More on The Last Mishna

update to this post.
Netziv in Meitiv Shir (Rinah shel Torah), Shir Hashirim 3:3 : A kinui for Torah is "mishmarti", and the Mishna at the end of Kiddushin says Avraham kept the Torah - the meaning of "kept" (asah) is not that he kept the mitzvos, because that is not a mishna, rather it is a meimra in Yoma.  The Mishna isn't talking about keeping Mitzvos, it is discussing learning Torah .... Therefore those who learn Torah are called Shomrim....

So the Gemara in Yoma teaches us that Avraham kept mitzvos, and the Mishna in Kiddushin tells us that Avraham learned Torah.

Who Is A Jew - Early 1970s

Someone asked me to put this in Sheimos if it needed it, and I took a look at it and thought this is a great pamphlet.  Who_Is_A_Jew

Kol, Se'ar, Shok B'Isha Erva, Part 2

Last time, we saw two sugyos, one in Kiddushin and one in Brachos, about the impermissibilityof seeing a woman's hair, shok, or to hear her voice.  Rif rules that the sugya in Brachos is specifically some of these things during Kriyas Shma.  The Rosh, however, has a much stricter view.

רא"ש מסכת ברכות פרק ג Sugya in Brachos:
א"ר יצחק טפח באשה ערוה למאי הלכתא אילימא לאסתכולי בה והאמר רב ששת למה מנה הכתוב תכשיטין שבפנים עם תכשיטין שבחוץ לומר לך כל מי שמסתכל באצבע קטנה של אשה כאילו מסתכל במקום התורפה לא קשיא הא באחרת והא באשתו ולק"ש. ודבר שרגיל להיות מכוסה באשה ודוקא באחרת אבל בעצמה הא אמרי' לעיל האשה יושבת ערומה וקוצה חלתה*:
ואמר רב חסדא שוק באשה ערוה שנאמר גלי שוק עברי נהרות וכתיב תגל ערותך. אמר שמואל קול באשה ערוה שנאמר כי קולך ערב פירוש לשמוע ולא לענין ק"ש. אמר רב ששת שער באשה ערוה בנשים שדרכן לכסות שערן אבל בתולות שדרכן לילך פרועות מותר לקרות כנגדן:
Rosh changes statement 4 to prohibit the voice of a woman completely, not only when you are trying to say Kriyas Shma.
He qualifies statement 5 by saying that it is mutar to see the uncovered hair of besulos (which we will take to mean as unmarried women) while reciting Kriyas Shma.

 Kiddushin Sugya: רא"ש מסכת קידושין פרק ד
ואמר שמואל אין משתמשין באשה בין גדולה בין קטנה [דף ע ע"ב] ואמר שמואל אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל ואפילו ע"י שליח (ורש"י פירש) ואפי' ע"י בעלה אסור והא דקאמר בפ' השוכר את הפועלים (דף פז א) דע"י בעלה שואלין היינו לשאול לבעלה היאך שלומה וניהוגה כי הא דקאמר התם למה נקוד על אי"ו שבאליו למדה תורה דרך ארץ שישאל אדם באכסניא שלו כמו ששאלו המלאכים לאברהם איו שלום שרה אבל כי הך עובדא דהכא שאמר רב נחמן לרב יהודה שישלח לה דברי שלומים על ידו כי האי גוונא אסור אפי' ע"י בעלה:
Rosh does not cite B, kol b'isha erva, afilu al yidei shliach.

Rashba Brachos 24a says:
חידושי הרשב"א מסכת ברכות דף כד עמוד א
ואסור לשמוע אפי' קול דבורה כדאמרינן בקדושין [ע' א'] לישדר מר שלמא לילתא אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל קול באשה ערוה, ואלא מיהו נראה דדוקא קול של שאלת שלום או בהשבת שלום כי התם דאיכא קרוב הדעת
To hear a woman's speaking voice is prohibited.  We will see that many say only the singing voice of a woman is prohibited, but Rashba says her speaking vpoice is prohibited, but then limits it to when one is conversing with her about her welfare.  Such a situation yields "kiruv hada'as," a "meeting of the minds."  This is not prohibited because it could lead touwanted behavior; in other words, it is a harchaka based o nthe pasuk in Kedoshim "lo sikrivu l'galos erva."  It is the same idea as yichud, but even without physical contact.

(to be continued...)

Kol, Se'ar, Shok B'Isha Erva

Sorry I got sidetracked with the issue of identifying people by their voices, but now we'll being the sugya of  kol b'isha erva - including if hearing the voice or singing voice of a woman is prohibited to hear; if the uncovered hair of a woman is prohibited to view; if the "shok" of a woman is prohibited to view; if the scent of a woman is prohibited to smell, and about inquiring into the well-being of a woman.

