Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 44

Mon, 17 Mar 2014

• 1. Re: Time for the Deceased (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. Re: Time for the Deceased (was: Why does Moshe use, logical... (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: To Drink or Not To Drink? - A Halachic Analysis of Getting Drunk on Purim (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: The Mishnah B'rurah and Ba'al Nefesh Yachmir (Micha Berger)
• 5. Minyan of benei ir in a kerach on Shushan Purim (David Cohen)
• 6. Re: Esther in a hurry (T6...@aol.com)
• 7. Re: Esther rin a hurry (Lisa Liel)
• 8. Re: Questions about the Megillah (Lisa Liel)
• 9. Re: Esther rin a hurry (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Can Women Receive a Heter Ora'ah? (Chana Luntz)
• 11. chassidaztion of halacha (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: Daas Torah and the Holocaust (T6...@aol.com)

I wrote:

<<< yes, we'd like you to demonstrate logically that olam haba
(a/k/a shamayim) isn't a physical location. Several times, I cited R' Elya
Lopian's analogy between radio waves and the kedusha of tefillin, and you
never responded. Science is showing us things that we never dreamed
possible. >>>

I must clarify this. "Shamayim" can mean different things in different
contexts, and I never meant to suggest that either Hashem or His Place has
any physicality as we understand it (although some rishonim did think so).
I was referring only to His creations, such as mal'achim and neshamos. They
certainly SEEM to be so intangible that we'll never be able to connect them
to our physicality.  But the same was true of radio until recently, and I
don't see how we can exclude the possibility that in the future, mal'achim
might be similarly observable.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Never Eat This Carb
Literally Never! 1 Easy Tip to Increase Fat Burning, Lower Blood Sugar
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5326de9c81d985e9c48cest03vuc

On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 04:40:01AM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: Just to remind everyone where this discussion began, we were wondering
: if neshamos of dead people experience the flow of time, because that would
: seem to be a prerequisite for getting elevated on their yahrzeit. This
: led to an attempt to understand the world in which such neshamos are...

One problem with moderating is that I skim emails before I have a chance
to really read them. So I know that something I want to reply to was not
the last word on the topic, but not fully sure what the last word is. In
this case, I stalled so long trying to catch up, I think RAM was meya'eish.
So let me just jot down a few thoughts about time and niftarim...

There are two things we could be talking about when we speak of time
WRT living people: the time of physics, and the time of personal
experience.

The data that led to relativity showed that the time of physics is very
much tied to physics. It's meaningless to speak of that kind of time
existing independent of the space of this universe, mass, veolocity,
etc...

The time of personal experience first and foremost is generated when you
stick a person inside the time of physics. So, we can question whether
it is meaningful to speak about it existing once one is disconnected from
their physical existence.

Second, REED argues that Chazal describe the time-as-experienced by
souls before birth (or by Adam before the eitz hadaas) as different in
kind to time as we experience it. In particular, it isn't a linear flow.

When we speak of doing things as an aliyah for a neshamah, we are tying
events in the linear flow of time as experienced by post-eitz living
people to events in the existence of someone who isn't connected to the
physical time that we are experiencing as that flow. That there is
something paralleling the time-as-it-really-is in the physical world in
the soul's experience that is so much like our time that events can be
lined up on the same clock and calendar.

There is one possible candidate that comes to mind, but only for the
first while after misah.
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:24:38PM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: [Micha:]
:> R' Shim'on ben Laqish says:
:>     Ein beineino veletzadiqim ela dibur peh bilvad.
: ...
:> R' Ze'ira says that a niftar hears his eulogy as from within a dream.

: OTOH R' Dessler (Michtav Meliyahu-Yamim Noraim) explains the seemingly
: contradictory sources on meitim yodim by saying the lower level folks
: maintain a connection to this world while the baalei madreiga have no
: interest and no knowledge of this world.

If the soul takes a while to psychologically disconnect, it could be
continuing to experience the flow of time even without still being
physically embedded in an abstract physical time. Simply out of
coginitive habit.

But otherwise, I just don't see it. Even if they have something that
would play a parallel role to time, there would be nothing to line it
up with what we call time. And given that newborns aren't experiencing
a flow of time, why would someone who left the habits of thinking as
they did when alive experience a flow?

