Intentions

I am in Rebbetzin Greer's class and we recently learned something utterly beautiful. It begins with Exodus 28: 3.

וְאַתָּה, תְּדַבֵּר אֶל-כָּל-חַכְמֵי-לֵב, אֲשֶׁר מִלֵּאתִיו, רוּחַ חָכְמָה; וְעָשׂוּ אֶת-בִּגְדֵי אַהֲרֹן, לְקַדְּשׁוֹ--לְכַהֲנוֹ-לִי

The words asher milaitiv are difficult. Whom has God filled with the spirit of wisdom? Does he refer to the chachmei lev, the wise of heart, or someone else?

The Netziv answers this question perfectly. This is what he says. (It's the source page.)

Moshe was to tell the chachmei lev that God had given Aaron wisdom. Why was this? When Aaron was told that he was to be holy, he was also given holy garments, the priestly vestments. These garments would aid him in achieving further sanctity. Moshe therefore commanded the craftsmen and artisans, who were God-fearing people, to make the garments in a way that would lend them greater sanctity. He told them that God had filled Aaron with a spirit of wisdom in order to caution them that when Aaron wore the garments, he would be able to tell how they were made. This is why it was Moshe who spoke to the craftsmen, and not Betzalel; this was not a matter of technical craftsmanship, focusing on the weaving or the sewing, but a matter of intent- the intention behind the craftsmen and artisans had to be to make the garments for the specific purpose for which they were intended. And they were warned that if they intended something else, Aaron would be able to discern it, to feel it, simply from wearing the garments!

To me, this testifies to the importance of intent in every single aspect of our lives. There are innumerable Chasidic stories and tales of holy men who could feel the history of an object or the way in which it had been made, and therefore could not abide to use the object themselves. One of the most famous is that of the man who went to sleep in a bed and woke up exclaiming "My bones are on fire!" He had discerned that something untoward had happened to someone who had slept in this bed before him, and therefore could not bear to sleep in it. The same is said of people who knew the intent behind certain paintings they saw. Objects testify to the intent of the artisan, if we are only attuned enough to see or sense it.

If this is the case, whenever we engage in any form of creation, the intent behind our actions matters. I can make a chair and you can make a chair, but based on the different intentions we had while making the chair, they are different chairs. And although they look exactly the same, to someone attuned enough to see it, the chairs are completely distinct from one another and could never be mistaken for one another. This also explains the reason that we so often must explain why we are doing certain things or engaging in certain actions. We all know about the women who make matzah saying "L'sheim matzos mitzvah." It is the same idea. When a person creates something, the intent with which it was made matters.

One wonders how this applies to mass-produced machine-made objects. Are they simply neutral? It seems logical to assume that they are; there was no intent put into the making of them, so they cannot radiate any sort of energy. It is up to us to elevate them or relegate them to a lower level based on the way in which we use them (similar to raising up the kelipot.)

One also wonders whether this could even be applied to the creation of a child. One could argue that when parents engage in lovemaking simply for their own pleasure, and do not make God part of the equation, the child is born in some way flawed. Thus could the creation of the mamzer be defended, for the mamzer is a child borne of a union that is unsanctioned by God. The parents preferred to allow their own pleasures and passions to rule them, in which case the product of their flawed intentions is also flawed. I do not particularly like this approach, as it seems to me that the child ought to be innocent regardless, but I could understand it.

Brooklyn Wolf at some point mentioned this approach being taken in terms of test-tube babies, and the claim having been made that they were in some way less holy because they were created in that medium. I don't like that idea either, nor do I think it true (after all, if someone has a test-tube baby, it is because it is necessary; clearly the mother would prefer to bear her own child if possible.) So while I find this idea beautiful, and think that one's intentions very much imprint themselves upon one's creations, whether they be physical or spiritual, it must be applied carefully so as not to exclude people or deem them inferior.

I love the idea that something that I think has the power to uplift something that I do- that given my thinking a certain way, an object can be imbued with more sanctity or power, and in this way become distinguished from another object. I love the fact that we have so much power, simply in our minds, to cause something to become holy or mundane. It's really very beautiful.

Restraint

People have different natures. Some are active while others are passive. We each know our nature; we know how we respond to different situations. Some of us immediately want to do something, to somehow act in order to better whatever it may be. Others among us desire merely to let the situation blow over, and let it pass.

The idea of restraint is portrayed as heroic according to Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (it is his entire idea of self-defeat under certain circumstances.) I find it interesting that we look at the Torah and see the mitzvot as asei and lo ta'asei. The ones that are lo ta'asei are inevitably worse or carry harsher punishments if transgressed. This is because restraint is so incredibly difficult for us. In a word, restraint can at times be superhuman.

There's a story I really enjoy that beautifully explains this idea.

21. o4 Educating the Stomach

Related by the Rav in the Tonya Soloveitchik Memorial Lecture entitled "The Nine Aspects of the Haggadah," Yeshiva University, March 23, 1977.

The Greeks considered eating an animal function. A man, they felt, should not exhibit animality. Aristotle could not understand how you could serve God with your stomach. Aristotle held that you can serve God only with your mind.

Jacob Schiff [1847-1920], an American Jewish philanthropist, once visited the Yeshivat Rabbi Isaac Elchanan. He walked into a room where Rabbi Binyamin Aronowitz was saying a shiur on Yoreh Deah [the division of the Shulhan Arukh that includes the dietary laws]. Old-timers still remember Rabbi Aronowitz. The philanthropist asked his guide: "What isthe old man saying? What is he teaching his students?" The guide answered that Rabbi Aronowitz was teaching about melihah [how to salt meat in the kashering process.] Jacob Schiff declared that he did not support religious institutions that were interested in the stomach.

Of course the first section of Yoreh Deah is concerned with the stomach. No question about it! That is the greatness of Judaism. To teach the stomach, indeed the human body, to behave in the presence of God is more difficult thatn to teach the mind to behave properly in the presence of God. If you start with the mind you will fail; if you start with the body you might succeed.

~235 in The Rav: The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik by Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff

*

I find that beautiful. In many ways the laws in the Torah teach us to strike a balance between our desires and what we may have, and hence teach us restraint, or self-control. In many situations where people sin in the Torah, it is because they follow their passions, or do not exercise this self-control. All things may be channeled and expressed properly, and it is upon us to see that our desires and ideas are communicated in just that way.

In a way, this is what the statement "Ezehu gibor, hakovesh et yitzro" means. He who conquers his desire, and himself; he who is in control of himself and exercises restraint, is the one who is termed gibor, mighty. But it's very hard. Like most other things, it wouldn't be worth it if it were easy.

Eating Bread

I enjoyed this quick parallel.

Moses is first introduced to Jethro through the context of eating bread (a euphemism for being given a wife, according to some.) Jethro tells his daughters:

כ וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-בְּנֹתָיו, וְאַיּוֹ; לָמָּה זֶּה עֲזַבְתֶּן אֶת-הָאִישׁ, קִרְאֶן לוֹ וְיֹאכַל לָחֶם.

20 And he said unto his daughters: 'And where is he? Why is it that ye have left the man? call him, that he may eat bread.'

~Exodus 2:20

Isn't it suitable that when Jethro joins Moses at the camp, he is repaid in the same way?

יב וַיִּקַּח יִתְרוֹ חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, עֹלָה וּזְבָחִים--לֵאלֹהִים; וַיָּבֹא אַהֲרֹן וְכֹל זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֶאֱכָל-לֶחֶם עִם-חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה--לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים.

12 And Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law before God. [emph. mine]

~Exodus 18: 12

I like that it comes full circle. Jethro meets Moses in the context of eating bread; when Jethro comes to the camp, he is honored by all who come to eat bread with him, almost as if to thank him for fostering Moses for all those years.

a quick hello!

I know that you are all wondering how I am doing.
Let's just say...my second semester is highly exciting, and highly stressful.
Per usual, I have an insane courseload.
This week I was able to see one of my favorite people in the world, Gila Kanal, and this makes me very happy.
Oh, and we're back to exhausted is the new sexy.
In very exciting news, I actually ate lunch and dinner yesterday!
And now I disappear.

Tightrope Walker

I was at the Art Institute later and was astonished to find this painting.



I had thought I invented this painting for my story, "ballerina girl." However, apparently it exists outside the story. It is strange when one comes across one's creations in real life. It's like coming face to face with a piece of oneself.

In The King's House: Esther & Moses

I recently watched a compelling movie entitled "One Night With The King." It was a particularly beautiful rendition of the story of Esther, although it certainly took liberties with the original text and incorporated some apocryphal references. I enjoy watching movies with biblical themes as they generally allow me to approach Tanakh from a new angle; an interesting idea occurred to me after watching it, namely, to compare the situations of Esther and Moses.

Esther and Moses are both children of (or in Esther's case, related to) the leaders of their generation, Mordechai and Amram respectively. They both have their true names, Hadassah and Tuvia, and secondary names (although perhaps more important), Esther and Moses. They are both taken from their houses and brought to the royal palace, where they are chosen against all odds to represent their people. Moses is raised as a son to Bithia and by extension Pharoah, perhaps becoming a Prince of Egypt, while Esther becomes Ahaseurus' Queen. Both of them seem to hide their identities, Esther, because she is charged to do so, and Moses, because he dresses in Egyptian fashion and carries himself in that way. In perhaps the high point of their careers, they both put their lives in danger when they walk toward the King, Moses because he is returning from exile when he was to have been put to death for his crime, and Esther because it is death to come before the King unsummoned. And in both scenarios, they are the ones who must save their people.

Tangential to these points, there is also the fact that evil advisors and good advisors are significant players in both stories (although by Pharoah, Bilam, Jethro and Job are only mentioned in a Midrash, while in the Megillah, Haman, Memuchan and Charbonah are written about in the very text.)

The great distinction between Esther and Moses lies in the techniques they utilize when attempting to help their people. Esther was originally charged by Mordechai not to reveal her Jewish origin or birth (Esther 2: 10). She refrains from doing so for as long as possible, but when Mordechai informs her it is her duty- and it seems that she needs persuading, for he warns her that if she does not fulfill her destiny, "relief and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place, but thou and thy father's house will perish" (Esther 4: 14), she dons royalty and appears before the King in the inner court. He extends his golden scepter to her and bids her approach; when she does so she creates the setting for a clever game, a deadly tea party. Esther has clearly mastered the art of diplomacy; she will create a situation that is conducive to her petition, and it is only then that she will ask it, in words that are meant to gain the King's pity and compassion.

Moses is quite different. Rather than engaging in any diplomatic sort of meeting with either Bithia his adoptive mother or Pharoah, his grandfather, he goes out unto his brethren and mingles with them, sharing their burdens and their pain. He does not enjoy the sly games and clever exchanges of diplomats; this easy exchange of words does not come naturally for one such as him. After all, is he not "slow of speech, and of a slow tongue?" (Exodus 4: 10) Moses is hotheaded, his actions impulsive; he acts without considering the full ramifications of his actions.

11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown up, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens; and he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren. 12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he smote the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.

This seems quite strange. Could not Moses, as the adopted son of the Princess, have ordered the man killed? At the very least, like Jezebel, could he not have created some trumped-up charges on which to have the man executed? (Kings I 21: 8-11) Why did he have to murder the man himself? If you say that it was necessary because there was no time- the taskmaster was engaged in beating the Jewish man to death right before Moses' eyes- could not Moses have the taskmaster thrown into jail, to await further charges? With all these options available, Moses' choosing to kill the Egyptian at that very moment in time suggests a rash and hotheaded action; after ascertaining that "no man" was there, he killed him and buried him. This leads to Pharoah wishing to "slay Moses" (Exodus 2: 15).

It is peculiar that the Midrash ascribes Moses a role in the proceedings that was diplomatic, and that did not involve his actually visiting his brethren in efforts to help him. Here, Moses takes on a more legislative role:

The royal favor, which the king accorded him in ever- increasing measure, he made use of to lighten the burden laid upon the children of Israel. One day he came into the presence of Pharaoh, and said: "O my lord, I have a request to make of thee, and my hope is that thou wilt not deny it." "Speak," replied the king. "It is an admitted fact," said Moses, "that if a slave is not afforded rest at least one day in the week, he will die of overexertion. Thy Hebrew slaves will surely perish, unless thou accordest them a day of cessation from work." Pharaoh fulfilled the petition preferred by Moses, and the king's edict was published in the whole of Egypt and in Goshen, as follows: "To the sons of Israel! Thus saith the king: Do your work and perform your service for six days, but on the seventh day you shall rest; on it ye shall do no labor. Thus shall ye do unto all times, according to the command of the king and the command of Moses the son of Bithiah." And the day appointed by Moses as the day of rest was Saturday, later given by God to the Israelites as the Sabbath day. [ footnote72, which is Shemos Rabbah 1: 28, Yashar Shemot, 133a, Shibbole Haleket 55-56]

Now, if Moses was able to argue so persuasively with the King in order to lighten the load of the Hebrews, why did he not remain in that position? It seems very odd that he would act in so ineffectual a manner as to attempt to go out to his people and physically aid in the labor when putting his mind to the test and engaging in courtly intrigues would yield more productive results. It is possible that, as was to happen several times thereafter upon Moses' leading the Jews in the desert, Moses' emotions of anger overwhelmed him to the point that he acted, and suffered the consequences later. Moses killing the Egyptian is characteristic of Moses who pleads "Have I conceived all this people? have I brought them forth, that Thou shouldest say unto me: Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing-father carrieth the sucking child, unto the land which Thou didst swear unto their fathers?" (Numbers 11: 12), who passionately defends either God or His people as the occasion demands, and who calls his nation "Mordim," rebels. Moses works off of his emotions; he is honest in every way- what he thinks and feels, he says. This consistently gets him into trouble; whether it is God's being upset with his doubting the Jews, or using the term "Mordim" to refer to them, or his request that God kill him because he is "not able to bear all this people myself alone" (Numbers 11: 15), even his steadfast belief that if he simply pleads long enough and hard enough, God will allow him into the Land of Israel. Moses believes in passion and at times his passion rules him.