There are two sugyos about these issues, I indentify each point ot the Brachos 24a sugya with numbers and the Kiddushin 70a sugya by letters, and will refer to them by those numbers/letters.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף כד עמוד א
1)אמר רבי יצחק: טפח באשה ערוה.
1a) למאי? אילימא לאסתכולי בה - והא אמר רב ששת: למה מנה הכתוב תכשיטין שבחוץ עם תכשיטין שבפנים - לומר לך: כל המסתכל באצבע קטנה של אשה כאילו מסתכל במקום התורף!
2)אלא: באשתו, ולקריאת שמע
3) אמר רב חסדא: שוק באשה ערוה, שנאמר +ישעיהו מ"ז+ גלי שוק עברי נהרות, וכתיב +ישעיהו מ"ז+ תגל ערותך וגם תראה חרפתך.

4) אמר שמואל: קול באשה ערוה, שנאמר +שיר השירים ב'+ כי קולך ערב ומראך נאוה.

5) אמר רב ששת: שער באשה ערוה, שנאמר +שיר השירים ד'+ שערך כעדר העזים.  

_____
-תלמוד בבלי מסכת קידושין דף ע עמוד א
A)בפירוש אמר שמואל: אין משתמשים באשה כלל, בין גדולה בין קטנה. נשדר ליה מר שלמא לילתא, א"ל,
B) הכי אמר שמואל: קול באשה ערוה. אפשר ע"י שליח!
C)א"ל, הכי אמר שמואל אין שואלין בשלום אשה  על ידי בעלה.
D) אמר ליה, הכי אמר שמואל: אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל.




One comment - what does erva mean?  It can mean, as in Yevamos 2a, the singular form of "arayos" which means one of the women who is closely related to a man that they cannot be married, and their offspring would be a mamzer (see Vayikra 18:6-19).  It can also mean the "place of nakedness," referring to a specific anatomical location of any female.  ibn Ezra (ibid. 6) explains erva as a disgusting place that must be covered.

How do the rishonim learn these two sugyos?

Rif Brachos 15 a does not cite 1-5 at all.  Why not?
חידושי הרשב"א מסכת ברכות דף כד עמוד א
והרב אלפסי ז"ל שלא הזכיר מכל זה כלום כתב הראב"ד ז"ל דאפשר דמשום דאמרינן לעיל עגבות אין בהן משום ערוה סבור הרב ז"ל דכ"ש טפח ושוק ושערה וקול

Rashba explains since an earlier Gemara in Brachos says that one may recite Shma when in physical contact (back-to-back) with his wife, hearing her voice, seeing her hair seeing her shok (to be discussed later) will not preclide him from reciting Shma.  We understand that this sugya in Brachos is not a general prohibition, it is talking about saying shma in the presence of these sights.

רי"ף מסכת קידושין דף ל עמוד ב
ואמר שמואל אין משתמשין באשה בין גדולה בין קטנה ואמר שמואל אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל ואפילו על ידי שליח:
Cites A and D (which includes C)
These are general laws, not related to Kriyas Shma.

We see, then, that Rif holds the two sugyos are separate.

(to be continued...)

Purim - When Esther went the First Time...

I always wondered about these Pesukim in Megillas Esther:

אסתר פרק ב
יג) וּבָזֶה הַנַּעֲרָה בָּאָה אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר תֹּאמַר יִנָּתֵן לָהּ לָבוֹא עִמָּהּ מִבֵּית הַנָּשִׁים עַד בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ:
    יד) בָּעֶרֶב הִיא בָאָה וּבַבֹּקֶר הִיא שָׁבָה אֶל בֵּית הַנָּשִׁים שֵׁנִי אֶל יַד שַׁעַשְׁגַז סְרִיס הַמֶּלֶךְ שֹׁמֵר הַפִּילַגְשִׁים לֹא תָבוֹא עוֹד אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ כִּי אִם חָפֵץ בָּהּ הַמֶּלֶךְ וְנִקְרְאָה בְשֵׁם:
    טו) וּבְהַגִּיעַ תֹּר אֶסְתֵּר בַּת אֲבִיחַיִל דֹּד מָרְדֳּכַי אֲשֶׁר לָקַח לוֹ לְבַת לָבוֹא אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ לֹא בִקְשָׁה דָּבָר כִּי אִם אֶת אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר הֵגַי סְרִיס הַמֶּלֶךְ שֹׁמֵר הַנָּשִׁים וַתְּהִי אֶסְתֵּר נֹשֵׂאת חֵן בְּעֵינֵי כָּל רֹאֶיהָ

What was so important about the women being allowed to bring whatever they wanted into Achashveirosh's chambers?  And why did Esther not bring anything?

