Is it muttar to be meshachreir a Shifcha Kna'anis in order to have a minyan for a Women's Prayer Group?
SEE ABOVE FOR IMPORTANT UPDATE!
Sunday, August 24, 2008
A Totally New Question!
This morning at the shiur, GS raised the following question, vis a vis the story of Reb Eliezer in Gittin 38a: I suggest you put aside some quiet time so you can ponder it.
Is it muttar to be meshachreir a Shifcha Kna'anis in order to have a minyan for a Women's Prayer Group?
SEE ABOVE FOR IMPORTANT UPDATE!
Is it muttar to be meshachreir a Shifcha Kna'anis in order to have a minyan for a Women's Prayer Group?
SEE ABOVE FOR IMPORTANT UPDATE!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
And the reason for the eleven "women" in the minyan in the lower picture is: because women don't count?
That's the "isha acheres maskinin lo, shema tamus ishto" of the first mishna in Yoma.
Im kein, ein l'davar sof.
I see they're wearing techeiles but can't tell if the Tefillin are Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam
In the same vein except here the Letzonis is a Mitzvah.
כִּי-יָקוּם בְּקִרְבְּךָ נָבִיא אוֹ חֹלֵם חֲלוֹם וְנָתַן אֵלֶיךָ אוֹת אוֹ מוֹפֵת
An interesting Gematria in this week's Parsha from the Baal HaTurim. The word נביא is equal to 63 same Gematria as ובנה: "and her son" .Then he says בקרבך is equal to 324 which is the same as זו האשה: "this is the woman". In closing והמשכיל יבין.
If you need a birur maybe the Baal hablog will give it(;
We all know that the Tcheiles is domeh le'yam, and the yam is domeh to etc. I hope you noticed that the tcheiles also matches their eyes. Tzitzis can be a fabulous accessory.
The Nachlas Yakov on Chumash, you can see it's the same Reb Yakov MiLisa that wrote the Nesivos and the Toras Gittin. The Chasam Sofer on the Torah, same as the Chasam Sofer in the Teshuvos and the pirush on Shas and Shulchan Aruch. The Arvei Nachal, Rashi, Reb Moshe, all of them. But it's amazing that the same person that wrote the Tur wrote the Pirush Baal Haturim on the Torah. Does this remez give you any more insight into Yoshke than the befeirushe passuk of "ki yesis'cha achicha ben imecha?"
It gives you a greater intuition into the all-encompassing nature of the Torah, which contains everything in Creation within it. In that sense, it enhances your kiyum of "Ein Od".
Or has your genetic taint of Litvishkeit blinded you to three-quarters of PaRDeS?
Methinks that no less a Litvak than the Vilner Gaon "indulged" in gematriot, etc.
Of course, if you feel that the Vilner Gaon is not a true Litvak because in the latest portrait he is shown with a shtreimel of sorts, perhaps I can direct you to
Rabbeinu Bachya, who, in Bereshit, is extremely impressed with the appearance of the mnemonic BHR"D at a spacing of 43 letters (or was it a skip of 72; I don't have a copy in front of me). He says something to the effect of, "Vehu davar nifla."
However, there is hope for you. In the mysterious laboratories where "they" research soulular genetics, they are working on regesh transplants for Litvaks.
I heard a cute one from Rabbi Moshe Meir Weiss He says if you Know The Pardes Like me without Sod You are a Ferd~Viduk
See #23 in
http://havolim.blogspot.com/2008/04/metzora-vayikra-1421-veim-dal-hu-korban.html
The order also matters.
Back to the Rabbeinu Bachya. It's the final part of the pirush on the second posuk in Bereshit. However, the part about davar nifla was conflated, as an artifact of a poor memory, from a footnote in the R. Chavel edition.
Also, in that comment, Litvishkeit (sic) should have been with a small "l". Lita with a capital "L" indeed subsumes the entire Torah haKedosha, as is merumaz in "Zos Toras HaAdam", where the gematria of HaAdam is Lita. If you reply from Tosafot that Atem Kruyim Adam, but HaAdam includes aku"m also; I agree. Lita encompasses masechet Avada Zarah also.
The problem with the litvak (v THE LITVAK) is that he tends to forget the GR"A, R. Chaim Volozhener, R. Meir Simcha, the MALBI"M, etc., and satifies himself with what is taught in the Bais Medrash - not realizing that while the Bais Medrash is a wonderful womb, one cannot stay in the womb forever.
...and furthermore: re your problem with psak in "Se'ir Izim, the Bach and the Shach", a Telzer approach is presented in the hakdama to the Shiurei Da'as, wherein it is posited that psak does not just judge what Emes is, but actually creates Emes through a modification of reality.
This is from Rav Elya Meir Bloch.
It should be stipulated that although Telz was geographically in Lita, that was just an inconsequential detail. They were actually situated in the Hei Ha'Yediah of "HaGedola and HaKedosha."
I'm not worried about eilu ve'eilu. I know that the Ketzos was mechavein to Reb Elya Meir in his hakdama, where he talks about Emes mei'eretz titzmach. What bothered me was that if you can be someich on a da'as yachid, or on the shitta of a katan against a gadol, in cases of hefsed meruba or tza'ar gadol, then what is psak? Bishlema if you're being machri'a, fine. That's the way it is, and finished. But if, in cases where you're just applying the rules of paskening on the basis of going after the Rabbim, or after the gadol, but we say that you can fudge the result if you really need to, then what real meaning does do the rules of psak have? And if you don't follow the psak, is it a big deal or not? Can you say, as baalei batim often do, well, if so and so holds like that, how bad can it be to rely on him-- even in issues of de'oraysas?
Let's boldface the issue a bit: two sha'ailot, with identical facts, except one is a case of hefsed merubah. Can you pasken one way on Monday and the opposite way on Tuesday? Or, let's bring this into the arena of shnei sh'vilin. What if both cases come to the posek at the same time?
There's an interesting Tosfos in Nazir 57a, DH Be'omeir. Tosfos brings the famous din of shnei shvilin, that we pasken that both are tahor vadai, as long as they don't come to beis din together, even though it is impossible for both to be tahor. Tosfos says that this din psak is only true when we are paskening on the basis of Chazakah. Psakim based on Chazakah don't have to be consistent-- they are a derech of psak, not a description of reality. BUT, if we are paskening in a case of shnei shvilin and applying the chumra of safek tuma bershus hayochid, which would mean we should pasken lechumra, then we DO NOT pasken on both that they are tamei. Safeik tuma birshus harabim is based on chezkas tahara, and chazaka can pasken even when the the psakim are impossible. But Safeik tuma birshus hayachid is based on the limud from Sotah, and can only be used where the result is possible. (I know this is discussed at length in the Shmaitsah. I just want to talk about Tosfos' shittah as applied to shnei shvilin.)
The point is that you see from here that the famous rule of sh'shv, that psakim don't have to reflect reality, only applies where you're working with chazakah. Where you're working with rov, maybe the psakim have to be possible and consistent. So if you're meikil for A because of hefsed or something, maybe you would not be able to be machmir for B.
Or vice versa, which would be consistent with the derech ha"psak" today.
Logic resides in the extremes: One piece of meat, kosher according to a daas yochid, treif according to everybody else (e.g., it's a two- pound dead tola'at: no problem according to Rashi in Pesachim). Cut it in half. One person cooks it in an heirloom earthenware pot, mamash a kli cheres, made in Mesopotamia during the reign of Sargon I, and worth (if kosher) upwards of $1,000,000. The other half is cooked in a cheap metal pot purchased at Wal-Mart for $5.
Does the cheap pot have to be kashered?
Post a Comment