Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 14

Fri, 05 Feb 2016

• 1. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Akiva Miller)
• 2. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Shalom Berger)
• 3. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah ()
• 4. on tzimtzum (saul newman)
• 5. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Vayichad Yisro - Disparaging Non-Jews (Micha Berger)
• 9. Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Michael Poppers)
• 10. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Re: Vayichad Yisro - Disparaging Non-Jews (Michael Orr)
• 12. Re: Vayichad Yisro - Disparaging Non-Jews (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Vayichad Yisro - Disparaging Non-Jews (Michael Orr)
• 14. Re: Vayichad Yisro - Disparaging Non-Jews (Zev Sero)

R"n Chana Luntz wrote:

> Rav Schwab however seems from this piece to hold that learning
> does not constitute any form of mitzvah for a woman.  In this
> regard, however, there is no reason to make a distinction between
> learning and any of the other mitzvos from which women are
> exempt, such as shofar and lulav, and hence he would presumably
> hold, against Rav Moshe and the others who follow the Ran etc
> that there is nothing of value in women performing lulav or
> shofar either.

I will agree that this seems to represent Rav Schwab's position on this
issue.

My problem is in the phrase "nothing of value". If Rav Schwab would say
that women get no *mitzvah* from doing these things that are not required,
it would be logical. But that's not what he said. It's not merely the
zechus of the mitzvah that women don't get, but they get absolutely nothing
at all, in his view. In his own words:

> it still would not make her one iota better than she
> is. It would have no influence on her relationship
> with Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

He seems to be saying that studying the Torah would not affect her Yiras
Shamayim any more than studying a mathematics book would. But to me that is
absurd. To give just two examples, study the emunah of the Avos, or the
mussar of the neviim -- why does Rav Schwab think that this "would have no
influence on her relationship with Hakadosh Baruch Hu"?

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160203/5707137b/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Yitzchok Levine quoted:

> The following is from pages 274-275 of Rav Schwab on Chumash.
>
> Learning for the sake of learning, just to occupy one's mind
> with the intricacies of the Torah, even if the practical
> application of the law is already known, is limited to men.
>
> A woman who learns Torah does not become greater in yiras
> Shamayim because of it. True, she may become very learned
> in Torah, but this is not the object of talmud Torah.

The Rambam states clearly that Havayot d'Abayye v'Rava are the basic
building blocks for developing a relationship with God (i.e., fulfilling
Ahavat HaShem, Yichud HaShem, Yirat HaShem, etc.) and that they are
accessible to both men and women.
See the last halacha in Perek 4 of Hil. Yesodei HaTorah -
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1104.htm#20

See Warren Zev Harvey's discussion of this Rambam at
http://lookstein.org/articles/harvey.htm

Shalom

Rabbi Shalom Z. Berger, Ed.D.
The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education
Bar-Ilan University
http://www.lookstein.org
https://www.facebook.com/groups/lookjed/
Follow me on Twitter: @szberger

NETWORK*LEARN*GROW
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160204/80214d0e/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: Ben Waxman via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
>>... the 
Rambam writes that  a navi has to have mastered his middot and overcome 
his desires. Does Rav  Schwab believe that a woman can do these without 
learning Torah? That would  be a huge chiddush.<<<

Ben

 
 
>>>>>
 
 
Without learning Gemara?  Yes, of course!!
Not a chiddush at all -- there have been many nashim tzidkaniyos  through 
the generations!
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160204/6b15a8cf/attachment-0001.htm>

http://orot.com/book-review-nefesh-hatzimtzum-by-avinoam-fraenkel/

book review
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160204/9bbfbf9f/attachment-0001.htm>

Rav Schwab said and I quoted "Torah". I didn't limit it to Gemara.

Ben

On 2/4/2016 5:15 PM, via Avodah wrote:
> Without learning Gemara?  Yes, of course!!
> Not a chiddush at all -- there have been many nashim tzidkaniyos 
> through the generations!