There is an important machlokes Rishonim if the din of yehareg v'al yaavor applies to abzraihu of the 3 cardinal sins.
המאור הגדול מסכת סנהדרין דף יז עמוד ב
אביי אמר אסתר קרקע עולם היתה רבא אמר הנאת עצמן שאני נקיטין השתא דע"ז וג"ע וש"ד ל"ש בצנעא ול"ש בפרהסיא לא שנא בשעת השמד ול"ש שלא בשעת השמד יהרג ואל יעבור ולא מיבעיא עבירה עצמה אלא אפי' כל מידי דמטי ליה לעובר העבירה הנאה מחמת העבירה בג' עבירות הללו יהרג ואל יעבור כדגרסי' התם בכל מתרפאין חוץ מעצי אשרה וכולה כדאיתא התם והרי רפואה דכי מתרפא מעצי אשרה לאו עובד ע"ז הוא אלא איתהנויי הוא דמתהני מינה ואפ"ה אין מתרפאין ממנה אפי' רפוי נפשות כלומר חולה שיש בו סכנה ואין צ"ל שאין בו סכנה ועוד ההוא שנתן עיניו באשה ...
Rambam argues and we can infer from his language that yehareg v'al yaavor applies to the 3 cardinal sins themselves, but not their abizraihu.
רמב"ם הלכות יסודי התורה פרק ה
הלכה א
כל א בית ישראל מצווין על קדוש השם הגדול הזה שנאמר ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל, ומוזהרין שלא לחללו שנאמר ולא תחללו את שם קדשי, כיצד כשיעמוד עובד כוכבים ויאנוס את ישראל לעבור על אחת מכל מצות האמורות בתורה או יהרגנו יעבור ואל יהרג שנאמר במצות אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם, וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם, ואם מת ולא עבר הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו.  
    הלכה ב
במה דברים אמורים בשאר מצות חוץ מעבודת כוכבים ב וגלוי עריות ושפיכת דמים, אבל שלש עבירות אלו אם יאמר לו עבור על אחת מהן או תהרג, ג יהרג ואל יעבור, במה דברים אמורים בזמן שהעובד כוכבים מתכוין להנאת עצמו, כגון שאנסו לבנות לו ביתו בשבת או לבשל לו תבשילו, או אנס אשה לבועלה וכיוצא בזה, אבל אם נתכוין להעבירו על המצות בלבד, אם היה בינו לבין עצמו ואין שם עשרה מישראל יעבור ואל יהרג, ואם אנסו להעבירו בעשרה מישראל יהרג ואל יעבור, ואפילו לא נתכוין להעבירו אלא על מצוה משאר מצות בלבד.  
Rambam only mentions the aveiros themselves, not abizraihu.  And later
רמב"ם הלכות יסודי התורה פרק ה
הלכה ו
כענין שאמרו באונסין כך אמרו בחלאים, כיצד מי שחלה ונטה למות ואמרו הרופאים שרפואתו בדבר פלוני מאיסורין שבתורה עושין, ומתרפאין בכל איסורין שבתורה במקום סכנה חוץ מעבודת כוכבים וגילוי עריות ושפיכת דמים שאפילו במקום סכנה אין מתרפאין בהן, ואם עבר ונתרפא עונשין אותו בית דין עונש הראוי לו
So to Rambam, you are only chayav to give your life on the 3 cardinal sins themselves.

And see R' Moshe Feinstein regarding the Baal Hamaor above:
שו"ת אגרות משה אבן העזר חלק א סימן נו
ולכן צ"ל דלהביא אצלו האשה ערומה שיסתכל בערמומיתה הוא שייך לג"ע, אף שלא יעשה יותר מהסתכלות דהרי כן עושין מגלי עריות להכנת מעשה הזנות שלהם והוא ג"כ מדברים המעמיקים בזמה ואפשר שבאופן כזה שהוא מעשה הכנה משניהם למעשה הזנות אף שהחליטו שלא יעשו מעשה הזנות ממש אלא רק מעשה הכנה דהסתכלות להגדיל תאותם ולא יותר יהיה אף בהסתכלות הלאו דלא תקרבו אף בלא נגיעה כיון שאין לך דבר מביא לידי גילוי ערוה יותר מזה, ויותר מסתבר שעכ"פ בלא נגיעה אינו בלשון לא תקרבו שבקרא, אבל עכ"פ מעשה זמה ודאי הוי שזהו ההכנה שלהם והוי זה מאביזרייהו

I think that the women were allowed to bring something into the room to help them entice Achashveirosh to their charms.  This was not an act of arayos mamash but it is it is maaseh zima.  Still, because Esther was careful to not contaminate herself from Achashverosh, she chose not to bring anything with her, she only brought only what Hagay gave her.