Esther, on the other hand, is not a particularly passionate, reckless, active creature. Indeed, she is far more measured; she deals in practicalities and realities as opposed to rash anger. When she is informed of a plot to kill the king, she tells it over "in Mordecai's name" (Esther 2: 22), perhaps thinking of how this will aid him, perhaps simply acting the dutiful daughter. Later, although she is deeply pained by the appearance of Mordechai at the gate, her first response is not to inquire as to why he is there, or what his message may be, but to send "raiment to clothe Mordecai; and to take his sackcloth from off him; but he accepted it not" (Esther 4: 4). She does not wish to act; indeed, she does not even ask in order to determine how she should act, and whether he desires clothes- she simply sends them, for no daughter should see a father thus disgraced. The text never suggests that she exerted any effort in an attempt to seduce Ahaseurus; rather, she "obtained grace and favour in his sight more than all the virgins" (Esther 2: 17). Esther is a more passive creature; she does what she is told. She appears before the King, and passively wins his regard. She refrains from telling the King about her birth and people because Mordechai has told her not to do so, and she obeys. When Mordechai informs her that she must go before the King unsummoned, although she is afraid for her life, she reverts to what she has always done, which is to obey Mordechai, and obeys him here as well. It is possible, then, that her diplomacy could be seen as a weakness; she uses words as weapons because she does not dare to truly act. On the other hand, it could simply reflect on her status as a woman, and thus someone who truly has no other ability to make her will known.

It's interesting to compare the respective walks of Moses and Esther. Both of them go before Kings who have every reason to kill them. Both of them must be coerced into doing so (God literally forces Moses to act as a leader, and sends Aaron along for moral support, while Mordechai informs Esther that she must act now if she does not wish to be utterly destroyed.) There is a famous Midrash about Moses' walk to Pharoah:

Thereupon Moses invited the elders to go to Pharaoh with him, but they lacked the courage to appear before the king. Though they started out with Moses, they dropped off stealthily on the way, one by one, and when Moses and Aaron stood in the presence of the king, they found themselves alone, deserted by all the others. The elders did not go out free. Their punishment was that God did not permit them to ascend the holy mountain with Moses. They durst accompany him on the way to God only as far as they had accompanied him on the way to Pharaoh, and then they had to tarry until he came again.[ footnote 153, Shemos Rabbah 5: 13-14]

In a way, was not this walk as significant as Esther's walk before the King, where she came unbidden and unsummoned? Moses and Esther both risked death in so doing, though neither of them found it, and instead became the saviors of their people.

Lust & Desire: Rabbi Meir & Beruriah

Most people know the story of Beruriah (which is brought down in a Rashi to Avodah Zarah 18b.) There, Beruriah was mocking the words "Women are of unstable temperament/ lightheaded" or "Nashim da'atan kalos." Rabbi Meir said to her, "By your life, you will ultimately affirm their words." He instructed one of his disciples to seduce her. [The student] urged her for many days, until she consented. When the matter became known to her she strangled herself, and Rabbi Meir fled out of disgrace." [1]

My friend Simcha pointed out something fascinating- Rabbi Meir also finds himself in a situation which is highly improper, and it also has to do with sexual matters!

מינך רבי מאיר הוה מתלוצץ בעוברי עבירה יומא חד אידמי ליה שטן כאיתתא בהך גיסא דנהרא לא הוה מברא נקט מצרא וקא עבר כי מטא פלגא מצרא שבקיה אמר אי לאו דקא מכרזי ברקיעא הזהרו בר' מאיר ותורתו שויתיה לדמך תרתי
~Kiddushin 81a

Rabbi Meir used to scoff at sinners for giving in to their desires. One day, Satan appeared to him in the guise of a beautiful woman on the other side of the river. There was no ferry, so Rabbi Meir grasped the rope-bridge and proceeded across. When he reached halfway, Satan left him saying: Had they not declared in Heaven, "Beware of Rabbi Meir and his Torah" your life would not have been worth two maahs [a maah is a small coin].

Now isn't that interesting? Here Rabbi Meir arranges this whole test for his wife in order to prove that "Nashim da'atan kalot" and yet when he is faced with a situation where he sees a beautiful woman, he doesn't even need to be seduced- he immediately desires her and comes to her!

Lyssa

A story

“Leave me alone!”

How could I have been so foolish; how could I have been so blind? I smoothed my hands on the pockets of my jeans, hooked one thumb on the fabric of a fold. I twisted it forcefully, then stretched out all my fingers, flexing them, drumming a staccato beat onto one leg as I spoke, refusing to meet his eyes.

“Leave me alone.”

“Lyssa,” he pleaded, and his voice danced in my ears. It hummed like a breeze, begging me to turn and listen. But I would not do it. I stared down at the grass, moving my hand so that I was playing with the green fibers, tearing them fiercely out of the ground, then scattering them as they lay. A golden beam of sunlight ran diagonally across me; it lit my hair so it flamed gold in the light, and conscious of the effect, I shook out my long locks and tousled them with one hand. I seemed nonchalant, unaffected. “Leave,” I ordered, and my voice was cold.

I stretched myself out on the grass and closed my eyes, as though completely content. I played my fingers across the green tufts, stroking them, uprooting them, dusting them across my palms. I dug my nails deep enough into the dirt to leave marks in the ground. I yawned softly, then placed my hands underneath my head. And then, carefully, deliberately, I pretended to fall asleep.

I felt his shadow over me; he stood and blocked the ray of sunlight that warmed me. I did not move. It was clear that he knew I was not sleeping; I was just as clear that I would not be woken, no matter his efforts. I gave an involuntary shiver as he bent down; I felt that he had outstretched one hand as though to touch me. I did not want him to touch me; I could not bear it, not ever, never again. He had lied to me and I did not trust him; I could not want him or his touch. I tensed, ready to spring if he so much as brushed away the hair from my forehead. But he did not. He simply crouched there a while indecisively, as though he were wondering what to do, and then, in a sudden fluid motion, he stood upright and walked jauntily away. I could even hear him humming, as though there were nothing wrong in the world, and today was any other spring day.

I waited until I could not hear him humming anymore, and then I opened my eyes. They were dry; I had not permitted myself to cry. It was only after I had stood up and twirled around defiantly, as though to demonstrate that nothing could harm me and nothing hurt me, that I collapsed and sank down against the ground, burying my face between the knees. I cried then, as I had never cried before, because there was nothing that could be done for me. I had grown tired of this, this inability to control my feelings or emotions. If only I had been able to sense the truth behind his actions; if only I had known enough not to care for him, and not to expect more than he could give! But I have a way of judging poorly, and seeing the potential in people rather than their true selves. I believe, you see, in who people can be, and not in what they are. When I see people, they are lit by a sort of golden glow; there is something there that cannot be taken, the way in which they can become different, and improve, but what is strongest in me is hope- I harbor hope for all people, and believe that they can change. It is an integral part of me; I believe it with all my heart and soul. And so when I see glimmers of kindness in people, it moves me and allows me to persist in my fantasy- that they too can be the people I envision; that there is goodness in them, and truth, and that I can find it if only I search hard enough. But I am a fool, a fool, and I inevitably fail! But I cannot learn. There is nothing that can make me learn. It seems that I am always to be thus- to love people without imposing limits, and to recognize how vulnerable I am, and how open then to being hurt! But what can I do? The only other choice is not to love at all, to restrain all emotions so that I cannot interact with this glorious world that God has given us. And how could I do that to myself?

Even now, as I lift my head and angrily wipe my tears away, I am startled by the beauty of the hillside right outside the park. Lit by sunlight, everything is golden, and the trees are heavy with fruit. It is true that these are only crabapples, but even they have a beauty all their own, a red sort of sheen that intrigues me, and that indeed would make it worthwhile to attempt to scale these trees, if only for the sake of picking them and laughing as I throw them against the ground. The bark is rough beneath my fingers, but I come close to one of the trees and run my fingers against it, wishing there were some way to transfer all that I feel so that it would strengthen and enliven this growing creature, give it the life and vitality it needs. I turn my head against the bark for a moment and the wind whips at my hair, so that it flares out behind me, and I am wholly lit by sunlight and cannot believe that despite all this I can feel so miserable, and that all that consumes me is despair.

I laugh at myself, a trembling sort of laugh that is given in sorrow, and raise my hands to the corners of my eyes to wipe away the tears that are yet unshed. I blink my eyes several times, pretending to myself that I do so because of the sunlight, but I am suddenly filled with a kind of energy, a desire to do something, but I do not know what. I want to run, I suddenly know- and I run, I run about the hills and everywhere and my hair is all golden waves in the sunlight- I run and throw out my hands and spin and spin until finally I am laughing, truly laughing, and the tears cannot hurt me anymore. I spin and smell the good, heady, fresh smell of the grass, and I feel my Keds against the dirt and that is all that matters. I am laughing now, and singing, and my song is not even appropriate; it is the last part of “Kryptonite” by 3 Doors Down…”If I go crazy, then will you still call me Superman?” The song strikes me as being wildly apropos; there is no question that I have been lost and forgotten and I must wonder whether I am Superman, or can be Superman, and if I am, who is there to save me? All that I have ever wanted is to be saved, though I have always known that I must save myself, eventually, at the end, because there is no one who will come for me, as no one ever has.

I continue spinning and start singing the song of my childhood, from my youth, in the high strains of a dreamer, “I want much more than this provincial life” and then, half-mocking myself, I add in Gaston’s part- “I swear that I will make Belle my wife!” I think about the story, then, as I have so many times before- about Gaston and the Beast, and the true measure of kindness and what it means to be handsome. I have always prided myself upon my ability to recognize good in the Beast, but sometimes I see too much, and I blind myself to the flaws and character traits that riddle my hero of the moment. I wish so much that they are not there that I do not permit myself to see them, and that is dangerous, for it means that I idealize the person, and do not recognize them for who they are until it is too late.

David…how he has hurt me! And he does not know, and cannot see how he has done it. He has been a thousand things to me, and most of them have been kind or good, but how did I not see that I changed for him, and changed again, until he took away all that was me- the very essence of me? How did I not see as I granted him each concession, and he tore away all that I was until there was nothing else? I was a fire, once, and yet I have whittled myself away so that nothing but the tiniest spark remains, a remnant upon which the ashes of Lyssa yet burn. I was free, and I knew everything for all that was beautiful within it, and yet he tried to entrap and control me, and I assented, consented, believing I was wrong.

I had read a story once, of a princess who desired to please her lord prince. He had been worried by the fact that she was too tall, and hence she had faked an ailment so that she would be short again. He had been concerned by her quick and clever tongue, and so she had pretended to be mute. He had been frustrated by her beautiful looks, which earned her more glances than his own, and so she had cut her hair and dulled her wondrous eyes. And one day, upon realizing that she was only a shadow of herself, she arose and took herself away so that she might live again. I had scoffed at this story, for I had never thought it would come to this. I was strong, was I not! I was Lyssa Black, and there were none who could rule over me. But I had not seen how this could happen stealthily, slowly, softly, with movements that came in the form of caring but that in truth stole me from myself.

I had loved David, and he had hurt me, because he had not loved me for myself but for who I could be, for everything that I was not. It was my mind that fascinated him, and my mind that he took for his own; he taught me that everything that I was was unruly and undignified and so I changed, and became the woman he wanted, and hated myself all the while. But I did not know then that I hated myself; I thought that I was glad of who I had become, for did he not smile at me whenever he saw me? And was he not pleased with my actions? And surely there could be no greater joy than to please him, and no greater sadness than to cause a frown to cross his face. This is what I thought, when I was young, but I was wrong, and today I had learned it, at great cost.

*

We were in line at the Starbucks Café at Barnes and Noble, and I was short on change. As I rifled through my pockets, looking rather desperately at the barista, I heard a deep male voice from behind me say simply, “Here.”