(I would also, tangentially, relate this idea from REED to the concept
of chivut haqever as well as the Ran's and the Iqarim's take on gehenom.
Iti is this inability to perceive a pure reality because of being
enmired in an olam hazeh worldview which limits the soul's ability
leihanos miZiv haShechinah and thus /is/ the onesh.)

Even if they experienced a parallel concept, even two people moving
quickly relative to eachother would not experinence the same year,
and we're supposed to map time as experienced on planet earth to
some point with no frame of reference at all?

But the notion that saying that the dead are not only experiencing
a flow of time but experiencing the same flow we are is personally
the smaller of the two problems I have with taking this talk of
being zokheh a niftar literally. 

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:13:47AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: From Rav Aviner:
:> Torah Learning for the Ascension of a Deceased Person
:> Q: Does it benefit the deceased if one says before a regularly-scheduled
:>    class that the learning is "Le-Ilui Nishmat..."?
:> A: No. Only if they add extra learning after mentioning the deceased
:>    (Ha-Rav Chaim Kanievski said the same. Derech Sichah Vol.1 p. 484).

: If you look it up there he also says that the credit for the extra
: learning only goes to the deceased, not the learner. However a father
: always gets credit for a son's learning. (We've discussed this issue
: before IIRC)

I know there are many sources that speak of zekhus as though it were
fungible. But I have problems taking them at face value. Simply because
there is a lack of justice in the whole idea, or to put it alternatively,
a lack of hatavah.

The son has bechirah. So, no matter what the father does, his actions
do not and cannot fully determine whether the son says qaddish or
learns. Even things like how he behaves during a date and how the woman
chooses to respond to it will have major efects on the son's future
behavior. In one universe he sneezes and she is turned oof by it,
and the relationship never happens. He ends up marrying the next woman
he dates, who pulls him upward. In another universe, he ends up with
the shallow girl. One version says qaddish, one doesn't. The father
had nothing to do with the outcome.

So how could one version of the father deserve a different olam haba
than the other? Or alternatively, how could one version of that father's
soul be best served by a different treatment than the other?

In my original post I tied the two together, by saying that since there
is no reason to believe the nifar first-hand experiences what we call
a yahrzeit, we can take time out of the whole formula.I used that license
to say that the maamar chazal is about the person's judgment about petirah
includes the events that led (one version of) the son to say qaddish
or to learn extra. And that in fact had the son taken the other route,
he would get exactly the same sekhar. But paradoxically, the son himself
can't think that way to justify cutting corners, as that decision would
at least in part reflect the father's parenting.


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:48:09AM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: R' Micha Berger wrote:

:> Angels are non-physical, pure intellects, the metaphysical chain
:> of causality from the Creator down to the spheres and the physical
:> universe. (BTW, tzurah/form/morph doesn't mean the same thing as
:> the modern word "shape".)

: I'm curious what the difference is between those words -- but not
: *very* curious, and I'd probably think the matter to be irrelevant
: anyway, because to me, the only important factor is that mal'achim and
: neshamos and such are finite creations. They may or may not be part of
: the *physical* world, but they are certainly part of *some* world. They
: are not creators. They are not infinite.

Since chomer and tzurah show up all over the place, they are relevant
to you, whether relevant to this conversation or not. The "hiyuli"
of the Rambam 1:1 d"h "Bereishis" III is the Greek word "hyle" -- chomer.
You can't even get the first pasuq down without it.

Form is what was made, substance is what it was made out of.
So it's not only the shape of the table, it's also its hardness,
the grain of its wood... in shorts everything that can be known
about the table. Add the substance, and you have the table itself.

Similarly WRT people, my low frustration threshold is an aspect of
my form. This is why, in a sense, a person's soul corresponds to
the form and his body to its substance. Even as the body too can
be split into form and substance.

The Leshem (and I don't assume he's first, he's just the only one I
looked at -- H/T RMTreibitz) relates the olamos by saying that the
chomer of each olam is the tzuros of the olam immediately below it.
I presumed it was in this latter sense.


Which gets us also to what I was saying about Chazal vs Plato on Torah
vs Math being more primary. Plato thought that the closer one gets to
the Source, the closer one's discussion is to pure math. In Qabbalah,
one world more abstract brings us closer to Retzon haBorei in the Torah /
moral / ethical sense. (See MmE vol I pp 304-312, which I discuss at
http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/beshalach.pdf
and
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/rav-dessler-on-reality-and-perception 
Also, the Maharal's and REED's discussion of how different the perceived
universe is even between two people in olam hazah, one who doesn't
merit nissim, one who does, should give some scale WRT how different
we should expect the perception of the dead to be.)