Testimony if You Recognize Someone's Voice, Part 3 (last one for now)

Teshuvos Achronim continued.
Chasam Sofer V:CM2 (the V is a Roman numeral and the CM is not - it's Volume 5: Choshen Mishpat 2)
The Dayan Rav Daniel made a diyuk in Rambam Eidus end of Ch. 9 and and SA CM 35:12 that "a blind person cannot testify even if he recognizes the voice" implies a kosher witness can testify when he recognizes the voice.  But Chasam Sofer goes into the issue further and suggests maybe kol only works with touching the person also, like Yitzchak felt Yaakov and felt hairy Eisav-like arms.  He concludes we would not be motzi mammon based on recognizing a voice.

(2 non-post-related points of interest: the first is he discusses standing in dinei Torah (in the legal sense - you can't sue someone if they have no standing; he mentions "lav baal devarim didi at."  Minor point.

The second is timely - the case was where a person hid witnesses and told them he was going to bring a certain person (let's call him Reuvein) in to admit Reuvein owes this guy money.  Chasam Sofer says even if tevias ayin of kol wirks, in that case it would not work because the witnesses are tainted thiking the voice is Ruvein's.  But maybe the guy brought in someone to imitate Reuvein's voice.  This is timely because of Daniel Kahneman's recent book Thinking, Fast and Slow discusses the effects of priming - putting an idea or awareness of something into a subject's consciousness - even non-maliciously -and the subject's answer can change by putting a certain idea into his head.  (Enjoy that, #JR!)

Mishkenos Yaakov in Kehilas Yaakov (there are teshuvos in the back of it) EH 6.  Discusses using kol in aguna.  Cites Avodas Hagershuni, Shvus Yaakov and Ketzos.  Leans toward saying like Ketzos.  He keeps referring to another Teshuva - not sure if it is from a question that is not printed or is in R' Efrayim Zalman Margolis' teshuva (maybe Beis Efrayim EH 15-19?) about making a machlokes Bavli/Yerushalmi of the status of siman being dioraissa or derabanan.  I lost the thread of his discussion because I don't know what he keeps referring to.  He does say a chiddush that while it sounds like we rely on teviyas ayin in returning an aveida to a tzurva dirabanan, he says it is not because we rely on Tevias Ayin, it is because in that case, the owner had yiush.

Somewhere (can't remember) I was referred to Noda BiYehuda Kama EH 51 but it does not seem to  e about kol.

And I want to end with how I satrted this series - if Eidim were hidden and heard someone admit to a debt, it is considered admitting to his debt, the Ketzos says it is only where the witnesses were able to see the face of the admitting person, and the Nesivos says no, we rely on the witnesses identifying the admitting person by recognizing his voice.

Applications of this issue
This issue comes up several times in the latter half of sefer Breishis:
1) When Racdhel gave the signs to Leah (whatever they were) and Lavan successfully swindled Yaakov into marrying Leah.  Why didn't Yaakov recognize that the voice was not Leah's?
2) Hakol Kol Yaakov - when Yaakov got the brachos from his blind father, who thought it was Eisav.  Why didn't Yitzchak identify Yaakov by voice?
3) It seems one reason why Yosef spoke harshly to his brothers when they came for food was so they would not recognize his voice.  If he would have spoken regularly they could have identified him.

These examples are mentioned at some point by several of the teshuvos mentioned above.

Testimony if you Recognize Someone's Voice, Part 2

What is the status of eidus based on identifying someone by their voice?

If this does work, is that only when the "witness" recognizes the voice?  What if the witness does not recognize the voice, but the voice identifies itself?

Let's look at various teshuvos about this.

Rishon - Ri Migash 149
Identifying from voice works.  The shaila was for mekalel or menadeh, so it seems if you heard someone be mevarech es Hashem you can give a chiyuv misa, provided there was a hasraah.

Interesting Gemara (cited by Ri Migash): Gittin 66a
תלמוד בבלי מסכת גיטין דף סו עמוד א
 מתני'. מי שהיה מושלך לבור, ואמר כל השומע את קולו יכתוב גט לאשתו - הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו.  
  גמ'. וליחוש שמא שד הוא! א"ר יהודה: כשראו לו דמות אדם. אינהו נמי אידמויי אידמו! דחזו ליה בבואה. אינהו נמי אית להו בבואה! דחזו ליה בבואה דבבואה. ודלמא אינהו נמי אית להו! א"ר חנינא, לימדני יונתן בני: בבואה אית להו, בבואה דבבואה לית להו. ודלמא צרה היא! תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל: בשעת הסכנה, כותבין ונותנין אע"פ שאין מכירין. 
The Rambam (Geirushin 2:13) does not bring down about בבואה דבבואה; see Kesef Mishna.  (My Rebbi discussed the "sheid" aspect in Hashkafa shiur here.)

Achronim:
Avodas Hagershuni 110
The case was where a person had a brother abroad, but no one knew where.  Someone came claiming to be the brother, and he wanted to inherit their father's estate with his brother.  No one recognized his face, but people did recognize his voice.  Is that enough?  Avodas Hagershuni says recognizing the voice is enough even in dinei mammonos, provided there is no contradictory evidence.  Therefore, in this case, there are eidim who recognize his voice, however, his identity is in doubt because everybody agrees his face does not look like the brother we knew before he went abroad, so he cannot inherit absent better proof that he is who he claims he is.