I turned. He had black hair and green eyes; he was wearing jeans and an Abercrombie sweatshirt. He was offering me $5. “Thanks!” I said simply, even happily, as I took the bill from him and passed it on to the barista. “I’m Lyssa Black and I promise this doesn’t usually happen to me.”

He laughed and I was so grateful; it was one of those moments that could have gone terribly wrong otherwise. “David Lerman, and I expect that it doesn’t. You looked so flustered; your eyes got all wide.”

I colored prettily. “Now how could you have seen my eyes if I was facing the man at the counter?” I teased. “Clearly you’re imagining things.”

“Clearly I am not,” he countered, and motioned in the direction where I had been facing. I laughed in surprise; there was a large framed portrait that read ‘Of Mice and Men’ in large letters. It was the kind of piece that caught reflections and held them, so that I and my distress had been reflected in it, and easily visible to any outsider.

“Oh,” I said, and felt rather stupid. “Well then, thanks for the coffee. Any chance I could pay you back later?”

“That depends,” he said easily, and grinned. “Which school are you at?”

“I go to Lincoln Prep,” I said quickly, and smiled.

“Ha! So do I,” he said, and I looked at him, confused. I considered myself pretty well-informed, and I had never seen this guy before. Granted, Lincoln Prep is a rather large school, but he looked like he ought to be in my grade, in which case I would definitely have seen him at the caf, if not homeroom. “Well, not yet,” he qualified, after I had given him my perplexed look. “Grande vanilla latte,” he crisply ordered, then smiled at me again. “Shall we?” He motioned me onward, and we stood waiting for our drinks.

“Godiva Hot Chocolate!” the lady announced, and I gratefully took my cup after complimenting her on the pretty brooch she wore. It was pink, and she quickly explained to me that she had bought it in order to support breast cancer awareness, because her aunt had died of that, and she was glad I liked it. I smiled as I sipped at my hot chocolate. “Well, this is a wonderful place to wear it!” I told her happily. “That way, whenever anyone asks about it, you can explain about breast cancer awareness and spread the word. It’s a great strategy!”

“Oh,” she said, and laughed a little, “most of the customers just take their orders and go. It’s nice when someone notices.”

I turned as David stepped up to the counter and received his vanilla latte. He curtly nodded, but with a smile that suggested some semblance of thanks, and then we moved on to one of the tables at the café. We sat down and then he looked at me in unabashed admiration.

“Do people always do that to you?” he asked.

“Do what?” I asked, caught up in the world of delicious chocolate that was Godiva.

“Tell you things, right off the bat. Just tell you all about their dead relatives or the causes they support. Hell, she would have gone on talking if you let her.”

“Oh. That.” I shrugged. “Yeah, I guess they do.”

He looked at me in wonder. “That’s a little strange,” he said.

I was offended. “Why’s it strange? People work long hours, doing the same thing all day. All they do is make different sorts of coffee drinks for different sorts of customers. Some people appreciate them; some people don’t. Some people get angry about the slightest thing and start shouting and yelling about how their order wasn’t filled correctly. They’re human beings after all, aren’t they? They’re just like you and me,” I concluded. “What does it hurt to try to make their day a little better?”

“Touching,” he said, and his sarcasm bothered me. “Why go out of your way to make them feel needed? They’re getting paid for this job after all, aren’t they?”

“Sure they are,” I said, frustrated by his inability to see something so obvious to me. “But what does it matter what they’re being paid for? They still deserve common human decency, to be treated in a manner that suggests that somebody notices them and cares that they exist.”

“That’s quite sweet of you,” he said again, putting his cup down on the table and giving me an odd, appraising look. He smirked, then, and I caught the twinkle in his eye. “So aren’t you curious as to why you haven’t seen me around Lincoln Prep?” he asked boyishly.

“Of course I’m curious,” I answered immediately, “but I figure you’re going to tell me.”

He looked slightly wounded. “Well, I am at that,” he admitted, fingering a ring he wore on one finger. There was a black stone in it and what seemed to be a silver snake; I wondered who had given it to him, and the reason behind his wearing it. “I’ve just moved here. I’m new, in other words. So I don’t really know anybody yet. Kind of nice to bump into someone before I actually get to school.”

I smiled a little. “Well then, welcome to Wilmette,” I stated grandly. “I can give you a tour of the public library, the fire department, the mall and the ice cream place when you want it.”

“What, that’s all that’s here?” he asked and he wrinkled up his nose a little. It seemed clear he had come from someplace wealthy and important, and wasn’t so pleased to find himself in some Chicago suburb.

“Of course not!” I said, laughing, “but even if it were, why should it matter? Whatever it would be, it would be a party.”

“Oh?” he questioned, and quirked one eyebrow expressively. “That’s an interesting choice of expression.”

“Yes, well,” I laughed, “you don’t know me for long enough, but everything is a party by me. Drying dishes is a party, doing laundry is a party, flying airplanes is a party, dancing around the house is a party- everything’s a party, as long as you have fun with it. Since I have fun with pretty much everything, everything is a party for me!”

“You are a very odd person,” he informed me, and I laughed, assuming he was joking.

“No, I’m not really,” I said, “but why are you at Barnes and Noble? Do you like to read?”

I asked this with a quaver of excitement in my voice; I desperately wanted the answer to be yes. I had so longed for someone with whom I could discuss literature and who would be interested in all the ideas which I found so compelling, so I was slightly disappointed when he said “Nah. Just getting textbooks for school.”

But I saw the twinkle in his eye and could tell that he was joking. “You’re lying!” I accused, slightly shocked.

“Very good,” he answered, his lips curving into a smile of their own accord. “Would that have been difficult to guess?”

“I do not like being lied to,” I said honestly, and he laughed aloud.

“Then I shall have fun teasing you!” he said, and I could not help but laugh myself. He stood up from the table and gave a mocking nod of his head, as though to indicate obeisance, and laughing, I gaily skipped up, danced over to the garbage can, threw out my cup, and then, turning my head over my shoulder, called after him to follow me to the escalator. We rode it down and I showed him around the Barnes and Noble, pointing out my favorite squashy armchairs and all the places I loved best. I introduced him to the clerks at the Information Desks, most of whom instantly recognized me. The whole time he wore an expression of amused indulgence, as though he were allowing a child to entertain him, but was slightly confused by an enjoyment in such unimportant pleasures.

I resolved to teach him, then, having determined that all could take joy in such things, and that he would in time learn to love them as I did. “They are wonderful people!” I said, my eyes shining. “They are always so kind to me- they help me look up anything I need, and help me to find the exact books that I am looking for.”

“Well, that is their job,” he said indulgently, and when I tried to explain that despite its being their job, they were still awfully nice, he waved me away. “It’s all right; let it be as you like.” We continued our path across the Barnes and Noble, and discussed books in whispers, while I flitted about after exclaiming, “Oh! I know you’ll love this one!” and “Have you read that one?” We left the store having purchased two books each- I could not bear to buy more of them, you see, for where would lie the pleasure in purchasing more the next time I came? – and thus began my friendship with David Lerman.

*

In time he became all things to me. He was my confidante, my hero, the star of the basketball court, and rather incredible at swimming. Many people adored and worshipped him but he shunned them all, preferring instead to spend time with me. I felt chosen, special. I should not have, perhaps, but I felt that way all the same, though I continued to hang out with all the others with whom I had always associated.

Then came a day when David’s condemnation whipped against me, sharp against my face as though he had slapped me. “What do you see in her?” he questioned, and I was at a loss as to how to answer.

“She is my friend,” was all that came to me, “and she is kind, and good, and I enjoy her company.”

“She may be your friend, but how does she help you grow?” he questioned, and I did not know how to answer.

“Must all things be measured in quantities?” I prevaricated, trying to ascertain what he meant. He wore a soft blue shirt and cut-offs; he was wearing sandals in the fall weather. “What does it matter whether she helps me grow, or I help her grow, or whether I simply enjoy spending time with her? She is a good person, and that is all that matters.”

He shook his head as though he could not believe my naivete. “But surely you must know what you do for whom; surely you must know who helps you grow and who you help grow.”

“And if I did?” I questioned, growingly uncomfortable under this intensive interview. “If I did know, why would I repeat this information over to anyone else? How would it help them, and why would it help me?”

“It is just important,” David answered, and I could tell that he was being very serious. “You need to know what each person is to you so that you can measure the time that you spend with them accordingly. Time is very precious, and it is very valuable to you. It is essential that you spend your time wisely.”

I could not help but laugh at his serious demeanor. “Is it?” I said irreverently, and tweaked his collar. “Heaven forbid that you waste a moment of that precious time on buying a slurpee, or talking to me!”

“I am not joking,” he said, as we walked down the stairs, me with my handing skimming the balustrade, he very purposefully, and without any affect or attempt at being royal. “I am very serious. I use my time carefully.”
“One wonders that you have any left of it to spend with me!” I was hurt and I showed it, dancing ahead of him a couple steps, wishing to disappear ahead of him into the hallway. He easily caught up with me and said, “It is hardly a waste of time to spend moments with you.”

“And why is that?” I asked him, caught for a moment in the wish that he would give me the answer I craved, tell me something beautiful and kind.

“Why, because you are intelligent, and learned, and I can actually have a coherent discussion with you. We can discuss literature, and books, and things that actually matter- ideas, you know. Ideas are important. It is an excellent use of my time.”

I was disappointed but dared not show it; was that all I was to him? A person with whom to discuss ideas and to have discussions about literature? It seemed that this was to be the case, and it was I who was foolish for wanting pretty words or kindness. Only he confused me so- he had been kind, had he not, when he handed me $5 to pay for my drink? But now he was all work and business; for all that he was worshipped and adored by so many in the school, he would point out all their flaws to me when he spoke to me, and laugh about them. This always made me feel uncomfortable, for how could he not respect their admiration and the way in which they respected him? How could he determine that their statements and ideas were worthless, that they did not matter at all to him? I wanted to broach the issue with him but a certain sort of fear held me back, an idea that I could not dare to cross him, and that if I did, the consequences would be severe.

I was reading a book one day, one of my favorites- Perfect by Judith McNaught. McNaught is a romance writer but she writes absolutely beautifully, and I have always adored this book of hers- it is a retelling of Beauty and the Beast, but in another form. David saw the book, took it from my hands and flipped through it, then threw it aside dismissively. “Tell me, Lyssa,” he said very sweetly, and took one of my hands in his, “why would you spend your time reading something like this when you have not even finished reading all the good literature in the world?”

I was at a loss as to how to answer. I thought for a little while and then came up with an idea. “Why, because I enjoy it,” I said readily. “I love her writing and I love the book. Besides, I do quite enough intellectually, and I need to take breaks sometimes, don’t I? Every so often I must engage in something silly or trashy, to take my mind off of things.” He looked at me disapprovingly. “Come now, Lyssa,” he said gently, “I expected better from you.”

The words burned themselves into my mind. “I expected better from you,” he had said, and now the words would not leave me be. What precisely did he expect from me? Did he desire that I spend every moment purposefully, usefully, ensuring that all I did depended upon my engaging in a productive use of time? And yet, if this were so, how was it that he could enjoy the pleasures of basketball and swimming- how was that productive, when reading romance books was not? Just as he enjoyed those things, could I not enjoy my mind candy? How had I disappointed him, and why did it cause me to feel such pain? I could not sleep; I felt so guilty- as though I had done something morally wrong, and yet I was unsure as to why or how I had done so. It came clear to me in the morning- obviously I had to grow, change, become different and improve my ways. And David was kind enough to show me how! I was elated, ecstatic. It would begin with this- I would throw away my books, dedicate my time to all things that could and ought to be valued, that I could find worthwhile. And so the transformation began.

I did not realize, then, what I was doing or who I was giving up. I did not realize anything, except that I wanted David’s friendship, and that in order to keep it, I must give up parts of me. I realized that I called this process “growth” in my mind to keep from noticing the sacrifices that I was making. To throw away my romance novels was easy enough. But then it seemed that only certain clothes were appropriate, while others were too suggestive, only certain uses of my time productive, while others were a waste. With my mind and my talents, it was clear that I ought to particularly associate with those for whom I had been made, those to whom I alone could speak. Goodbye to the plebeians; I was a member of the aristocracy! I laughed at these terms at the time, for I did not believe that either he or I really meant them. I was fulfilling my purpose, doing what I did best. I was writing for a refined audience, doing my damndest to become the ideal.

Gone was my free spirit; this was too unruly- it was unbound and unconstricted; it was me at my simplest level. To be free was to dance about, to laugh unconstrictedly, to cry without fearing for a response, to do things without a second thought. To live responsibly was to be quieter, to be less loud or happy in my gait, to be more refined. I changed my clothing in order to conform to this new personality. I wore tailored, fitted shirts and short business skirts- gone were my gem and rhinestone-studded clothes. That was of the past! I was a new Lyssa, one who had been molded and formed by David, shaped to fulfill his every whim. He meant truly to help me, and I believed that I was being helped. That was why I did not rebel and did not question- I accepted these new ideas, fought against them at first but then determined they were right, simply because his intellect was more forceful. They felt wrong, but the arguments seemed to hold up, and obviously reason mattered over emotion. And so I betrayed myself over and over, but I believed that I was doing right, and the little deaths I died were simply desires of mine that ought not to be fulfilled.