:> A metaphysical chain of sibah and mesoveiv doesn't require that
:> one come before the other chronologically.

: That's true, it doesn't require it. But it doesn't forbid it either...

Agian, it requires positing a second unrelated creation that dead souls
experience the same way we experience proper time and maps one-to-one
with time as experienced on planet earth (as opposed to other frames of
reference). Yes, it is theoretically possible, albeit very contrived. But
if post-mortem-in-sync-time does exist why wouldn't the not-yet-born or
Adam qodem lacheit also be subject to it? REED at least assumes it does
not exist.

As I said, I think I could make sense of it for 11 months, but then I
still have my issues with fungibility of sekhar.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
mi...@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 01:02:28PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> On the contrary.  When sober, many people have a gut aversion to  
> rejoicing over the downfall of an enemy, and find one reason after  
> another to support that position.  A little drinking can do away with  
> such inhibitions so that a person can acknowledge the simple truth,  
> which is that there /is/ no difference between Arur Haman and Baruch  
> Mordechai.  Rejoicing over our enemy's downfall and rejoicing over our  
> own triumph are the same thing.

Along these lines, but 180deg out of phase...

The Meshekh Chokhmah says that the reason why people in ayaros mukafos
chimah observe /only/ Shushan Purim, rather than both days, is because
we do not celebrate the downfall of our enemies. We're making a point
of only celebrating the day of rest, the new status quo after victory.

We've been through the whole "maasei yadai tov'im bayam" thing
repeatedly, and I assume you're still willing to take on the naive
read of the Shelah, Beis Yoseif, Taz, et al. (List of meqoros built from
prior iterations at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/compassion-for-our-enemies )

But I am assuming their comments WRT chatzi Hallel on 7th of Pesach
do reflect proper Jewish ethics, and thus that "arur Haman" is about
the need to eradicate evil, and the need to ask HQBH's aid in this
eradication. Not celebrating it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Okay, I'm sure we've had iterations on this topic since the sugject line
I chose, but I am getting hana'ah from reviving a thread from Aug 1998,
vol 1.

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, 9:46:55 pm EDT, I wrote
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol01/v01n028.shtml#07>:
> ...
> 2- The MB was written by a ba'al mussar. His "ba'al nefesh yachmir"
>    isn't so much a halachic p'sak as mussar advice. The "ba'al nefesh"
>    is one who seeks to go beyond shuras hadin, which to the Chafeitz
>    Chaim means mussar.

> 2b- Actually, to a true ba'al mussar, there is no real line between
>     halachah and mussar. (Halachah is defined as the bare minimum
>     mussar program.) This means that the sefer's usefulness to someone
>     following a derech other than the mussar movement is suspect....

And at 9:32:47 CDT RYB replied:
: I happen to be working on an essay on chumros, and admit that the ba'al
: nefesh yachmir of the MB was causing me grave difficulty. It is clearly
: not the ba'al nefesh of R' Chaim Volozhiner, PA Chap. 3, who dsays
: it means one who overcomes his material substance with spirituality
: (nefesh). I think, rather, that the MB subscribes to the philosophy of
: psak espoused by R' BZ Abba-Shaul, that halacha is hypothetically always
: open to review and if you follow the "wrong" opinion - even if now it may
: be espoused by a majority of poskim - you may be in for an unpleasant,
: quite hot surprise, in Olam Ha'Emes.

: Now, even the MB, RBZAS, and our chaverim R' Daniel E. and R' Shraga
: R. who fly the banner of the philosophy of psak above have their limits
: as to how far back you must go to avoid being roasted. According to their
: discussions today, R' Shraga holds that if it's in the Talmud you're safe;
: R' Daniel holds that if it's in the SA you can assume that you will have
: a spot in the air conditioned area achar me'ah ve'esrim, but, for them
: both (leaving out, for now, my family feud with R' Chaim on mis'asek),
: if you, say follow one of the mekillim on yoshon and get up there and
: find a Beis Din shel Ma'alah presided over by Briskers you are going to
: have a tough time!