Applying this to Gittin 66, Kol is a siman.  When there is no other evidence, it works.  When the gemara says "dilma sheid hu," it means how are you so sure it is a person and not a ventriloquist or Frank Caliendo imitating a voice or people trying to play tricks?  בבואה דבבואה tells us there is no evidence contrary - call it reiusa or hakchasha - against this voice.

Shvus Yaakov I:100
The case was to matir an aguna.  During a war or rebellion her husband went missing.  Witnesses came that they heard rebels catch someone and that man was pleading for his life, and from what he was saying they knew he was this woman's husband.  However, they were too far away to visually identify him, and it was very dangerous for them to try to get closer.  Is their testimony of identifying this man by his voice enough to allow this aguna to remarry?

He says we don't have Halachik precedent regarding this.  He cites the Avodas Hagershuni.  He goes through the sugyos relating to it (and says a suma or even a seeing and hearing person is allwed to their wife even on their first night of marriage, based on recognizing their voice) and says we would allow it.  Not for dinei nefashos, but certainly for this case and probably even for dinei mammonos.  However, due to the novelty of the ruling, his heter allowing the wife to remarry would only take effect if two other great poskim agree to his heter.  (This method of using three ballei horaah to be matir an aguna was used widely; even Igros Moshe has cases of it).

Comment: here we see that recognizing a voice does not mean that we know the person and recognize his voice, but even if we don't know the person but from what he says we can identify him - probably in this case, when the man was begging for his life, he probably said he had a wife and kids and probably mentioned their names, so the eidim who heard it were able to put the pieces together.  That's how I understand the teshuva.  This relates to the question I asked at the very beginning.  It is important because Rashi to Gittin 66a says the voice identified itself, his wife's name and his city; the information necessary to write a get.  He doesn't say if you recognize the voice or not; I think he means when you don't recognize the voice.

Testimony if you Recognize Someone's Voice

Can people testify based on recognizing someone's voice without seeing them (tevias eina dikala)?

See Chullin 95b-96a Rava says ...now I know Tevias Ayin is greater than a siman, for if not, how could a blind man be allowed to his wife (maybe it is not his wife, but he cannot see her), and how can any man be allowed to his wife at night [when he cannot see her, maybe it is not his wife], the answer is teviyas ayin of [recognizing their] voice.

Ketzos 81:13 from Chullin, (the continuation is:
אמר רב יצחק בריה דרב משרשיא: תדע, דאילו אתו בתרי, ואמרי: פלניא דהאי סימניה והאי סימניה, קטל נפשא - לא קטלינן ליה, ואילו אמרי: אית לן טביעות עינא בגויה - קטלינן ליה
However, he brings Rashi Sanhedrin 67a - if eidim are hidden and they hear someone being meisis others to avodah zarah, he is not put to death if they only identified the meisis through his voice.  You need a light so the eidim can see the person's face (even though he doesn't see the eidim).  Therefore Ketzos says tvias eina of kol does not work for dinei nefashos, and if ti doesn't work for dineo nefashos, it doesn't work for dinei mamonos either.  Then he quotes Shiltei Giborim Sanhedrin Ch 3 (8a in Rif) that tevias eina of kol only works for issurim - to recognize your wife, for example - not for mamonos or nefashos.

Nesivos 81:7 argues and says for mamonos, tevias eina dikala does work because Bava Metzia 20 regarding Simanim, isur is stricter than mamon, so if it is accepted for isur it is accepted for mamon, but dinei nefashos needs re'iah and yediah.  (It is pretty clear that recognizing someone through their voice is yediah but not reiyah.)

Meshoveiev Nesivos rejects this because if so, umdena should work - but it doesn't from the case where Shimon ben Shetach saw someone chase aperson into a deserted building and Shimon ben Shetach followed them in and found one man dead and the other brandishing a bloody knife and no one else in the building.  Shimon ben Shetach knew the guy killed the other guy, but said "al pi shnei eidim yumas hameis" prevented him from killing him (what about the fact that there only would have been one witness - Shimon be Shetach himself; it does not say anyone was with him?).  This is on Sanhedrin 37b.  (Regarding umdena see Rav Elchanan koveitz shiurim 2:38) but, conludes the Ketzos in Meshoveiv Nesivos, we see we need re'iah mamash.

Now I'm not sure this Ketzos is right.  In an umdena, we didn't actually see the murder or event take place in front of our eyes, we can only infer it.  But in our case, the Nesivos is talking about where they hear it happening as it happens.  That very well might be yedia without rei'ah, but it is much stronger than an umdena!