I was Lyssa, but I was not happy- yet I convinced myself I was, how could I not be? David was glowing. He and I were the best of friends; I hung on his arm and listened attentively to his every word. We discussed books and literature and occasionally even feelings, something which obviously did not matter as much as ideas, but sometimes had to be touched upon. I felt like I was loved, and yet what I refused to recognize, could not bear to realize, was that it was all conditional. So long as I dressed a certain way, and followed certain rules, so long as the joy and happiness were taken from me and I learned to live responsibly, that is, in shadows and gloom, so long as I was no longer the Lyssa I had been but the new, grown-up, approved and adultlike version of Lyssa- this is what earned me his friendship, good opinion and positive regard, and this is what I craved more than anything. I was blind to how I had changed or the rules which he enforced upon me; as soon as he said “I do not like it,” I would change so that he would never hear whatever had precipitated his dislike from me again. I did it so fluidly and smoothly that I impressed him; he believed that I was willing to accept new ideas, to learn and to grow but in truth I was dying, and that is all that was happening.

I was killing myself, but I did not know it. I died a little every day- every time I saw a grassy hill, or a patch of forest, I desired to run about and twirl, but I knew I would earn his laughter and his censure- there were certain books I wished to read but I dared not- there were clothes I wished to wear but knew I could not, or else I would risk losing his good opinion- and soon everything was measured, not by me, but by David Lerman. David Lerman was my leader, and I his follower; I became in all ways a copy of him, and he was pleased with me, who was so obedient. I was no longer free-spirited; I was refined and dignified and elegant, everything that I ought to be- and yet I was not happy. I was not happy, but happiness did not matter really, did it? Value mattered. Value and worth were what must be prized and treasured above all other things- I could not fight these words, so strong and imposing were they.

And so I shattered. I broke apart, because I was not myself and yet I had what was most important to me, which was David’s friendship- and I did not realize that it was killing me. How could I have known? I would not see what lay just in front of me; I refused to see what was right before me. I believed, you see, that everything he did was meant for the good and for the best- and it was; he truly desired good for me, and not evil- only he did not realize that not everyone is meant to be him, and that there are people who cannot live without sunshine and light and everything that is simple and uncomplicated.

*

At the last he reminded me of the man in Hawthorne’s “The Birthmark.” That man obsesses over the single imperfection in his lady wife, the birthmark upon her cheek. He desires to remove it and he does, but then she is no longer anchored to this world; she cannot exist anymore. He has taken it away from her and so she is destined to die; there is nothing that remains to her, nothing that allows her to stay. If he had allowed it to remain, permitted her this flaw and imperfection, perhaps he could have been happy with her, but he could suffer no such thing- she must be perfect, for that is what he desired- and so she died.

That was how I felt, at the last- it became too much for me to maintain. Wherever I walked, David controlled me- not clearly, not obviously, not in any way that he could notice- but in subtle references and in his tone of voice. He would mock me or say something snide if he did not approve of my behavior; he would laugh at ideas and beliefs that I treasured, dismissing them as naïve or foolish. He argued with me and tore away my statements like the gossamer webs woven by spiders, and so there was nothing left to me- and I became like the wind, with the thread of my spirit left within me. Until at last he demanded that I engage in a particular sort of profession, so as to live up to my full potential, and would not permit me to entertain the idea of entering into any lower sort of occupation, one that would not have me serve my given audience.

It was at that moment that it all fell away; it was like a mask had been ripped from my eyes and my heart broke with the pain of it, because I had loved him so and yet he had never loved me- he had only loved what I could be, the molded and changed and false person that I was. “Leave me alone!” I cried, and I was angry, but I was not angry with him so much as I was angry with myself, for my foolishness and stupidity in having offered him so precious a sacrifice. I wondered even if he would have wanted this, if he had known- had he known how hard it was for me; how unfair his demands? Had he knowingly watched me tear out my soul to replace it with one akin to his own- had he seen me do this and exulted? I could not bear the thought.

It was not enough for me, suddenly; it was not enough for me to know that he had meant well or had spoken because he cared for me, and only wanted the best for me. It was not enough to know that he had sincerely desired for me to grow, because I had wasted away and that was all that remained- a broken girl who was not as she had been, and who could not regain her former glory without a struggle. It was not so simple as it had been before- I had transformed myself into an adult, into a fool more like- throwing away the simple values that had been mine and transposing new ones upon them, affixing ideas that were not mine and wearing them as though I desired them- I had done all this, and it could not easily be undone. I was ridden with guilt, and despite realizing how unhealthy it was for me, it hurt me to lose David’s friendship- to see how conditional it had been, and see it taken from me. It hurt me but I had no choice, because I had lost myself, and had to find myself again.

“Leave me alone,” I said, and threw myself across the grass, where I breathed in its green scent and reveled in the idea of growing, pure things. I waited until he had left and then I started singing, and twirling- foolish, silly things that he could not value, that would have embarrassed him had he been there, but they were of me, the very essence of me, and with them I regained a little of who I was.

It will take a long time until I find Lyssa again- I have lost her, and she will not come back to me so easily- but I hope that if I am careful, and work off of my heart, I will recover her again- I am Lyssa, you see, and she is me, and somewhere deep within I shall find her- that laughing girl who saw the world with so much joy, and who hurt herself to earn the love of another. Love cannot be taken in that way, I see now. I only wish I had seen it before.

If I am lucky, one day I will be me again. But I do not know when that day will be. I have hurt myself so much, you see, far more than if I had taken a razor to myself and simply cut a line across a wrist. I have hurt my soul, my very spirit, and that is a hurt from which one does not heal easily.

If I am lucky, God will grant me peace, and give me back to myself. And perhaps I will learn to trust myself and love myself enough so that I will not sacrifice my very essence upon the altar of the ideal- I will not give myself up for the sake of an illusory love. I will know enough to know what I am worth, and that my spirit belongs to no one but me.

These words are proud as I think them, but I tremble to voice them. For they do not come across as true; they do not ring with that power. I do not believe them myself.

I wish I could.

The Nail Shop

I have not recently mentioned how wonderful my Mother and Dustfinger are, and since I'd like to thank them, this is my public acknowledgement of the fact that they have done their utmost to make my vacation absolutely incredible. They are in all ways fabulous! Dustfinger is always amazing, what with her wonderful attitude and the fact that she cleans my room, puts away my clothes and otherwise cares for me when she ought to make me do all these things myself, and Mommy went out of her way to ensure that I had a particularly wonderful time while I am at home. I've spent the last couple of days downtown and had some absolutely beautiful experiences. Have any of you ever been by Lake Michigan in the winter? The snow and the wind combine so that the snow dusts your hair and powders your face, misting your jacket in clever white flakes, and I went down to the Lake and knelt beside it- so close, and really all I wanted to do was slip into the water, except I knew how cold it would be- and it was this incredible shade of murky greens and blues together. I think I will dream in the color of the Lake now. And then of course there was "Jersey Boys," and the Sears Tower at night, which enabled me to see all of Chicago lit up before me and The Bean- aside from the simple experience of taking all these buses and trains! I love the CTA.

But perhaps most meaningful was yesterday; my mother and I had a day together, which was very pleasant for me given the fact that I have not had the ability to do that with her for a while. We went to several different places and simply talked for a long while, which was wonderful, and then we finished off the day by going to our favorite nail place. We are friends with the owners and proprietors of this shop; indeed they have been mentioned on this blog before, in the famous "three wishes" scenario. We walk into the shop and are happily greeted by the owners, who have missed us, and I notice some other people I know and obviously walk over to wish them a good day, and then we sit down and wait a while before it is our turn.

As we are waiting, I notice two little boys sitting by one of the nail stations. They are clearly the owners' sons, Christopher and Henry. They look to be about seven and five, though you can give and take a couple of years for each one of them. Christopher is looking through an Atlas; I am later informed that he loves maps. Henry, on the other hand, is zooming around the room, claiming that he can fly. The lady in charge motions to me and I put away my cell phone as I stand and walk over to her. I look longingly at her boys and decide to talk to the one who is zooming about. "Henry," I call excitedly, "are you flying? Where are you flying?" Henry at first ignores me and wanders about, but later comes over to me. We begin a conversation. Henry tells me all about the fact that the Moon is broken. I am very distressed over this piece of news. "What is the Moon made out of?" I inquire. "It is made of light!" he answers immediately. "Well then, how shall we fix it?" I ask him, wondering how he shall respond. "What color is the light?" I continue. "It is made of white light!" he tells me, and then motions to the fluorescent lightbulbs in the nail shop. "We should take the lightbulbs to the moon to help put it back together?" I question. "That's a good idea!" he says happily, and agrees that this is how we shall manage to repair it. I now inquire about the status of the Sun. "What about the Sun; is it okay?" He nods determinedly. "Yes, the Sun is okay," he answers me.

He proceeds to tell me all about the man who can fly- he cannot describe his costume to me because it is dark outside and therefore he cannot see it- and how he flies all by himself; he has no wife or children. He flies at night and crashlands on the Moon, but the stars are sleeping at night. The stars wake up when the sun comes out. I listen to him carefully. By this point in time, Christopher has become interested in me; after all I appear to be great friends with his brother! Christopher comes to tell me about his coins, which he is counting, and his maps. I talk to him a little and then he goes back to his activities, while Henry decides to take a break and go flying about some more.

At this point I move to a different chair, and place my hands under the ultraviolet light in order to allow my nails to dry more quickly. I tell Henry to come over to me. His shirt is striped, and there is a white part of it that is glowing. "You're glowing, Henry!" I tell him and look up at him with one of my mischievous expressions. "No," he qualifies, looking down at his shirt, "the number seven is glowing." We argue about this, but he determines that it is the number seven that must be glowing, and not the entire white strip on his shirt. "What does the seven stand for?" I ask. He is so quick, this beautiful child; he starts counting people in the room- one, two, three, four, five, six, seven! I had not even noticed there were seven of us, all told! At this point I notice that another lady who is getting her nails done is listening attentively to my conversation with Henry. She is smiling from ear to ear. I am glad she is entertained by us.

"Henry," I say, and my voice is breathless, excited, "tell me a story." He thinks for a moment, and then proceeds to do so. He titles all his stories before he tells them, announcing "The Light That Was Shut Off" and then telling me the story to which this is referred. He also tells me that when he grows up he wants to be a Knight, so that he might save castles with princesses. He keeps on telling me stories, and tells me one that is perfectly beautiful which is entitled "The Flower That Was Not Growing."

Once upon a time there was a flower. And the flower was growing and it came up in the summer and it flourished in the sunlight and grew beautifully. But then the flower saw the snow. And she was scared, and she decided to shrink back into the ground, very quickly, and that is what happens in winter. The flowers shrink back and then they grow again in the spring.

I thought this was a perfectly beautiful story.

He kept on telling me stories, because once he had acquired me as a friend, clearly he was going to entertain me as long as I wished! He told me about how he loves fireworks and he went with his family to see fireworks at the beach (Christopher interjected that one can see fireworks in July.) He said that his friend was building a sand castle at the beach. I asked him whether he was aware that one needs water for sand castles, too? He said no, it's a sand castle! But I said of course you need water- for moats! And he said no, that was impossible- the water would be full of crocodiles and alligators and monsters, and the princesses would be scared! I said that would not happen, or that he could build a bridge. We continued in this vein, he and I, and we were very well matched.

Later he showed me how he could read letters and numbers and proudly read off the letters that spelled "NAILS" on the outside of the shop. He also read off "VISA" and looked up at me with this beautiful smile, expecting to be praised, which of course I did, as I did after he told me each story. "That was a wonderful story!" I said to him and requested that he tell me another, for I found them all fascinating- and of course he obliged.

His favorite stories revolve around castles, knights, teddy-bears and monsters. It was so wonderful to listen to him!

I told him that when I grow up I want to live in a castle. He said I can't do that because "you're just a girl." I said, "How do you know I'm a girl? Maybe I'm a princess!" He said no, it was quite clear that I was just a girl, and he was just a boy, and that I'm not a princess. I said maybe I live in a castle now and he doesn't see it. He said that castles are too high and where would it be? I said maybe in the sky, a castle in the air. He said that castles cannot fly, and besides I cannot fly. But perhaps I can fly! This is where he became very concerned for me. "No!" he says, clapping his hands together concernedly. "It is very dangerous to try to fly with your hands, because you cannot fly with your hands. It is too high and if you try it is very dangerous." Once I realized he was truly concerned for me, because he thought I might try it and might get hurt, I hastened to assure him that all was well and that I would not try to fly, after all.