At 01:29 PM 2/4/2016, R. Akiva Miller  wrote:


> > Learning for the sake of learning, just to occupy one's mind
> > with the intricacies of the Torah, even if the practical
> > application of the law is already known, is limited to men.
> >
> > A woman who learns Torah does not become greater in yiras
> > Shamayim because of it. True, she may become very learned
> > in Torah, but this is not the object of talmud Torah.
>
>To me, the implication here is that men are obligated in Talmud Torah, and
>therefore Talmud Torah will cause men to because greater in Yiras Shamayim.
>And in contrast, women are *not* obligated in Talmud Torah, and therefore
>Talmud Torah will *not* cause women to because greater in Yiras Shamayim.

Did you miss the following that was also in what I quoted?

"If a man is a great talmid chacham, having
learned the entire Talmud, and has not become a greater yerei Shamayim
this learning has not achieved its purpose."

Hence it is clear that your statement "Talmud Torah will cause men to 
[because]   become (?) greater in Yiras Shamayim."  is simply not 
true according to Rav Schwab.
It depends on how one learns.



>My confusion is two-fold: (1) I see growth in Yiras Shamayim as a function
>of how one relates to G-d in any of a variety of methods, Talmud Torah
>being only one of them. (2) Even if one would posit a direct
>cause-and-effect relationship between Talmud Torah Lishmah and Yiras
>Hashem, I don't know why there would be any difference between a Metzuveh
>V'Oseh and an Ayno Metzuveh V'Oseh.

Again,  Rav Schwab does *not* posit  "a direct
>cause-and-effect relationship between Talmud Torah Lishmah and Yiras
>Hashem."

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160204/34a42ccf/attachment-0001.htm>

I realize I do not have clarity on what RSS is referring to when he says
"yir'as Shamayim".

To the Ramchal is means by default yir'as hacheit, which in turn means
fear of doing the wrong thing because it's against His Will. (In contrast
to yir'as ha'onesh, fear of the sin's punishment, which is not real
yir'as Shamayim.) According to the Ramchal, also included in yir'ah is
yir'as haromemus. But those are all feelings. How could we make a blanket
statement ike "women do not learn to fear sinning or how awe-inspiring
G-d is by learning Torah"? (Whereas men can, or in True Scotsman style:
If a man didn't gain yir'as Shamayim, it wasn't *really* learning.)

So it seems to me RSS is speaking about something more specific. Perhaps
a relationship with ol mitzvos, which is why it is only generated by
a metzuvah ve'oseh performance. But even that would be iffy, because
a person can learn an emotional stance by imagining what it would be
like if... So that by learning, if the woman could empathetically imagine
what it would be like to be a man and compelled to learn as a mitzvah
in itself, wouldn't she still learn the yir'ah behind ol mitzvos?

I am still at tzarikh iyun. I am not even sure we understand the quote
under discussion yet, never mind ready to argue if it's correct.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Eliot

I do not know how much of the 10% of the Roman empire that converted
to Judaism were actually geirim. Subtract out the Tzeduqi and Xian
converts -- and any other sect that actually encouraged conversion,
and how many geirim kehalakhah did the Perushim take in?

BTW, that number comes from Bar Hebreus (a 13th cent Syrian Orthodox
bishop) reporting on a sensus back in the days of Claudius (1st cent CE).
And he said the Jewish population of the empire was 6,944,000 but he
also said the number of actual Romans in the Roman empire was also
6,944,000. (Presumably both numbers are of free adult men only.) The
census of Romans is mentioned in contemporaneous sources, but he was
the first to mention Claudius counting Jews.

IOW, there really isn't a reliable source for the whole idea.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

RnCL conflates RSS *z'l'* writing that women do not have the *mitzvah* of
Talmud Torah with a position not espoused by RSS, that women would gain no
*sachar* from learning.  Whether RSS viewed women learning Torah as a *hechsher
mitzvah* (i.e. enabling them to properly perform other *mitzvos*) or as a
practical *mitzvah* qualitatively different from the for-its-own-sake
*mitzvah* of Talmud Torah, I see nothing in his writing contrary to what
RnCL quoted RaN as writing.

A gut'n Shabbes/Shabbas Shalom
and all the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160204/a581ac73/attachment-0001.htm>

Just to point out something that may be obvious: By saying that a women 
can obtain prophecy without learning Torah, RSS is also inferring that a 
man requires Talmud Torah to obtain prophecy.  In that regard, RSS is 
agreeing with the Rambam and my original question then returns: why the 
differentiation?

