Volume 27 Number 06
Produced: Sun Oct 5 8:14:10 1997
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Administrivia
[Avi Feldblum]
Bracha for Brandy
[Carl Singer]
Dancing Womern
[Lon Eisenberg]
Ha-LHashem
[Yisrael Dubitsky]
Halachic Methodology of History
[Warren Burstein]
Rabbi Akiva
[Henry Valier]
Truth and History
[Jay Rovner]
Women Learning (2)
[Catherine S. Perel, Avi Feldblum]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 08:11:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Administrivia
Shana Tova - A Happy/Good New Year - to all of the members of the list!
I hope you have all had a meaningful Yom Tov over the last few days, and
are having an easy fast today (although I know that for some of the list
the fast is already over).
One issue that came up in the last several issues that has managed to
remain comfortably under the surface for the last many years has to do
with the definition of what exactly the definition/orientation of this
list is. As pointed out by a number of people, it does not explicitly
state that this is an "Orthodox" list. I will fully and freely admit
that this ambiguity was deliberate. I have now gotten myself in the
situation where I need to address this ambiguity. I think that a Yom
Tzom is likely an appropriate time to address this, but I will need the
time to put my words together carefully, so I hope to have it ready for
an issue to go out this evening. Along with my comments will be several
of the submissions on this topic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 97 00:09:44 UT
Subject: Bracha for Brandy
The question isn't really what's the brucha for Brandy. It's who and
how does one determine the proper halacha? Seeing that two
"authorities" differ means one authority too many was asked.
There is a simple jurisdiction that applies to most of life's simpler
situations. Yes, there are exceptions (Siamese twins, extremely complex
cases of medical halacha, etc.) For kashruth and the like we have our
shule and our shule Rav. If we don't rely on his word then we have a
most serious issue.
Many, many years ago when our now college boy was an infant, a
babysitter "traifed up" something in our sink. My wife was
understandably besides herself, and she contacted a choseveh Rosh
Yeshiva (and family friend.) When she explained the predicament, he
told her that this was a matter to be paskened by our shule Rav. It's a
lesson well learned.
With phones, email, etc., we can ask Shilah's worldwide. Sometimes it's
inappropriate and may lead to confusion as opposed to better observance.
Carl Singer
<csinger@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lon Eisenberg <eisenbrg@...>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 97 17:35:00 EDT
Subject: Dancing Womern
>From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@...>
>>Esther Posen <eposen@...> wrote:
>>>Saying that some women feel uncomfortable dancing around men makes this
>>>sound like a social rather than halachic issue. Do only the "orthodox
>>>right wing fanatics" believe that is it against halacha for men to watch
>>>women dancing?
>Lon Eisenberg commented:
>>Please site your source for stating that it is against halakha for men
>>to watch women dancing (assuming the women are properly dressed). I
>>believe this is a new stringency being passed off as normative halakha.
>
>I found it difficult to understand on what basis someone might think
>that staring at women might be permitted.
I don't think anyone would dispute that it is prohibited to _stare_ to
derive sexual benefit.
That was not what the issue is here. Perhaps the word "watch" is
misleading. Perhaps the word "see" would be better. The point I was
trying to make was that the lack of a mehitza [seperator] should not mean
that the women are not allowed to dance with men being in the same room,
just like the lack of a mehitza on a bus doesn't cause a prohibition of
both sexes riding on the same bus, etc. I don't see any halakhic
distinction between dancing women and walking or seated women. If there
is one, please point it out to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Dubitsky <DJ8QC@...>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 00:38:59 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Ha-LHashem
The first word(s) of Devarim 32:6 present an interesting situation.
There seems to be a difference of Mesorah between the various Tanakhim.
C.D. Ginsburg, Koren, and Breu'er's all spell the words: Ha <patah>
le<shewa>-Hashem. So it also appears in the Aleppo Codex [I do not have
recourse at the moment to the photocopy of it, but the Me'orot Natan so
cites it]
The Leningrad Codex [BHS], on the other hand, spells it:
Ha <hataf patah>[makef] la<patah>Hashem. So also Radak in Mikhlol as per
Minhat Shai.
Both versions spell the "Heh" separately than the lamed and Hashem's
name. There are numerous manscripts, however, that spell it all as one
word or at least the heh and lamed together, the name of Hashem
separately. So it is also cited in Minhat Shai.