He then decided to take out a bunch of Real Estate pamphlets and ask me where I lived. "My house is not in the book, Henry," I said, but he kept on pointing to them. I asked him to describe them to me and he described his house to me, which is his favorite place. I loved how vividly he could paint a portrait of where he lived and what it meant to him! Unfortunately during one part of his storytelling my mother was laughing- he was very offended by this and strictly informed him there was to be "No laughing!" "But Henry," I immediately qualified, "she is not laughing at you- she is laughing because she likes your story, and thinks it is interesting- perhaps you will write stories when you grow up!"

The best part was when he informed me that "My name in Spanish is Huey, but in English it is Henry. What is your name in Spanish, Olivia?"

"It's still Olivia," I answered.

"No, it cannot be!" he said quite strongly. "What is it?"

"It is- it's Olivia," I said again.

"Olivia, Olivia, Olivia," he sang. "It's not Olivia!"

My manicurist looked at me later and told me that I would make a very good teacher. She then requested that I be Christopher's teacher. Henry wanted to know why I couldn't be his teacher; it is probably because he does not yet go to school. I smiled at her and thanked her for the compliment. But there's more- I had requested that she give me flowers on my nails, two of them in fact. You know I like glittering and sparkling things, and I had gems in the middle of my flowers. These usually cost an extra $5-6 dollars. But she decided to give them to me for free, and it was quite clear that the reason why was because I had played with her children. Of course this was ridiculous, because I had such fun with them!

Henry wanted me to come back again, and I explained very clearly that I am going to go back to New York, so I will not see him for a while. He seemed slightly perplexed by this, but he shall be all right, I believe. In any case, I said goodbye to both of them, and hugged Henry and whirled him around the room and he said "Bye Olivia!" before I left. The lady who had been listening in on our conversation was still smiling as we walked through the door.

And this is the reason that it is such a joy for me to get manicures in Chicago! If only every store had such entertaining children; I felt so alive, preferring to talk to them than to the adults. Children, you see, are imaginative and inquisitive and purely good, and they can easily sense the people to whom they are attracted, and who enjoy their company. I felt so privileged that they came to me, and yet would not come to the other customers, even those who were my age! How beautiful they are; how wonderful are these out of all of God's creations.

The Ceremony of Thirteen

My siblings are incredibly entertaining. Listen to the following dialogue between us.

Taran: I don't know why I'm being nice to you.

Me: What?

Taran: Well, you said that I have to take the mishpatim like chukim, so I don't know why I'm being nice to you.

Me: (gives admiring glance for sheer cheek) I was saying what the Rav said, and you should read it inside before quoting it.

Taran: (in zombie-like tones) I don't know why I'm honoring my parents either.

Me: You really shouldn't make fun; you haven't even read it.

Taran: (evil smile) I'm just saying, it's a chok so I don't know why I'm doing it.

[we walk out of the restaraunt and into the car. I am squashed on the floor of the car rather than a seat, so that my legs extend between the two seats in front, where my parents sit. There's normal conversation and suchlike and suddenly...]

Taran: Bob the Builder.

Me: God the Builder?

Daddy: (waves hand dismissively in the general vicinity of my legs) No, just listen.

Taran: So we had this Ceremony of Thirteen assembly in my school after reading The Giver, and they gave out jobs, and I was Bob the Builder.

Me: Who gave you that job?

Taran: Ezra ________.

Me: Why?

Taran: No idea.

Me: And what job did you give Ezra?

Taran: Mechanical engineer.

Urchin: Hey! (that's officially his job in our family)

Taran: Well, he's smart, he fixes things, he's good with his hands- he should be a mechanical engineer.

Me: And Urchin, what were you?

Urchin: I was a computer fixer.

Me: (laughing) Do you do that in school? Fix computers?

Urchin: Mmmhmm.

Taran: Don't worry, there were people who got much worse jobs than me. There was this (fumbles as he tries to find the words) person who got America's Next Top Model, whatever that is (he says this with complete disdain.)

Me: (laughing) If I were at the Ceremony of Thirteen, what job would I get?

Daddy: Court Jester!

Me: I'm totally a court jester! I'm The Fool.

Urchin: (gleefully) No, you would be a janitor.

Me: I would not be a janitor!

Urchin: Actually, a sewer worker.

Mommy: Luna!

Me: Luna is not a job, Mommy.

Daddy: No, really you'd be an actress.

Me: I wouldn't mind being an actress.

Taran: You know what Aaron was? Aaron was chosen to be a Scientist, a Rabbi and Mashiach.

Me: And do you think he would make a good Mashiach?

Taran: Sure! (he goes on to explain Aaron's good qualities)

Me: What would Dustfinger be?

Someone: Cinderella

Dustfinger: *is sleeping*

Me: Wake her up!

Daddy: No, let her sleep. She woke up at 5:30 in the morning today.

Me: Well, I was up at 5:00.

Daddy: Yes, but she woke up then.

Urchin: Daddy, can you stop the car really suddenly and we'll see whether Chana shoots back and hits the seat?

Me: No!

Taran: Yeah!

Me: So we have a family of Bob the Builder, a Computer Fixer, the Court Jester and Cinderella. Sounds like a party.

Urchin: I told you you're a sewer worker, not a court jester!

I love my family.

Beggin'

I went to see "Jersey Boys" last night (and found it to be extremely enlightening, preferring the second act to the first by far.) All the songs were new to me. I loved "My Eyes Adored You" and "Fallen Angel" but the one that keeps on replaying in my mind is "Beggin'."

There is something so dark in that song, dark and beautiful and fascinating.

"My Eyes Adored You" is incalculably sweet, which is why it speaks to me. Also, I like the way it is phrased. It is not that I adored you; indeed "I never laid a hand on you." It is just his eyes.

"Fallen Angel" is very sad, and I like the line, "Fallen angel, I'll forgive you anything/ You can't help the things you do." I doubt it's true in practice, but I like the idea of it.

"Beggin'" is something else again. It's one of those songs I can understand in various ways, and not in its most simplistic sense. Doesn't everyone beg, in a way? We hate it. We cannot stand begging; our pride does not permit us to beg. And yet in a way we are all beggars. We beg for attention, compassion, for people to listen, for people to hear us, even for people to love us. We are perhaps not so explicit in what we are doing; we assume that people can pick up on our signals and know how to approach us and help us in the manner that we need it. Of course it's so. And what in the world happens when she doesn't put her loving hand out? Here especially, when he's dedicated his life to being precisely what she wants.

Oh, the things for which we beg.

Are Children The Ultimate Literary Critics?

There is an amazing essay by Isaac Bashevis Singer with which I fully agree entitled "Are Children the Ultimate Literary Critics?" It is relatively short, as essays go, but I have been unable to find it online and therefore reproduce it below. No copyright infringement is intended; indeed, my only desire is to make people aware of this work and the writer, so that they might read more of his pieces and purchase his works. The essay is found in the back of a book entitled Stories for Children. It is rare that I agree entirely with a piece; this is one place where the writer speaks for me in every capacity. It is one of the truest essays I have ever read.

*

Children are the best readers of genuine literature.

Grownups are hypnotized by big names, exaggerated quotes, and high-pressure advertising. Critics who are more concerned with sociology than with literature have persuaded millions of readers that if a novel doesn't try to bring about a social revolution it is of no value. Hundreds of professors who write commentaries on writers try to convince their students that only writers who require elaborate commentaries and countless footnotes are the true creative geniuses of our time.

But children do not succumb to this kind of belief. They still like clarity, logic, and even such obsolete stuff as punctuation. Even more, the young reader demands a real story, with a beginning, a middle, and an end, the way stories have been told for thousands of years.

In our epoch, when storytelling has become a forgotten art and has been replaced by amateurish sociology and hackneyed psychology, the child is still the independant reader who relies on nothing but his own taste. Names and authorities mean nothing to him. Long after literature for adults has gone to pieces, books for children will constitute the last vestige of storytelling, logic, faith in the family, in God, and in real humanism.

When I sit down to write a story, I must first have a real topic or theme. One cannot write for children what some critics call "a slice of life." The truth is that so-called slices of life are a bore even for adults.

I must also have a real desire or a passion to write the story. Sometimes I have a topic but no compulsion to deal with it. I've written down hundreds of topics which I will never use because they don't really interest me.

Finally, I must have the conviction- or at least the illusion- that I am the only one who can write this particular story. It has to be my story. It has to express my individuality, my character, my way of looking at the world.

If these three conditions are present, I will write a story. This holds true when I write for children or for adults.

Some bad books lack these three conditions. They have no story to tell, there's no passion in them, and they have no real connection with the writer.

Because children like clarity and logic, you may wonder how I can write about the supernatural, which, by its very definition, is not clear and not logical. Logic and "realism," as a literary method, are two different things. One can be a very illogical realist and a highly logical mystic. Children are by nature inclined to mysticism. They believe in God, in the Devil, in good spirits and bad spirits, and in all kinds of magic. Yet they require true consistency in these stories. There is often great logic in religion and there is little logic in materialism. Those who maintain that the world created itself are often people without any respect for reason.

It is tragic that many writers who look down on stories of the supernatural are writing things for children which are nothing but sheer chaos. There are books for children where one sentence has nothing to do with another. Things happen arbitrarily and haphazardly, without any connection with the child's experiences or ideas.

Not only does such writing not amuse a child, but it damages his way of thinking. Sometimes I have a feeling that the so-called avant-garde writers for children are trying to prepare the child for Jame's Joyce's Finnegans Wake or other such puzzles which some of the professors love so much to explain. Instead of helping them think, such writing cripples the child's mind. Put it this way- the supernatural, yes; nonsense, no.

Folklore plays a most important role in children's literature. The tragedy of modern adult literature is that it has completely divorced itself from folklore. Many modern writers have lost their roots. They don't belong and they don't want to belong in any special group. They are afraid of being called clannish, nationalistic, or chauvinistic.

Actually there is no literature without roots. One cannot write good fiction just about a man generally. In literature, as in life, everything is specific. Every man has his actual and spiritual address. It is true that in certain fables the address is not necessary or even superfluous, but all literature is not fables. The more a writer is rooted in his environment, the more he is understood by all people; the more national he is, the more international he becomes.

When I began to write the stories of my collection Zlateh the Goat, I knew that these stories would be read not only by Jewish children but by Gentile ones as well. I described Jewish children, Jewish sages, Jewish fools, Jewish bridegrooms, Jewish brides. The events I related did not happen in no-man's-land but in the little towns and villages I knew well and where I was brought up. My saints were Jewish saints and the demons Jewish demons. And this book has been translated into many languages.

Many of today's books for children have no local color, no ethnic charm. The writers try so hard to be international- to produce merchandise which appeals to all- that they appeal to no one. (By the way, the Bible, especially the Book of Genesis, teems with stories for children- all of them short, clear, deeply rooted in their time and soil. This is the reason for their universal appeal.)

Without folklore and deep roots in a specific soil, literature must decline and wither away. This is true in literature of all times. Luckily, children's literature is even now more rooted in folklore than the literature for adults. And this alone makes children's literature so important in our generation.

Some writers sit down to write a book, not because they love the story, but because they are in love with the message it might bring. There is no famine of messages in our time or in any other time. If all the messages disappeared and only the Ten Commandments remained, we would still have enough messages for the present and the future. Our trouble is not that we don't have enough messages but that we refuse to fulfill them and practice them.

The writer who writes a bad novel and whose message is peace and equality and other such virtues does us no great favor. We've heard all this before and will continue to hear about it in newspaper editorials, in sermons, even from diplomats of the most aggressive nations. There are multitudes of writers whose only claim to literature is that they are on the right side and that their messages are righteous.

Literature needs well-constructed and inventive stories, not stale messages, for every good story has a message that, even if not obvious, will be discovered by readers or critics sooner or later. I do not yet know the message of Tolstoy's War and Peace, but it was a great book just the same. A genuine story can have many interpretations, scores of messages, mountains of commentaries. Events never get stale; commentaries often are stale from the very beginning.

As a child, I was glad that I was told the same stories my father and grandfathers heard. The children of my time didn't read stories about little ducklings which fell into kettles of soup and emerged as clay frogs. We preferred the stories of Adam and Eve, the Flood, the people who built the Tower of Babel, the divine adventures of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph. We were never taught to rely completely on any authority. We tried to find motivation and consistency in God's laws and His commandments. A lot of the evil taking place today, I often feel, is the result of the rotten stuff this modern generation read in its school days.

Since I began to write for children I have spoken to many children, read stories to them (even though my accent is far from perfect), and answered hundreds of their questions. I am always amazed to see that when it comes to asking questions, children possess the same curiosity as adults: How do you get the idea for a book? Is it invented or taken from life? How long does it take you to write a book ?Do you use stories that your mother and father told you?