Well, I think I found a precusor idea in tomorrow's Y-mi yomi -- AZ 33b.

R' Shimon ben Lazar went to a town in Shomron, and it seems he *really*
wanted wine. The problem was that the locals were Kusim, not Jews. At
this point in history, it was mutar to drink a sealed barrel in a Kusi
town, but an open barrel was too likely handled by someone capable of
yayin nesech. The town did hire a Jewish schoolteacher. RSBL asked him
if there was any kosher wine available. The teacher offered him some
water from a spring. RSBL asked again, and the teacher replied
    In at mareih denafsheikh -- if you are the master of your nefesh
    ha mevo'a qameikh shesi -- the spring is before you, drink!
    Ve'in nafshakh marasakh -- and if your nefesh is your master,
    "Vesamta sakin beklo'ekha" (Mishlei 23:2)
    Im ba'al nefesh atah
    kevar nisqalqelu haKusim

Judging from context, a "baal nefesh" is someohne who can master, or
perhaps is trying to master, his taavos.

A specific kind of chumerah, and not a generic term.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

While I live in a suburb of Jerusalem and celebrate Purim on 14 Adar, I
often find myself davening mincha in Jerusalem on 15 Adar.  Some years,
this has been at the office park where I work; today, it was at the
Jerusalem Zoo.  In both cases, the minyan with which I am davening consists
almost entirely of those of us who live outside the city, as the observant
Jerusalem residents* are mostly at home eating their Purim feasts, rather
than at the office or the zoo.

(* Throughout this discussion, Jerusalem and non-Jerusalem "residents"
refer to those who are and those who are not obligated in the mitzvos of
Purim on the 15th of Adar, as determined by the relevant halachos, not to
place of permanent residency.)

The question that invariably comes up is whether the shat"z, who is not
otherwise saying "Al haNisim" that day, should say it in chazaras hashat"z.
 While today's shat"z in the zoo minyan did not say Al haNisim, I can think
of two possible reasons (based on two different approaches to chazaras
hashatz) why he should have:

1.  Even if all of the individuals are not saying Al haNisim, the chazaras
hashatz is a "tefilas hatzibbur," and the tzibbur, as an entity that is
more than just the sum of its parts, is defined by default as a Jerusalem
tzibbur by virtue of its location, as long as it has not been *explicitly*
billed as a minyan for non-Jerusalem residents (as yom tov sheni minyanim
in Israel are).

2.  The function of the chazaras hashatz is, at least in principle, to
fulfill the obligation of an individual who can't daven himself.  Unless
the mispalelim were actually polled in advance to make sure that there were
no Jerusalem residents among them (which is generally not the case), it is
possible that there is a Jerusalem resident there (let's say he does not
want to serve as shat'z himself), and if the shat"z does not say Al
haNisim, he will be unable to, in principle, fulfill that person's
obligation.  Of course, the Jerusalem resident would have this same problem
if he ventures outside Jerusalem for mincha, but one could argue that
things are different when he is on his "home turf," even if he is the only
one in the minyan for whom this is an issue.  On the other hand, if the
shat"z *does* say it, he will still be able to be motzi all the
non-Jerusalem residents, as one who says Al haNisim on Shushan Purim does
not have to repeat the tefilah.

Is anybody aware of a discussion or pesak on this question?  I found a
reference to Halichos Shlomo at http://www.yeshiva.co/ask/?id=5490.  I
don't have access to the primary source right now, but from that short
summary, I'm not sure that RSZA was explicitly addressing a case where the
minyan consists almost entirely of benei ir.

-- D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140317/6420756b/attachment-0001.htm>

 

From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>

>>Note that  after Haman is hanged that the letters to the Jews to defend
themselves is  sent out only at the end of Sivan
more than 2 months after Haman is  hung.<<

-- 
Eli Turkel

 
 
>>>>>
 
R' Fohrman also notes that Esther only cries and weeps and falls at the  
king's feet and dramatically begs him to save her people AFTER Haman has been  
hanged and his house given to Mordechai!
 
It seems that Achashverosh was in no hurry to rescind Haman's decree (and  
actually never rescinded it).  Who knows how long it took Esther to  
persuade Achashverosh to let Mordechai send the second letter, allowing the Jews  
to defend themselves?
 