Ben

On 2/2/2016 11:11 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> On 2/1/2016 11:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> > A woman can even have prophecy - the closest
> > possible relationship to /Hakadosh Baruch /Hu - without learning Torah. 

On 02/03/2016 09:13 PM, Michael Orr via Avodah wrote:

Zev Sero:
> This doesn't seem tenable to me, because if his non-Jewish "blood"
> is less than 100% then he is no longer a ger. The proverb must refer
> to a tenth-generation ger, i.e. all of his ancestors for the last ten
> generations were gerim.

MO:
> It is not necessary to resort to such a far-fetched interpretation.
> A much more natural meaning is that the term "ger... until the 10^th
> generation" includes the issue/zera of the actual ger "up until the
> 10^th generation."

ZS:
>What's far-fetched about taking the word they used seriously? They didn't
>say the descendants of a ger, they said a ger. And we know there is such
>a thing as a many-generation ger. So on what basis do you apply it to
>someone who isn't a ger, because one of his parents was a yisrael?

Are you seriously saying that this proverb was concerned to address
the case of a "ger" who has only ger ancestors back for 10 generations
(which would be at least 1000 persons)?

Aside from the absurdity of dealing with such an improbable case, such a
person in any case is not a ger since the child of a ger is not thereby a
ger.And if you are going to be loose enough to say a many-generation ger
is still a "ger", then you can say the same about descendants of gerim,
(that they are gerim). That is the Gra's interpretation, according to
Rav Steinsaltz' note as I read it, and WADR seems to me to be the only
reasonable way to understand it.

On 02/04/2016 07:39 PM, Michael Orr wrote:
> Are you seriously saying that this proverb was concerned to address the case of a "ger"
> who has only ger ancestors back for 10 generations (which would be at least 1000 persons)?
> Aside from the absurdity of dealing with such an improbable case,

It's not at all improbable. In Chazal's day people were very concerned
with yichus, and unless a ger had some outstanding quality such as
being a talmid chacham, or rich, most yisre'elim would be reluctant
to give him their daughter, so he would be left marring a giyores.
(This didn't work in the other direction, as the gemara says "everyone
runs to [marry] a giyores", but in Chazal's day (and AIUI today as well)
there were a lot more giyoros than gerim, so it was just as well that
they didn't face the same barriers to shiduchim that gerim did.

> such a person in any case is not a ger since the child of a ger is
> not thereby a ger.

Yes, he is. The status of ger is passed down through the generations,
until a yisrael marries into the familiy. That is plain halacha.


> And if you are going to be loose enough to say a many-generation ger
> is still a "ger", then you can say the same about descendants of
> gerim, (that they are gerim).

If you mean even when they have a yisrael ancestor, then no, they are not.
Once a ger marries a bas yisrael, or a giyores marries a ben yisrael,
the children are benei yisrael, kehal Hashem. It only takes "one drop
of Jewish blood", to use a very inaccurate English expression.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On 02/03/2016 09:13 PM, Michael Orr via Avodah wrote:

ZS:
> If this is the case today then surely it must have been even more so
> in Chazal's day, when giyur was so popular that historians tell us at
> one point 10% of the Roman empire was Jewish. And yet they limited the
> proverb to the presence of a known ger. Kal vachomer nowadays.

MO:
As per my previous point, they do not limit this principle of proper
speech to an actual known ger but include speech to the issue/zera of
a ger up to the 10^th generation.

ZS:
> You have avoided addressing my objection: if today this must include any
> audience, whether it includes a known ger or not, then how much more so
> in their day, so why did they limit it in this way? Why did they say
> "before a ger", if they meant "before anyone, because you never know
> who's a ger"? And if they didn't mean that in their day, then how can
> you say that in our day, when we have fewer gerim than they did?

MO:
Even assuming that there were many halachic gerim in the days of
Chazal,which has been questioned, there would still be settings where
the people spoken to all have known Jewish yichus, and the principle
set out in the proverb would not be applicable then, by all opinions.

On 02/04/2016 07:46 PM, Michael Orr wrote:
> MO:  Even assuming that there were many halachic gerim in the days of Chazal,
> which has been questioned,

The historical evidence seems overwhelming.  And AIUI this has been
reinforced by recent genetic evidence.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name



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



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


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


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

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.)