No matter how young they are, children are deeply concerned with so-called eternal questions: Who created the world? Who made the earth, the sky, people, animals? Children cannot imagine the beginning or end of time and space. As a child I asked all the questions I later found discussed in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Hume, Kant and Schopenhauer. Children think about and ponder such matters as justice, the purpose of life, the why of suffering. They often find it difficult to make peace with the idea that animals are slaughtered so that man can eat them. They are bewildered and frightened by death. They cannot accept the fact that the strong should rule the weak.

Many grownups have made up their minds that there is no purpose in asking questions and that one should accept the facts as they are. But the child is often a philosopher and a seeker of God. This is one reasons I always suggest they read the Bible. It does not answer all the questions, but it does deal with these questions. It tells us that there is a God who created heaven and earth. It condemns Cain's murder of Abel. It tells us that the wicked are punished and that the just, though they may suffer a lot, are rewarded and loved by the Almighty.

If I had my way, I would publish a history of philosophy for children, where I would convey the basic ideas of all philosophers in simple language. Children, who are highly serious people, would read this book with great interest. In our time, when the literature for adults is deteriorating, good books for children are the only hope, the only refuge. Many adults read and enjoy children's books. We write not only for children but also for their parents. They, too, are serious children.

Ill

It is just like me to get sick over vacation instead of getting sick over school time. I think I have managed to do this once every year.

I want to go to sleep and not wake up for a very long time. Maybe then I will feel better.

Rabbinic Literature as a Source for History Test 2

This is from Rabbi Kanarfogel's class. Any and all mistakes are mine. I am exhausted. And that is all.

Minhagei Beis Kneset- Different Minhagim in general.

Ma'asei Rav: Book about the Minhagim of the Gra (late 18th century)

Machzor Vitur: Rashi's customs (12th century)- It is thought to have originated from Sifras Dibei Rashi- number of sections with the written letter taf for Tosfos- seems older people, older minhagim

Minhagei Maharal: Customs of Ri Yaakov Lav who dies in 1427. Wasn't put together by the Maharal himself but rather by a veteran talmid named R' Zalman. That's quoted constantly by the Rama in Shulchan Aruch. Written with a very important need in mind- lives right after the Black Death/ Bubonic Plague. What happened was, in the period after that, communities in Germany/ Austria came to the Maharal and said, "We've lost our minhagim! Could you give us your minhagim so people can adopt these (lots of hanhagos and minhagim throughout the calendar year?)"

[sidepoint: entropy of minhagim-people do what's easiest of both bonified minhagim. Proper consumption of food, though, super important, etc. Minhagim are much more transitory then.]

What about the selection of chazanim themselves- what do you do? There was a period where it seemed chazanim were selected by obvious choice- most learned person in the community, facility in prayer component, voice component/ execution thereof. In earlier period 1) general halakhic knowledge 2) facility with Tefillah specifically (remember, maybe Shaliach Tzibur has a siddur, maybe he doesn't). Number of written codices that existed- not many. Assumption is if someone wants to be a chazan there is some facility (or you'd be a fool to try it.) Heavier emphasis is probably on 1 and 2. Outstanding Talmid Chacham- assumption of piety (some with facility with Tefillah.) No hard evidence for how chazan was chosen or how he was selected. The most outstanding people rise to the top so there was no real question of how he was chosen; it simply happened- that's why there is no real discussion about it.

Earliest discussions in Ashkenaz is when all of a sudden machlokes comes and the question is whether person X can be a chazan and how do you choose chazanim (happens around the year 1200).

So the question is: What was in vogue until now and what has switched/ changed?

Start with Chazan but now we get into who runs the community- no concept of the Rav of a community yet- the question of how taxes should be paid to the non-Jewish overlord; there was some type of method to make these communal decisions (community gets to make its own decisions). The idea was self-government/ autonomy.

How do you make these decisions/ how are communal decisions made (logically?)

1. There's what's called Tuvei Ha'Ir- people who are in charge of administering but even among these men, how were decisions made? It was through a vote. Who votes? Heads of households. So in early Ashkenaz, if almanah is the head of a household, she can vote.

Who wins the vote? There are two basical models:

A. Some kind of majority rule
- Is that the majority of Tuvei Ha'Ir?
-Is that a majority of Mehuganim- more scholarly people?
- Is that a majority of heads of households/ everyone over a certain age?

The idea of "majority rules" has a history.

2. Some kind of unanimity- communal policy enacted unanimously- another way of saying, some kind of consensus. So they must all work it out together.

Is the community comparable to a Beis Din or not? If yes, community majority rules. If not, the community is like partners so the name of the game is consensus and compromise. (If it's like a Beis Din, the idea is Acharei Rabim L'Hatos)

Discussion of Jewish Communal Decision-Making is pretty old. Selecting A Chazan is a newer discussion. In the first topic, there is a famous teshuva that appears in the Kolbo, in siman kuf chaf-bet. It's a case where someone had a non-Jewish maidservant who was difficult in the extreme- a case beteween Reuvein and Shimon. Reuvein said she called him a name- she's got to go. Shimon, who is her owner, says no and has friends to back him up. Here the idea of majority rule is enforced. The question is, can majority rule compel the minority? This teshuva says yes. This all happened in Troyes.

Question is what was the year? Two names of Rabbis are on the teshuva (should be 3 if it were truly like a Beis Din) but very hard to get the two names into the same century- so it's a machlokes of the historiaans.

Professor Agus held that the two talmidim who were talmidim of R' Gershom (so 11th century, because they didn't have Rashi yet, etc). Important point, then- when was there majority rules in general midieval society (in 12th century amongst the guilds.) Professor Agus asks, where did the guilds get it from? Why was he saying this? Because Professor Baer (of Hebrew University) had written that 2 chachamim on this teshuva are 13th century German chachamim. So they're writing to two 13th century (including Elazar of Worms.) Baer says this view is supported because the passage appears in the Kolbo (which was compiled in the 13th century, and besides, guilds invented majority rule and Jewish history follows the host culture.) Agus said the fact that it appears in the Kolbo is not a problem- it's a likut and besides, Jews teach the Christians.

1981- Abraham Grossman discovered manuscripts that give different names to the chachamim an so Agus was right about 11th century dating of the manuscript. There was a strong position that held unanimity as well and was especially concerned by Da'as Mikneh (surely this doesn't mean the knowledge of cattle? Something went wrong in my notes here.) When community decides to appropriate/ expropriate money, by what power do they do this? Unanimous would be this idea of da'as mikneh (problem with gambling, forget morality issue- did you make a kinyan, etc- a kind of ganif- ill-gotten gains.)

By the time we get to the year 1200 or so- both rules/ ideas. Now the chazan question- if somebody applies for a job of chazan, what vote does he win- majority or unanimity?

Why would you think the community needs to be involved? The class answers- he's the Shaliach Tzibur, needs to be accepted by the Tzibur- perhaps also the idea of nepotism. But then on the other hand, maybe should differ because chazan includes liturgical/ other positions (elected/ appointed position, etc.)

page 2- Really key opening texts. Let's give these texts some attention. This is the Or Zarua (R' Yitzchak ben Moshe Or Zarua) who ultimately serves as the Rav of Vienna. He has significant Rabbeim in both Mintz, etc - he learns with R' Yehuda Sirlain and Raviya (who dies in 1225.) He spends time with R' Yehuda HaChasid (who dies in 1217).

R' Yitzchak ben Moshe M'Vilna has certain Rabbeim:

1. R' Yehudah Sirlain (dies 1224)
2. Raviyah (dies 1225)
3. R' Yehuda HaChasid (dies 1217)

Not only Tosfos with this melange- different background. The period between 1175 and 1225 is a period of separation between Northern France and Germany. One of the first to break out and go is Northern France. Awareness of Rabbeinu Tam and the Ri's material but a lot of conversations from France to France, Germany to Germany-it's more of a local conversation. Contact with France is not as strong. Sefer he produces- freestanding sefer covering many areas of halakha- more importantly, references to Frenchmen and Germans.

Teshuva acheres- Meaning we're in a section-

page 1- Starts out Teshuva me'haRav HaMechaber- the first siman is kuf vav beis- Till now, the Or Zarua starts out with this end of hilchos techila mini-treatise on other issues. The whole issue of writing shailos and teshuvos is interesting. Germans seem to write teshuvos more than the French. What's the deal? The French did write teshuvos but didn't collect them too well. Collecting and publishing teshuvos is a German thing. So Or Zarua has several such teshuva respositories (so what he did here is between Hilchos Tefillah and Hilchos Shaliach Tzibur has this-)

So are these his own teshuvos? Actually, it's a mixture. Siman kuf yud beis you see on page 1- that's a teshuva of Rav (the printer figured that out.) The question there is if you kill a man by accident, can you go back to being a chazan? We'll look at that teshuva later.

Second teshuva in sequence is from R' Eliezer of Prague l'Bohemia (again, per the printer) to R' Yehudah Hachasid- so a teshuva written by someone else! This is about the subject of paying a chazan.

So why is this here? Because shailos involving Tefillah.

Then comes our siman dealing with specific case of a candidate for chazanus whose candidacy wasn't going so well- next teshuva is on topic of synagogue honors. Sometimes you can get an attitude from a peirush- example of Kli Yakar who cites horrible rich people and bad poor people- so he was implementing historical attitudes into the Chumash.

Looking at Chovos HaLevavos not only as Jewish thought but also as a critique of Muslim courtier class. One of the problems with Rashi- like him to tell us more of himself- when is Rashi, what can you learn about his attitudes toward other people (question though if just chazal or if he chose specifically- wants to throw in a specific point by choosing those midrashim.)

Is R' Samson Raphael Hirsch on the chumash- how much of that is a thoughtful/ clever peirush and how much of that is anti-Enlightenment? There is this idea of reception history. How to interact with the text? References between Rishonim and Achronim as well- you have to be very careful how you define this. May a Mechaber inject some of his own ideas done properly- yes. Take the Rambam- on the one hand in Mishna Torah he doesn't tell you much about his own situation - but in the hakdamah he does!

Who was the audience for Rashi's peirush? The Rebbe said that it is for the perspicacious five year old or for a lamdan- the gadlus of Rashi is that both ages can get something out of it.

You can ask about most sefarim -to what group is it directed? (Some are just for women and children, sometimes the author is explicit, sometimes not). Rashi lived through the First Crusade- how much of this is an anti-Christian polemic (in terms of Rashi's commentary on Tanakh?) Does that detract from Rashi that he has an anti-Christian polemic?

Plenty of chachamim gedolim who don't give a whit about any of these questions- if learning this is talking to me. Compare Rashi on Gemara to Rashi on Chumash. Rashi on Gemara gets very little play as Zemano Rashi.

We can be interested- it may/ may not be important to us. My bias- the more you know about the Rishonim, it works better for learning- not worse. "Unmasking Gedolim- to find they are still Supermen!"

When you look at the Rishonim as people, they come out as pretty stellar people.

Midieval Rhetoric: (Rambam calling Ibn Ezra names)- the TV show "Crossfire"- 2 big Talmidei Chachamim who are not physically fighting but who are fighting with words. You're not sharp enough- you can do better! A) Meant you had to realize he thought you could do better B) If you ever said something and he didn't say shtuyot that was a big compliment

Analyses of lamdanim- historians- nothing personal against women; it's a sugya.

In order to learn something historical from a Rishon about a Rishon, you have to be very well versed. Because the question becomes, is this because of a sugya, mekoros or is this their personal opinion (speak history)? Better make it very clear that you've ruled out all these other things before stating that it is history.

Thinktank at Penn- my job in part was why Chazal would say these opinions. They would say something wild and come to me with this sad, fabulous expression and say "Is it a Gemara?" Evil-eyed looks...The position you're expressing must be a midrash. It's hard to work the two together- when should you provide the history?

[That is the most fabulous job ever. Rabbi Kanarfogel, you're so cool.]

This is when Rabbi Kanarfogel and I get into a whole side-discussion where I ask him whether he would ever refrain from publishing books because someone could potentially read them and get the wrong idea, and whether he is responsible for this. He responds:

No! Ignorance you don't have to be choshesh for. But I won't run to the Beis Midrash and tell everyone to read my books- not everyone has to learn the same way.

The Or Zarua to R' Chizkiyahu: Not only is he a great chacham, but even his questions are sweeter than honey.

Tav- The word tav, which is referenced here, does appear in Tanakh (story in Gemara of tzaddikim with a tav on their heads- signs/ notices) - maybe gematriya- called it. There's a story of a man named Akiva who didn't know how to spell his name correctly to give his wife a get. Sothe Or Zarua - how does he solve this? He went to sleep and he dreamt of the pasuk "Or Zarua" so spelled out R' Akiva- that's why he called himself the Or Zarua.

"Written on the subway wall"- Simon and Garfunkel, from Rabbi Kanarfogel's Misspent Youth

[All of these titles are great. There was another section where Rabbi Kanarfogel was teaching us how not to critique books. One never writes, he explained, "Dear Jerk, I hate your book. Love, Rabbi Kanarfogel."]