There's also Malbim's answer that I wrote yesterday, that Mordechai wanted  
to send the second letter davka with the /same/ messengers who had carried 
the  first letter to the provinces, and it took some time for them all to 
get back to  Shushan after they delivered the first letter (the one Haman 
sent).
 

--Toby  Katz
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140317/c8d164b0/attachment-0001.htm>

On 3/17/2014 7:29 AM, Arie Folger wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2014 1:21 PM, "Eli Turkel" <elitur...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:elitur...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > <<Because between then and eleven months later, Haman's party was 
> sure to
> > make lots of preparations to anihilate the Jews, and it was of paramount
> > importance to hip this in the bud.>>
> >
> > Note that after Haman is hanged that the letters to the Jews to 
> defend themselves is sent out only at the end of Sivan
> > more than 2 months after Haman is hung.
>
> Note that I speak of Haman's *party*! It is naive to think Haman was 
> acting alone. He was surely the leader of something bigger that 
> remained dangerous even after the leader's death.
>

His father.  There's a reason the Megillah repeats that he's the son of 
Hamedata 4 times.  Clearly, the readers of the Megillah at the time 
would have known who he was.  There's a reason why later worshippers of 
the idolatrous deities Mithra and Anahita later associated two minor 
deities with them, named Omanos and Anadatos, Hellenized versions of 
Haman and Hamedata..  Darius put down a rebellion headed by someone 
named Gaumata, which he dates to the 13th day of the 12th month.  It's 
in the Behistun Inscription.

Lisa

1) "All" can mean "most".

2) It might be that Darius was the son-in-law of Esther.  It would help 
explain why Nechemia needed a heter to taste Darius's wine. The "shegel" 
mentioned in Nechemia 2:6 could be Esther, and Nechemia may have 
referred to her in this way if he was of the party that didn't approve 
of Esther's intermarriage.

Or they could be midrashim.  After all, the midrash also says that 
Hashem sent a malach down to take Esther's place, and that she never 
actually slept with Achashveirosh, which is difficult to reconcile with 
either Darius being her son /or/ with the entire sugya of Esther karka 
hayta.

Lisa

On 3/17/2014 8:12 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> 1) We all know the midrash that Achashverosh used the dishes from the 
> Temple and the clothing from the Cohen Gadol
> However in Ezra 1:7 it says that Coresh gave all the dishes from the 
> bet hamikdash that Nevuchadnessar took to Shezbazzar for the Temple 
>  and then gives a list of thousands of dishes that sheshbazzar took to 
> Jerusalem.
> This is repeated in Ezra 5:14 and again 6:5
>
> 2) Esther became Queen in the 7th year of Achashverosh. The story of 
> Purim happened in the 13th year.  According to Chazal Achashverosh 
> ruled only 14 years and Darius took over.
> Again according to the Midrash Darius was the son of Esther. Hence he 
> was somewhere between 2 and 7 years old when he became king. He gave 
> permission to rebuild the bet hamikdash in the second year when he was 
> between 3 and 8 years old.
> Though not impossible chapters 5 and 6 of Ezra do not seem to be 
> talking about a child king.
>
> As an aside it is interesting whether Esther was the mother of the 
> heir apparent at the time of the story of Purim.
>
> -- 
> Eli Turkel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

On 17/03/2014 9:11 AM, Arie Folger wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com <mailto:elitur...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Rabbi Folger is obviously correct as seen that the Jews killed 75,000 people in the empire. So why wait 2 months to send the letters?
>
>
> Because there must have been serious opposition within the palace, among teh messengers, etc.? I guess they needed to purge the immediate administration.

The megillah presents Esther's request that the letters be rescinded, and
Achashverosh's decision that he couldn't allow this but would allow Mordechai
to send out new letters authorising the Jews to resist, as happening in one
moment, immediately after Haman's downfall.   But that may be a narrative
shortening of a process that really took two months.  I assume that Mordechai
and Esther put at least some effort into lobbying Achashverosh to change the
law and rescind Haman's letters; he was an absolute monarch, after all, so
if he decided to do so who could prevent him?   When he said "ein lehashiv" he
didn't mean "I don't have the power to do this, it would be unconstitutional".
He meant "this would be bad policy and I won't do it, no matter how important
it is to you; I don't want to set a precedent that imperial orders can be
questioned".   Making the effort, and waiting for him to consider their request
before turning it down, may have taken the better part of those two months.
It may also have taken some time to draft the new orders in a way that would
be acceptable and yet effective.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