One very surprising nafka mina comes up according to this Nesivos in a case where we have yediah and it is sufficient for dinei mamonos but not for dinei nefashos.  Haghos Ashri, Bava Kama chapter 4 says if Ruvein kills Shimon, even though he's put to death, he is chayav to pay his (probably Shimon's, but it probably depends on the machlokes on Makos 2b if kofer is dmei mazik or dmei nizak) value to Shimon's heirs, but because of Kam Lei bidiraba minei, Beis Din cannot force him to pay it.  If Shimon's heirs grabbed the money from him we don't take it away from them.  But in this case, where we are sure Ruvein killed Shimon because we hear Ruvein in the room with Shimon saying I'm going to kill you and we hear an attack and Shimon crying out and later we find Shimon's corpse, we have yedia, more than umdena! - that Ruvein did kill Shimon.  But without actually seeing it, we cannot put Ruvein to death.  So, Beis Din should obligate Ruvein to pay Shimon's heirs, because the yedia eidus is good enough for dinei mamonos, according to the Nesivos.

Neemanus of a Midwife

In Vayeishev, when Tamar's twins were born, the one baby stuck his hand out during labor, and the midwife tied a string around it to show that that was the firstborn (see 38:28).  (The baby actually stuck its hand back inside Tamar and the other baby came out first.

It seems that this pasuk is hinting to a certain halacha.  See Kiddushin 74a: "Rav Nachman says: Three people are beleived to tell us which child is the firstborn: the widwife, mother and father.  The midwife is believed [only] immediately [after birth], the mother for seven days [as Rashi says until the Bris] and the father forever."

Here the midwife immediately took steps to identify the firstborn - because, as midwife, that is the only time she has neemanus to do so.

Chodosh Guide Update!

Yasher Koach to R' Yoseph Herman.

Chodosh Guide 5772 Pt2

Using Oz VeHadar Makes You Think Less

While newly re-typeset books are much easier to read, your cognition decreases compared to reading the same words in a less clear font.

[P]erformance was better with the bad font.  Cognitive strain, whatever its source, mobilizes System 2, which is more likely to reject the intuitive answer suggested by System 1.
      - Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, page 65

Voice and Erva, part 1

This post is not about Kiddushin 80 - kol b'isha erva, but we will end up there in this series.

Parshas Vayeitzei 29:25, see Rashi.

Bava Basra 123a says Rachel gave the simanim to Leah, and Eicha [Rabasi] Pesichta 24 says Rachel hid under the bed and gave them to Yaakov.  What is the difference between the two midrashim?  Sanhedrin 38 says everyone is unique in three ways: appearance, voice and thoughts.  Appearance and voice for Erva purposes - so you can recognize your spouse.  Therefore the midrash said Rachel hid under the bed so it was her voice - which Yaakov knew - answering Yaakov with the simanim.  What would the Gemara Bava Basra (that Rachel told the simanim to Leah, so Leah gave them to Yaakov) do with the Gemara in Sanhedrin - Yaakov should have realized the voice did not belong to Rachel?

Maybe, as siblings, Rachel and Leah had similar voices and could not be distinguished accurately.   Maybe that they didn't have too much to do with each other until the marriage so they didn't know each other's voices too well (Torah Shlayma Breishis 29:25:84 cites this possibility in the names of Ri miVina, Riva in Drashas ibn Shavib and Baalei HaTosfos).  And maybe the siman was not verbal, but was an amulet (Torah Shlayma brings such a possibility) so voice never came into play.  And see Maharsha, Bava Basra 123a s.v. Vehaynu.

Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel - Vayishlach 5760

These are my notes of the Schmuess delivered by the Rosh Yeshiva of Mir Yerushalaim, Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel, for Parshas Vayishlach 5760.  Rav Nosson Tzvi's shloshim is this week.

First, Yaakov Avinu sent a message to Eisav: im lavan garti.  Rashi  has two peshatim.  The first pshat is Yaakov telling Eisav that he lived as a stranger, not as an important person and Eisav should not hate him for receiving the brachos.  His second pshat is while he lived with Lavan harasha, Yaakov kept all the mitzvos.

Secondly,  we see Yaakov said Katonti mikol hachasadim.  Rashi says his zechuyos were decreasing in number and shema nislachlachti bechait.  The Ramban and Sforno say Yaakov wasn't deserving of the chasadim.  The Rashbam says a third pshat.  Hashem did chesed and Yaakov did not fulfill his duties to Hashem.  This is really a machlokes in midrash.  Rabi Abba said aini kedai, Rabi Levi said kedai, but katonti mekol hachasadim.  The meforshim explain Rabi Abba like the Sforno and the Ramban, and Rabi Levi like Rashi.  The pshat is that it's not a machlokes, it's just two dargos.  He said I'm not fitting but if I am, maybe I used the zechuyos up and even so, maybe I'll do a chait.