As a parenthesis, the Minhat Shai "paskens" that the heh is separate and
the shewa under the lamed is a nah [so that the correct pronunciation
should be HalHashem, as if it were one word]
My question, however, refers to the Mesorah note by CD Ginsburg: he
writes that "...ken le-Suarai heh le-.hud, le-Hashem le-.hud;
le-Neharde`ai Hal le-.hud, Hashem le-.hud. Ve-KHEN BE-SEFER `EZRA.
uve-sefarim a.herim HalHashem mila .hada."
1) What is the meaning of the reference to sefer `Ezra?
2) How do most ba`ale keri'ah lain this word(s)?
Ketivah va-.hatimah tovah to all,
Yisrael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Warren Burstein <warren@...>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 22:49:49 +0200
Subject: Halachic Methodology of History
>From: Hayim S. Hendeles <hayim@...>
>IMHO the statement (about the Netziv reading a newspaper on Shabbat - WB)
>*had to be deleted*. And I say this, because
>you and I *DO NOT KNOW* what the word "newspaper" means. To some,
>it means the New York Times, to some it means the Yated Neeman
>(which contains the news from a Torah perspective as well as
>numerous Divrei Torah), and to others the word "newspaper" means
>one of these sleazy British tabloids.
Could not the same be said about nearly every incident that might be
included in or omitted from a biography?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Henry Valier <henryv@...>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:54:32 +0100
Subject: Re: Rabbi Akiva
>From: <gershon.dubin@...>
>Does anyone have an explanation why the phrase "ad shebah Rabbi Akiva"
>(until Rabbi Akiva came) and taught...is used specifically with Rabbi
>Akiva?
There are two answers to Gershon Dubin's question, although they are
connected.
First of all, I belive I am correct in saying that most or at least the
majority of our Oral Torah, the Talmud based on the Mishna, is from the
'Rabbi Akiva School'. [As in "Stam mishna keRabi Meir". Rabbi Meir was
one the 5 main students of Rabbi Akiva].
Thus the respectful and conclusive statement ...ad shebah Rabbi Akiva.
(Wether or not this is the only place it appears, I do not know.)
Secondly and more specificaly, the statement "ad shebah.." is in
reference to the section in the talmud, which recounts the story of
Rabbi Shimon ben Amatiya (Amtina?), Pesachim 2nd chap, who was exegising
every appearance of the word "Et" in the Torah, and expounding it to
include another concept. Upon reaching the verse "Et Hashem Elokecha
tirau" (The Lord your G-d, you shall fear), he concluded that he must be
mistaken in his methodology, as it was impossible to include anything
else with or in comparison to G-d. And so the situation remained *until
Rabbi Akiva came* and explained that in this verse the word "Et" teaches
us to fear the Talmid Chacham, with the same 'fear of heaven or fear of
G-d'.
The point of this story is that the talmud upholds this opinion
throughout its texts. The status of talmid chacham is a fundamental
basis, upon which rests the whole of the oral law, and thus the meaning
of the written Torah.
Now we can understand the unique importance of Rabbi Akiva's statement,
and his unique status.
Incidentally the above ideas help us understand why it was specifically
Rabbi Akiva's students that died of a plague. The talmud tells us they
were punished for "not respecting each other enough". As _they_ were the
followers of the one that taught 'respect of the talmid chacham should
be like the respect of heaven', _they_ were the ones who were punished
for disrespecful behaviour.
/---Henry Valier.-------------------------------\ /-----\-------------\
| <henryv@...> | (_(\---/
| Bevis Marks Synagogue, |_ /---\
| tel:(171) 626 1274 fax:(171) 283 8825 | \--------\---/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <jarovner@...> (Jay Rovner)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:34:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Truth and History
> From: <rhendel@...> (Russell Hendel)
> * PERSONAL INCIDENTS: If I go to a wedding I must say the bride is
> beautiful (even if she isn't). Similarly if I record the wedding in a
> history book I should so record it. Truth in this instance has no value
> in halacha. Shinar and Luntz might retort, "Well why include them in the
> history" and that is fine but I have no objection to putting them in
Mr. Hendel has an interesting point: there is a clear distinction in
authoriy between halakhah and aggadah (values). For me, this raises the
question, Do we not see the implementation of actions/values/attitudes
clearly communicated in, e.g., narrative rabbinic texts as part of the
traditional understanding of the desire of Hashem (whether the value
came from Tanakh, or Sages, or the Ruah ha-kodesh immanent in Klal
Yisrael)?