>
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 09:54:52PM +0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
> : The Piskei Teshuva in Choshen Mishpat siman 7 si'if 5 quotes both the
> : Birchei Yosef and the Sefer HaChinuch and relates it back to Devorah and
> : (one of the) positions in Tosphos that what Devorah did was to teach the
> : din the judges who actually ruled - something that, given that what she
> was
> : teaching them was hardly settled din, they were the foremost scholars of
> : the time, and they then relied upon her teaching has to be considered
> : hora'ah.
>
> And RMB replied:


> >In the sense I meant it, yes it was. Beis din settled the din, and
> >Devorah taught it. She didn't do the hora'ah, bequething authority on
> >one interpretation of the law (or new gezeira or new din derabbanan or
> >in Devorah's day, a devar soferim was also possible).
>
>IN fact, the PT appears to specifically answer my question as I meant
>it with a "no, she may not get a heter hora'ah" which is why BD did
>the the hora'ah and she taught their conclusions.

This is the most extraordinary reading of the PT (and the Tosphos).  The
issue that everybody was struggling with was that the pasuk says that
Devorah shofetes es Yisrael.  And yet being a judge (ie operating on a beis
din) is problematic for a woman.  Solution offered by the Tosphos as
understood by the PT, she poskened (hora'ah) and then they did the actual
judging based on her hora'ah.

You do not need a Beis Din for hora'ah.  You do need it to take eidus and
to give psak din.  You probably do need it (well actually the Sanhedrin) to
promolgate a gezera, something that many hold (following, inter alia, the
Rosh) cannot be done today, and something nobody suggests is within the
province of a mere musmach (mora d'asra maybe if it can be done at all by
an individual).

Without a heter hora'ah Devorah could not have told the Sanhedrin (that is
what we are talking about here) what needed to be done.  But without a psak
din, somebody chayav misa cannot be put to death - no matter what the
hora'ah is.  The PT is therefore understanding the Tosphos as saying that
since they carried out her hora'ah by the issuing a psak din that was based
on such hora'ah, it was not wrong for the posuk to consider it as if she
judged, even though she did not actually "judge".

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Regards

Chana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140317/2188758f/attachment-0001.htm>

The rabbi (Rav Shteinman) ruled that although the Torah does not prohibit
it, it was inappropriate, as a child's gender should remain the way God
created it. The rabbi added that in the discussed case, which involves a
boy who will have to observe mitzvot in the future, it would be wrong to
change his gender as part of a costume, as women have to observe less
mitzvot than men.

see
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4498796,00.html

Note that Rama based on Mahari Mintz allows in general wearing a woman's
outfit on Purim.
While other (including MB) disagree this is based on "lo tilbash" applying
even when the purpose is merriment. RMF and the Steipler Rav both allowed
young boys (below chincuh age) to wear girls outfits on Purim.  ROY who
disagrees bases it that parents should no allow young kids to do sins.

Rav Shteinman introduces a new element that women have less mitzvot than
men (note "lo tolbash" gows both ways). To me this sounds more as a
chassidic drash and part of the chassidization (apologies to Rbn Katz on the
word) of the litvishe world.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140317/cba65892/attachment-0001.htm>

 

> The entire war was a period of hester panim such as we have  never 
> experienced in our whole long history of exiles, persecutions and  
> massacres.  NO ONE was given the secret "mei'achorei  hapargod."   NO 
> ONE knew what was coming or which place would  be safe.  EVERYONE acted 
> blindly, going with the best available  information.[--TK]
 
 
From: Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il>

Did they know  that at the time?

Ben





>>>>>
 
 
 
I'm not sure who "they" refers to but if it refers to the rabbanim, rebbeim 
 and other Torah leaders of the time, your question is, Did they know they 
were  living in a time of hester panim?  
 
What kind of question is that?  Of course they knew that they were  living 
in a horrible, terrifying black fog!  
 
Did they know the whole Tochacha was coming true in front of their  eyes?  
They saw it unfold as it happened.  They knew they were living  it as they 
lived it, and they knew the pasuk, "Anochi haster aster es  panai."
 
--Toby Katz
..
=============


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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140317/f781c367/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 32, Issue 44
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)