Thirdly, vayei'aveik ish imo ad alos hashachar.  It was vayivaser Yaakov levado - a chisaron:  since he went alone, the saro shel eisav attacked him.  From here we learn it is asur for a talmid chacham to go somewhere alone at night.

The midrash says just like it says venisgav Hashem levado, also by Yaakov - vayivaser Yaakov levado.  The Midrash brings down levado is one of the middos of Hashem.  So levado is a ma'aleh in Yaakov, not a chisaron.  What is the ma'aleh of  levado, and ho does one reach it?

From the three things we mentioned, Yaakov reached vayei'aveik ish imo.  I'm not saying pshat, but to reach each of the three dargos lies in a Mishnah in Avos 1:14.  Im ain ani li mi li uchshe'ani le'atzmi ma ani ve'im lo achshav masai.

Im lo achshav aimasai.  As it says in Chazal, one shouldn't say I'll learn when I have time because maybe he won't have time.  Don't push it off as it says if you leave it, it will leave you.  If you push it off one day it will turn into two days.  Im lav garti was Yaakov's first taina - the entire time he was oseik betorah umitzvos.

Keshe'ani le'atzmi ma ani.  I think one pshat is - I know there are several peshatim - a person succeeded.  But if he thinks he will pat himself on the back and think he did it himself, he is missing middos tovos and is a ba'al ga'ava.  Keshe'ani le'atzmi a ani - if you think you did it all yourself, ma ani - what's it worth?  You must have middos- anava, chessed - all the middos tovos.  How do you reach this?  Only by learning Mussur.  As the Gaon says it's the hardest thing in life is to break a middah ra'ah.  Besides taryag midos shamarti, you need good middos.  Without them you can't succeed.  If a person doesn't know how to treat his friend, his roommate, his chavrusa, his family, he is lacking in his Torah. Im ain ani li mi li.  Baruch Hashem, in our gashmiyosdike world, a person can have everything he wants.  Today luxury has become neccesity.  But a person can have gashmiyos also.  You can have chavrusos, sefarim, what's missing?  Im ain ani li mi li. One can have everything, but if he doesn't work onhimself, mi li? Who will think of him if he doesn't think of himself?  How does a person get to levado?  Ameilus - im brchukosai teileichu - ameilus batorah.  This week's parsha teaches us exactly what a shiv is all about.  Taryag mitzvos shamarti, middos tovos (katonti mikol hachasadim), and ameilus batorah (levado).  If a person doesn't work on himself and doesn't rely on anyone else to feed him,if t to grow in learning or middos tovos, become a gadol batorah, have

When  is the matziv of levado?  Why does the Torah say here that Yaakov reached the darga of levado?  The pshat is simple.  First it says vayomer lo ma shimech vayomar Yaakov.  Vayomer lo Yaakov yai'omair od shimcha ki im Yisrael.  First his name was Yaakov - Veyaakveini zeh paamayim, and after this fight with saro shel Eisav he was zoche to be named Yisrael.  He reached a higher level.  To reach this higher level of Yisrael, he had to reach the darga of levado.  What is the name Yaakov?  Veyaakveini zeh pa'amayim.  Because of his desire for shleimus, he fooled Yitzchak and received the berachos.  It's a maaleh that he did it to become shaleim.  Because of this desire to become shaleim, he was zoche to the name Yisrael.

How does a person reach levado?  He must have a desire to be shaleim, to be a complete person in all respects - Torah and mitzvos, yiras Shamayim and middos tovos.  If a person's desire is to be partial, halevai he will get up to being partial.  If he wan to get complete, he can be complete.  It doesn't have to do with brains or how smart you are or how quick you are - it's only dependant on your desire.

Klal Yisrael needs gedolim and shleimim that are shaleim in all his avodas haBorei.  If a bachur strives for shleimus, he will get there.  And that's all dependant on im ani li mi li:  if he has a small goal, maybe he will reach it.  If he has a bigger go , he can reach it, but you need ameilus.

In this lies another nekudah.  Sometimes one feels all alone; he feels lost.  It could be it's the opposite - Hashem gives him a test to see if he can pass that test.  That's one of the dargos of levado - that he can pass the tests.  He doesn't need any help.  If he does it alone, he can be zoche to become Yisrael.  How does he do that?  His desires.  Hashem should help the zechus of ain ani li mi li that we should all be zoche to taryag mitzvos shamarti, katonti mikol hachasadim and lo Yaakov yai'omair od imcha ki im Yisrael.

Child Abuse - Chicago Program

On Sunday, Nefesh Chicago, the Jewish Board of Advocates for Children and the Decalogue Society sponsored an event about child sexual abuse entitled "If You Know Something, Say Something." 

Harry Maryles summarized the event.  (Note - I see he updated it since I read it, it was accurate before, and I don't know what he changed.)