Tav in modern Hebrew means a musical key.

So it could mean that the chazan has the right pitch (maybe the Or Zarua is aying that)

So the Or Zarua writes to R' Chizkiyahu who is onw going to get it but good (after being complimented.)

Now he brings in R' Simcha of Shpira- truth is, R' Simcha ruled that even if a single individual wishes to block the appointment of a chazan, he can- because it requires an agudah achas- unanimity. See, R' Chizkiyahu wants to take over for his father in Magdeburg. The problem is that some small number of people are saying nope- he can't have the job- so R' Chizkiyahu asks for a psak. So the Or Zarua writes back and starts off by quoting R' Simcha of Shpira.

Then says there were a lot of cases in the Rhineland and I saw those where a few people were m'akev on the Rov. The custome of the Rhineland area is that a minority can impose its will on the community. It seems in terms of normal communal policy most decisions were made by a majority. Problem- if we go by majority communal rules, 2 problems per the Or Zarua:

1. Rebbe -R' Simcha of Shpira says even one person can cause problems
2. Minority (few people) per custom in Rhineland can cause problems

Now the Or Zarua will bring in R' Yehudah the Chasid.

Or Zarua, page 2- This is the Or Zarua's own teshuva that he writes to Chizkiyahu ben Yaakov. Line 4- emes v'emunah- Truth of matter is teacher. R' simcha held that one individual can push off your ability to be a chazan (a yachid.) As background for this, why so excited about majority/ minority? Because majority rules in most common decisions.

However, one yachid must have a substantive objection- not just any reason.

Elsewhere Rabbi Simcha says it has to be sono- substantive issue. Substantive concerns where realy believe that you and the chazan can't get along- something of substance. So Or Zarua saying:

1. If there are people who have substantive problems with you, then that's a problem (in terms of your being a chazan)

2. A mi'ut (minority) will be able to hold off your appointment as chazan/ not allow for it

In many Rhineland communities, majority rules. So in the case of appointing a chazan, flip it so others have say. Rules of communal government- for some aspects majority is more than sufficient. For others, the minority pushes off.

Question: Is R' Simcha of Shpira saying this is the rule of communal government in general or a din of chazanus?

Rabbeinu Tam holds that unanimity is necessary- it's unanimity, not majority rules.

Why? Because maybe the majority rules idea comes from treating the community like a quasi- Beis Din.

Rabbeinu Tam has reason to suggest the community shouldn't be treated as a Bais Din.

R' Simcha of Shpira, in general, holds by majority rules.

Nobody holds majority rules by chazan (on page two.) The question now becomes as to whether it is one versus a minority objecting to the chazan's appointment.

Is this din in terms of the communal you or a din in terms of chazzanut specifically? Communal government- depends on place to place. That's the idea of minhaga- local rules. And dina means the din-the law all over the place. Minhaga vs. Dina means dependant on the locale versus halakha across the world.

V'omer ani- And I say one who becomes appointed to be a shliach tzibur- not from agudah achas- this is against Rabbanan- against proper halakhic decision.

You can opt to have a Shaliach Tzibur daven for you, in theory. The chazan can be motzi evereyone- baki, mi she'aino baki. If I've objected to your being motzi me in Tefillah, it is his problem (his job at stake.) The Shaliach Tzibur who cannot be a Shaliach Tzibur for all of them- that's a chisaron for the Shaliach Tzibur, the chazan.

[Teshuva of the son of the Or Zarua saying the substantive problem you have that will push off Chazanus is valid.]

Now quotes the Gemara in Ta'anis:

Someone familiar with davening- get the person who is most adept to be a Ba'al Tefillah (not every Talmid Chacham is an adept Ba'al Tefillah.) Has to be agreement- the Tzibur has to agree. Trei Rovei- A Rov and a half. So lots of rov meaning a supermajority. Even if a supermajority and there's a mi'ut who doesn't agree- here it can't go through numbers. Rhineland says a nice rov is what we need. But his Rebbe (he thinks) says it's non-negotiable.

If a Yisrael comes to bring an animal for a korban, there's a mishamer- whichever kohen is there- he takes your korban and works with it- and as it turns out the ba'al hakorban says "Not him!" in terms of doing the korban. So what happens? You might say, hey, you don't get to pick your kohen. We conclude (Gemara in Masechtas Ta'anis) that there are two teams of people in the Beis Hamikdash. There's a shift of kohanim and a shift of Yisraelim to be present when korbanos are actually offered up. Korbano - he has to say it's my korban. So doesn't make sense- how can a person offer a korban when he's not there?

So Neviim Rishonim come up with Asara v'arbah watches and Yisraelim standing in. So they need a proxy.

Or Zarua argues the need to have an overseeing presence to symbolize the Ba'al HaKorban being happy with this kohen (otherwise the korban wouldn't work.) Mishamros- acting in your stead, they are your proxy.

Unless the chazan is my choice (just like by the kohen) it won't work.

So comparison between the korban needing the Yisraeli proxy to show that he is happy with the Kohen who will do the service and the same thing by the Shaliach Tzibur.

Skip a little to aval im- the kohen can't go further without the agreement of the ba'al so there are a couple of things:

1. Rabbi Gamliel- everyone must agree
2. The Kohen by the Beis HaMikdash- and Yisrael as proxy- you choose your kohen; it's the same thing here.

Time for the Big Picture Review:

The issue of communal government in Judaism is very interesting. Two major possibilities for how communal decisions are best reached:

1. Majority
2. Unanimity

The majority position was already annunciated in early Ashkenaz (found in the Kolbo). There was a problem with someone's cleaning lady so the owner didn't want to throw her out- the majority said they did want to throw her out and the majority rules in that case (it talks about the idea of kahal k'beis din.)

Now there was a group of chachamim who thought unanimity was required (very few who held this but those who held it were biggies, like Rabbeinu Tam.) What is the halakhic structure of a community?

To say community ruling on communal issues is like Beis Din on halakha (analogy) might work. We'd like to run our communities al pi Torah as it were.

If all the players know what the impact is in advance, it might help da'as mikneh (the ability to make this kinyan go.) Don't like to exchange money without it being a kinyan. Want to ratify these transactions. In absence of other means of confirming the kinyan, haskamas kulam will be a sufficient da'as mikneh. Provides da'as mikneh like a contract.

There was a major rediscussion of this issue at the end of the 12th century. The discussion was held between the Beis Din of Mainz/ Worms and the Raviya. There was a big debate- the shailah put forth because the dayan dies in 1199- so redebate this issue (it has to do with tax payment.) The Worms Beis Din says majority rules. Mainz says unanimity would be better. Raviya says Worms is right- majority rule is sufficient. So the majority of German courts said majority rules is sufficient.

Now we come into our case- in the 1230s this issue of chazanus arises- now that you have a pretty firm idea of communal government in midieval Ashkenaz. Until this point have evidence of people who served as Shaliach Tzibur/ Chazan- till then it'd be a Talmid Chacham of note with requisite cantorial skills- apparently not so hard to figure out how to be the Chazan (fairly obvious choices)- explains why didn't hear this question till now (in both France and Germany.)

Now starting to get questions- interesting Raviya that on yamim noraimthe parnasim al bnei doram- someone who gives money but also a Rabbinic figure (interaction with non-Jewish government)- there's a minhag that they become the chazanim. Apparently by the 13th century these methods are not always sufficient.

Magdeburg is Northeastern Germany (not Rhineland)- more outlying Germany- maybe that's part of the reason the question came up. So in light of communal government rules, how do we pick the chazan?

1. Depends on what you hold where you are- communal majority vs. unanimity
2. Even though for the community, the needs of the invidiauls are different from what community as a whole might do- if it's a chazan, has too much to do with religion so might have its own rules.

Saw Or Zarua quoting what... need situation where the minority clamoring not to have this guy.

For Chazzanut still under guise of communal government- tolerance there is that it needs to be more toward unanimity scale (Rhineland communities per Or Zarua)

R' Simcha (rebbe of Or Zarua) said any individual could object. Function of communal gov yet?

PROOF 1: If the chazzan is not able to be motzi everyone, that suggests a problem in his chazanship. Every individual can potentially torpedo the Shaliach Tzibur.

PROOF 2: Korban and makriv (Korban by proxy)

So R' Simcha is using chazan rules here, not kehilla rules.

1. Rhineland (minority actively objects)
2. R' Simcha- afilu yachid

Back to the Or Zarua. Now bringing in R' Yehudah HaChasid (his teacher). Says the rule is that the Shliach Tzibur needs to be beloved because if not when the Tochacha is read in the Torah, he as Shliach Tzibur and Ba'al Korei will wish it upon the people he doesn't like in shul. The chazan has certain powers (spiritual sense). If he is a badly intentioned chazan you can put this upon others.

How does the chazan serve his congregation in general? The power of the chazan is that he is motzi the rabim for his congregants (they can tap into him and he'll be motzi to them.) For R' Yehuda HaChasid, it's the chazan who has the power (of texts/ curses- chance by Tochacha.) Every individual better like him becaue if not the chazan can hurt him.

So what is the role of the Chazan? Is it him being motzi the Tzibur? Or is it him having the power to hurt them?

R' Yehuda HaChasid is 100% a chazan issue (not a communal government issue.)

But Or Zarua says if someone gets appointed and is part of his role and afterwards 1, 2, 3 or4 say they don't like him and not because he did something wrong- no objective evidence that he's really done something wrong- they do not have the ability to cancel/ firehim. No procedure by which you can get rid of people in Beis Hamikdash unless you catch them doing something wrong- so he continues in his post- but he should work hard to make sure everyone likes him.

Teshuva R' Moshe bar Chisdai: He's known as R' Moshe Taku - Might be from the town of Dechov. Asked by Magdeburg rabbanim to get involved (two different views.) He quotes R' Simcha as well, but does so differently- and also Rabbeinu Tam.

R' Moshe Taku thinks that the person writing to him can be an appropriate merutzeh before Hashem. Job of chazan- chazan can have Hashem accept the kahal's prayers. Get Hashem's acquiescence. As far as innate ability, in terms of learning/ chazanus. Says to community- I know job of chazan is also to be merutzeh l'khal. He has to have the approbation of the community.

In order to achieve that approbation- to placate that person- get person to like him. They should like him- he should serve them- more than Or Zarua, who tells the young man you need the entire vote, R' Moshe Taku stresses let's make it work (gives advice) but then he does give a halakhic psak.

What in the world is R' Moshe Taku doing in the middle of an Or Zarua? Nature of this- collect shailos and teshuvos. Helpful to us because otherwise we wouldn't have this piece- gadol hashalom- good to get along.

Let's go after the people who need help- the more learned people should lower themselves a little to ask those who disagree to agree so that there will be an agadah- we saw this concept before by R' Simcha. So Or Zarua said agudah achas. But what does R' Moshe Taku mean here?

Try hard to minimize machlokes -some kind of unanimity. On a theoretical level, good idea for everyone to form an agudah.

How many of community has to agree in order for a new family to settle in there (say there are three shoemakers in town; you don't need a fourth shoemaker- that will take away someone's living) so most said the majority. R' Moshe Taku says R' Simcha said unanimity in that case. So R' Simcha also brings up this idea of unanimity by chazzanut. This means he is saying there are two things that need unanimity:

1. Chazzanut
2. Yishuv

R' Moshe Taku suggests that normally R' Simcha would work off of majority rule but in these issues specifically there should be unanimmity.

So Or Zarua and Moshe Taku disagree as to how to understand R' Simcha. So R' Moshe Taku's saying it's a communal issue that has to do with the position of the chazan. That's R' Simcha's position.

The Refuseniks- don't disagree when a bunch of people are refusing to have him, even if it's a mnority- if it's a group, I'm with the people disagreeing. On the other hand, it seems majority support for this- this pasuk that insists on unanimity- understand majority is in favor- at worst/ at most small minority against this. That a minority can protest is Rhineland minhag.

R' Simcha's unanimity idea doesn't go too far with him. To prove his point he will cite 2 very important predecessors who in the case of cherem hayishuv - now in communal gov. dept. I understand that communal policy- can't understand how you let one person wreck the whole thing. Chazzanus by R' Simcha- equated to Yishuv.

Now see two people who disagree with unanimity for chezkas ha'yishuv so theoretically they would also disagree with the issue by chazanus.

1. Riva: R' Yitzchak ben Asher HaLevi M'Shpira (German) He died in 1133 and is arguably the first Ba'al HaTosfos

Copy of his response in Spire where he wrote that ruvo k'kulo-majority rules.

Rabbeinu Tam is known as requiring unanimity.

If Rabbeinu Tam was around to discuss chezkas ha'yishuv, he would say not here (and he rquired unanimity for so much!) And if Rabbeinu Tam didn't want unanimity for chezkas ha'yishuv then nobody would.

[Daddy, I can imagine you stressing the nobody in that phrase with one of your fierce looks. I miss you.]

