sense to us" rather than having the power
to convince others that they ought to be correct.

http://havolim.blogspot.com/2010/11/toldos-breishis-2521-vayeiaseir
-lo.html  what is the price/nisayon that  tfilos that are answered
comes with...



Interesting piece in general.  I'm not sure how one makes the leap from
bikesh Yaakov leishev bshalvah to that he prayed for this result. Isn't it
human nature to "long for" tranquility	even though we understand that we
play the cards we're dealt.  For that matter tranquility may be defined
based on Yaakov's bracha to Yisachar " 14 Issachar is a large-boned ass,
couching down between the sheep-folds. 15 For he saw a resting-place that
it was good, and the land that it was pleasant; and he bowed his shoulder
to bear, and became a servant under task-work "  as I heard from R' Nissan
Alpert ZT"L - what's the transition between the first half of 15 and the
second?  the Jewish definition of fulfillment -using your powers as HKB"H
wants is true tranquility.

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101105/05fd489b/attachment-0001.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 192
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."