Here are sources that Rabbi Schwartz quoted.  From Nishmas Avraham, volume 3:

Parshas Vayeira and Jerry Sandusky

WARNING: DISTURBING CONTENT.  DON'T READ THIS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO.

On every radio station this week, discussions were about the heinous crimes allegedly committed by former Penn State assistant football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky.  The timing of the release of the grand jury report fits in perfectly with this week's Parsha.  Chazal were ever prescient when they said that the events of the week are related to that week's Parsha.  The scary part, however, is the need to be vigilant and supervise our venues and children to do everything in our power to make sure that events like this do not happen even within our own communities.  This week's parsha tells us that, as well.

Take two stories: visitors arrive in a city, the entire city converges at the front door of the host's home and demands the visitors with whom they want to perform evil acts.  The host offers to placate the mob by presenting his daughters for their amusement, but the mob refuses and remain insistent.  The visitors, who are really angels in disguise, strike the mob blind and escape.

In another city, a man with his concubine were out of town, seeking lodging but finding none.  After dark, a man takes them in.  But neighbors demand the visitors for their amusement, and they are given the concubine, who returns to the doorstep near dawn, still alive, though barely.  When she died soon thereafter, the man sent a graphic version of the story around the country which led to a bloody civil war.

The first story is the story of the angels visiting Lot in Sodom, in this week's parsha.  The second story is from Shoftim, the book of Judges, chapters 19-20, and is the incident known as Pilegesh B'Giva.  Looking at them side by side, my head burst: how is it possible for Jews in shevet Binyamin to act in an almost identical manner to the residents of Sodom, one of the most evil groups of people in the history of mankind?  It is mind-boggling how Jews acted so similarly to the people of Sodom.  Ramban mentions a few differences (in Sodom the entire city showed up and in Giva only some of the city; in Sodom they were homosexuals and in Giva they were not; and the entire culture of Sodom was anti-guest so as to not share what they had with anyone else, but such a culture did not exist in Giva), but it is still hard to digest.

About the residents of Sodom not allowing visitors because they did not want to share the beauty and riches of their hometown with others, one opinion in the Mishna in Pirkei Avos says "one whose attitude is 'what is mine - is mine, and what is yours - is yours' - this is the trait of Sodom," because of an unwillingness to share their bounty with others.  Unfortunately, the evildoers of today are not identifiable by this trait.  Instead, they take a personal interest in underprivileged youth, or kids from broken homes, and shower them with attention and gifts.  Others say "what a great guy  he is," but he does it to gain the trust of an innocent, unsuspecting youth, and, Heaven forbid, performs atrocities on these children, and lo aleinu, scar them for life.

This is the pattern that happened to Pinny Taub.



How can it happen?  Sefer Chasidim says: : מנהג היהודים, הטובים שבהם כמנהג הגויים שבתוכם הם
יושבים.  This did not apply to the people of Givah.  But still it happened.  We in our own time are certainly not immune to these same issues,  Hashem Yerachem.

Friday is Veterans Day.  One reason Veterans Day is observed on November 11th is because November 10th is the birthday of the Marine Corps.  Marines are unique among the armed forces because while soldiers and sailors are such while in uniform, out of uniform they are regular people.  Marines, however, whether not in uniform while still in the service or even when retired, are always Marines.  There is a code of dress that Marines keep for life that distinguishes them as a Marine, and there is always a special comeradarie between any two Marines, even if they had never met before.  In that regard, religious Jews are like Marines.  We dress differently that everyone else.  If we see another Yid while travelling, a certain connection immediately springs up.  When people see us, they say to themselves, "those are Jews over there," and they hold us to a higher standard, just as seeing two guys who stand straight and are dressed neatly are identifiable as Marines.

The end of the first stanza of the Marine's Hymn - a hymn, not just a song - states:
First to fight for right and freedom / And to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title / Of United States Marines.

At Penn State, there are many who have not kept their honor clean.  In Jewish communities, there are, unfortunately, those who have not kept their honor clean.  But the issue isn't only that they did not fight to keep their honor clean, it is that by not treating the issue with the full seriousness it deserves, more innocent children were harmed.  More than that, some are even proud of their not becoming involved!  The GA, McQueary, was horrified by what he saw and told his father, but apparently did not call the police.  I even heard a former Penn State football player wonder - on the radio - if this GA's appointment as a coach the next season was a payoff to buy his silence.  But the bottome line is, when confronted with scenarios like this, Hashem Yerachem, you have to contact the authorities who have procedures and experience  in dealing with these issues.  Telling well-intentioned but inexperienced people is not enough.

Public Service Announcement (for those in Chicago)
The second annual "Jewish Week for the Prevention of Child Abuse" presents the author of "Hush", whose topic is "If You Know Something, Say Something", Sunday, November 20, 2:00 pm, at KINS, 2800 North Shore.  CEUs available.  Sponsors: Nefesh Chicago and JBAC.