If we admonish our children to "act like a Jew," do we attach no divine
imperative to the notion?
Jay Rovner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Catherine S. Perel <perel@...>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 18:18:34 -0500
Subject: Women Learning
Rachel Mestetsky wrote in Vol. 27, #3:
> I was given a slightly different explanation towards women learning
> Torah. Women are responsible for offspring. Any stay at home mom
> will tell you that it's not a full-time job, it's a 24/7 job. Men
> work 40 hours a week, get 40 hours a week to themselves, and then
> Shabbat and Sunday off. Women don't. A baby needs to be fed and
> clothed and changed on Shabbat, in the evenings, in the middle of the
> night, etc. This means that any mother would not be able to dedicate
> a set amount of time to intense study, and thus it would be forced to
> take a "back seat" to raising children. Torah study is extremely
> impor- tant, and so are raising children. So the compromise is the
> man has the obligation to study Torah, and the woman has the
> obligation of bearing children. This is why as the Rambam said "women
> are not prepared for serious study" - it's impossible to put Torah
> study ahead of raising children.
I have two main comments:
#1 Rachel says that "the woman has the obligation of bearing children."
I thought the mitzvah was incumbant upon the male, not the female and not
on both.
#2 I understand the argument about Torah study and child rearing. It
leads me to two questions:
Q1: What of the widower who is now taking care of his children
without the aid of his wife?
Q2: What of women who have been less than successful in finding
a spouse? What of the woman who cannot have children? What of the
couple who have been unsuccessful at adopting a child? What of the
widow whose children are grown and now live elsewhere?
I am curious as to whether these women would be permitted to study Torah
beyond the mitzvot that concern them and their roles as wife and mother.
May you all be inscribed for a good, healthy new year.
Catherine Perel
<perel@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 07:58:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Women Learning
Catherine S. Perel writes:
> I have two main comments:
>
> #1 Rachel says that "the woman has the obligation of bearing children."
> I thought the mitzvah was incumbant upon the male, not the female and not
> on both.
I think the distinction here is that while a woman does not have any
obligation to have children (potential reasons can take another post by
others), once there are children the primary responsibility for the
early years caring and rearing of the children is viewed as being
incumbent on the mother.
> #2 I understand the argument about Torah study and child rearing. It
> leads me to two questions:
> Q1: What of the widower who is now taking care of his children
> without the aid of his wife?
>
> Q2: What of women who have been less than successful in finding
> a spouse? What of the woman who cannot have children? What of the
> couple who have been unsuccessful at adopting a child? What of the
> widow whose children are grown and now live elsewhere?
The fundimental principal here is that of the way Halacha creates
catagories. In general, when halacha creates a catagory, even if the
reason for the catagory may not apply 100% to that catagory, the
rule/law is defined by the catagory, not by individual application of
the reasoning. So if [due to the obligation of most women during the time
they may have primary care for the rearing of the children] [possible
reason] woman [halakhically defined catagory] are exempt from certain
mitzvot, an individual member of that catagory (e.g. single woman) for
whom the reasoning may not apply is not removed from the catagory. Nor
is a member not of that catagory (e.g. single male parent) for whom the
reasoning may apply added to the catagory. Once the halahkic catagory
has been created/defined, that takes precedence over the reasoning
behind it.
> I am curious as to whether these women would be permitted to study Torah
> beyond the mitzvot that concern them and their roles as wife and mother.
The question of permitted vs obligated is one where it is my impression
that the great majority of halakhic decisors are of the opinion that a
woman who chooses to learn Torah of any type is permitted. A famous
example is the woman "Rosh Yeshiva" (I forget her name) who gave a shiur
from behind a mechitza to whom the ARI Hakadosh went to learn by. Today,
there are opinions from Rav Soloveichek zt"l and the previous
Lubaviticher Rebbe zt"l who both held that it was today a requirement
(not an issue of just being permitted) to teach women all aspects of
Torah.
Avi Feldblum
<mljewish@...> or feldblum@cnj.digex.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 27 Issue 6