One exception: Elvim and Mosros- people who are fast and loose with the rules- people who apparently you can see already that such people are going to be *interesting* additions to your community-what does it mean unanimity by them? Unless you get a unanimous vote to admit them, don't admit them. Elvim and Mosros are gangsters/ strongarmed people/ informers- if they are candidates for settlement, then the suggestion is that they won't pay taxes to the community and will be bad members thereof. If such people want to enter the community, unanimity is required.

So neither Riva nor Rabbeinu Tam agree with R' Simcha of Shpira when it comes to unanimity by yishuv, so R' Moshe Taku is showing we're not bound to this psak.

Eliezer of Orleans says the following: What you have here in that Tosfos piece- I heard him say it in on his way out of shul in Troyes.

(Also, general Rhineland policy is not like Rabbeinu Simcha.)

So R' Moshe Taku is trying to say that one needn't follow R' Simcha of Shpira. This is because R' Simcha of Shpria is the gadol hador of the time- died in 1230- that's why R' Moshe Taku is working so hard to disprove his position.

yeish anashim chata'im- there are people doing the wrong thing, trying to protest the settelemtn of a person when he could be good to the community and isn't harming anyone's parnassa. (Giving mussar against/ about yishuv). Sinful individuals who will block this- someone who does that just being a nasty person. Further oomph on the yishuv case- don't let rabim be stopped from doing a mitzvah.

So we've got Ruchniyus vs. Communal going on here.

Ruchniyus: Or Zarua, R' Yehuda HaChasid
Communal: Rhineland communities, R' Moshe Taku

R' Simcha of Shpira falls on either side depending on how you understand him. Or, R' Moshe Taku rejects R' Simcha.

page 3- Long teshuva of R' Simcha to Or Zarua about comunal you in general

pages 8, 9, 10 and 11- Raviya - communal rules. Maharam is going to talk about majority appointing a chazan.

page 3- Lengthy teshuva of R' Simcha of Shpira- Rabbeinu Simcha might be looking at this as majority rules.

Take a look at the bottom- the taxes were paid to whom? Not paid to federal government- In any case, Rabbeinu Simcha here- individual was liked by the Hegemon (local ruler) and then he is exempt from taxes. So the Jewish community owes X amount- how do you determine which people give what- how do you figure out tax rate that's fair? Is it majority rules in terms of taxes or unanimity in which case you negotiate till everyone agrees? Good example of majority/ minority in a very specific issue.

Particular case of taxes- bill is X and hegemon says you don't have to pay to this particular person. Either case, what's fair- if really there's one more person who should have to pay, but he's not going to, how do you divvy up taxes?

R' Simcha says person should pay anyway and the Hegemon will give it back to him later. Because yachid must be submissive to majority. Sounds like in matters of regular communal government, Rabbeinu Simcha held majority. Ramping these up for particular reasons. The yachid cannot say "Hey, take me into the cheshbon here."

page 3- Interesting because in Ashkenaz fewer people involved- somehow member of the palace. Part of the entourage- would be to make some kind of compromise. Let me pay something. Listen, I do business with you, King, so I'll accept a discount (but not a ptor.) Don't free me from the tax, but give me a discount. My proper role is to give with them- you can't tell the King that you don't accept his largesse- and then even King would accepts to reduce your taxes- and then the money which he doesn't have to pay since it was a discount, he would give over to the kahal. So either:

1. Give the king less (discount) and the rest to the kahal
2. Give the whole thing to the kahal

Either way, give first to the kahal.

Says R' Simcha: "I thought he was doing this out of tzedakah." But, says Rabbeinu Simcha (who holds you have to make the money up) he's doing my psak here- all hands on deck- you can't min hadin accept any money from the king.

Bottom line is that yachid has to participate with the tzibbur.

[Once Jews were pushed out of guilds etc then moneylending became a better option.] Jewish moneylending/ pawnbroking- you got an object as collateral. Jews didn't get money paid back so much as they got to keep the collateral. When comes to Pesach, can you put on the table the fancy stuff you have as collateral? It was a question- you lend money to a church official and they give you a church object- can you/ may you accept it as collateral? Christians in the 11th, even 12th century technically didn't want to lend with interest, so Christians welcomed not just Jewish credit but loads of people. In the 13th century, they decided to be machmir- the Jews can't do this either (not good moneylenders.) King Louis the 9th calls complete Moritorium on collecting Jewish debts- get money owed to Jews back- interesting question. Jew can't lend to other Jews with interest- strawmen (middlemen- lots of very interesting stuff here- very complicated- that's why popular avenue-Talmid of Terumas HaDeshen- gadlus of them- Tzaddikim- late middle agesin Ashkenaz- custom peddlers. Obviously not friendly envrionment but managing- so playing withthe King here.)

Collateral was invariably worth more (cash and carry) - take out Kitvei Yad and someone would pay for them- portable money. Point is doesn't have this position all across the board- may be a communal issue- you don't need unanimity.

Germany: Send to other Beis Din- chacham to chacham (whole discussion of communal government sent around)

page 4- Sefer Chasidim- This is by Rabbi Yehuda HaChasid- generally more complete text (this version) - was somebody who usually got the Aliyah of Tochacha- one time chazan said to fellow "Good luck!" The one who got called up for that aliyah said since you want to give me the Tochacha, call somebody else up, please. Afterwards, the chazan and the oleh made up. He called him up, read the Tochacha and then the guy's daughter dies on motzei shabbos. Even though intentions weren't bad, the problem here was this fellow shouldn't have been so flippant/ should have responded differently- maybe shouldn't have been choshed in that way-

Bashes- Not to overthink someone's words to you

Also believes chazan had mystical power- lifnei m'shuras hadin- watch how you say/ what you say. Call somebody a simple person who is not worried about the Tochacha to give him the aliyah- then it won't happen to him.

It's not just the chazan- efficacy of chazan's power depends very much on where he is with the tzibbur. Simple man, etc (idea by Baruch ben Neriah- Rabbi Kanarfogel suggets) Can't play that game- when called here to go (still blaming oleh a little bit)

Sefer Chasidim- don't call up limping person to limping korban (don't call up person with that mum for that aliya because you are insulting them)- explains practically speaking- parshas ki sisa

page 6- Chazan who hates one of the people- don't call up to Torah

page 7- don't call up to torah

pages 13, 14, 15, 16- Maharam of Rutenberg. The Maharm per Halakha- he is one of the last Ba'alei HaTosfos (he died in 1293) His death signals the end of the Tosafist period. Interesting figure- like the Or Zarua studied in Northern France and Germany also had relationship with Chassidei Ashkenaz- related idea- Ba'al HaTurim- if you go back, Maharam has peirush on the Mesorah- a lot of it taken from similar peirush of R' Elazar of Worms and a R' Yehuda the Chassid thing. Tur also wrote a longer peirush.

Studies of 20 or 22 when Talmud was found - Maharam in period very difficult but does all kinds of analysis. First among Ba'alei HaTosfos to declare Rif and Rambam. Rif and Rambam not accepted in Ashkenaz so much until Maharam- he mentions Rambam being Urim V'Tumim- 3 of Maharam's most famous Talmidim write stuff based structurally on Rif and Rambam- it's Sefard also comes together in Maharam.

Maharam- talk about where stuff is coming from, can come from anyplace- Ashkenaz, Sefarad, French, German, R' Yehudah HaChasid- probable that he knows what time before him- some familiarity with these issues.

R' Simcha of Shpira- rule of women in society. Domestic abuse during Rishonim. R' Simcha of Shpira stalwart defender of women there (and Maharm.)

[tangent on shoes: Yirmiyahu (did he mean Yechezkel here?) doesn't take off his shoes, Moshe takes off his shoes, Yehoshua takes off one shoe. Yechezkel was a hick. Therefore the Tur reasons that Moshe and Yechezkel are from outlying areas, while Yehoshua is from the city. So Moshe and Yechezkel have galoshes. Yehoshua has Italian model of shoes- little thin shoes. This is why they are splled differently- one has a yud, the other does not.]

Whenever you look at the Maharam, you should expect something loaded: Communal government issue- he argues but turn he makes is to suggest that rov/ majority can rule. Whenever have case of what the Maharam calls pol mugdar milta-enhances Jewish community (as opposed to taxes, which doesn't) then majority rules.

L'magder milta- anything community needs- categorize as majority rules. Theories of communal government- majority. If taxes- unanimity. If it's migdar milta then majority (enhance spiritual character of community.)

So to him not only communal but communal regular (putting Chazan in this category.)

So majority rules for chazan per Maharm. So he's communalizing this thing.

Like R' Simcha and certainly like R' Moshe Taku communally. Passages from Or Zaru also presented in teshuvos of the Maharam. In one of them addendum to Moshe Taku and place where he says Moshe Taku is right- this is a communal matter and rov is fine.

Is this lamdus or societal matter?

Lamdus: Same as others, then putting in category
Societal: Possible chzanus situation in Ashkenaz is becoming more acute

Possibly using lomdus due to societal pressures - perhaps finding good chazzanim is getting harder.

page 13- Al asher sh'altem -We're having a spat within our community and can't get a consensus. We want to appoint officers of community (probably refers to communal board.) Not having peace is a terrible thing- we know we don't see eye to eye on just about anything here. When it comes to householders, in that case, when comes to taxes everybody has to have an opinion- however, when it comes to other things you follow the majority. Appointing heads in communities- when it comes to picking chazanim, goes with rov.

Always better or best if you can get everyone to agree (that's what he says.) As a matter of day-in, day-out activity- which elsewhere calls mugdar milta- head off selection of chazanim.

page 14- A lot of teshuvos in his collections- who put them there? Someone tried to do a critical edition of Maharam and to figure out what's Maharam and what's not. Start with Teshuva Zayin-

What was the shailah? This is like the Chizkiyahu case- What does Maharam do? A minority does it and the minority could not be persuaded. Writing to a certain Yitzchak of Wurtzberg- majority agreeing on someone and apparently can't get minority to agree- came along a big Duke (some secular feudal authority) and the Duke tried to intervene and get the Refusers to assent.

So now the Maharam responds: The problem here is who asked the Duke for his opinion?! Duke should not decide Hashem's chazan! Why in the world did you get a non-Jew involved and now that he's involved that's terrible!

Never mind Rutenberg- famous case in the days of Avi HaEzri (Raviya) - city of Koln/ Cologne.

There was a Jew who wanted the Raviya to be honored so one of the Ba'alei Batim called up the Hegemon and said "Can you install the Raviya as chazan?" So the Hegemon (ruler/ church official) took hat from off his head and said "Here is the chazanus." He wanted to show they controlled the Jews in their territory. And the Raviya got upset and didn't even wait for the non-Jew to leave and said "Sir, I can't accept the position of serving God from you" and then he rescinded the job- he also made the Jew who created this mess pay a fine- have to learn that you can't appoint Chazan in this manner- can appoint Chazan but let him make amends.

Some people think there's a stira here- but that's not right. The fact that Hegemon got involved makes a mess- what do I do when non-Jew makes an appointment?

The Investiture Controversy- who gives semikha to the Pope
1077- required HRE to come bow in snow for 3 days to ask forgiveness

[I bring in Charlemagne putting the crown on his own head.]

page 15- In siman chaf-aleph this is Maharam's postscript to R' Moshe bar Chisdai:

Start with nireh lo- if most people want him, let him daven at least bi'ikrai- not permanently- don't have to throw him out because one person doesn't like him.

Only time not to use this chazzan is Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur and Ta'anis (fast days)

Maharam still saying that ratzui l'rov echav is okay, even okay for akrai (not permanently) escept for Rosh Hashana/ Yom Kippur.

Communal government but Rosh Hashana/ Yom Kippur work harder. Maharam- clearly communal government but clearly winking at the other idea.

page 16- Can Bnei HaIr force each other- and force each other here means majority rules.

[sidepoint: Not unheard of for the chazan to be the shochet- also reason mohel should do some davening- serve God with melodious voice and blood.]

What he says here is that the rov can do it! Hiring a chazan not same as appointing (hiring is paying him)

Maharam says, "Listen- a paid chazan will be better." The ideal is that all should agree.

pages 17, 18, 19 and even 20- mostly Teshuvos HaRashba - play some game in Spain

pages 17 & 18- Look at Spain, notice precious little discussion in Spain of appointing Chazanim- either working great (going well) or a different approach that doesn't require same angst

page 22- Rambam sounds like what we saw in the name of Rabbeinu Tam. Best athlete available and has to be really good.

May explain why in Sefarad lands not that much discussion- we have secondary sources on that (Yitzchak Baer's book- Baer writes about Teshuvos HaRashba- but not their halakha.) Abraham Neuman has about 3 lines on chazanus- didn't find much.

What's clear is that for the Rashba the idea of rov mamash is no problem. The Rashba sort of opens to the left of Maharam. Question then is why.

What does communal government say about chazanim?

Spain never put chazan selection into any category other than regular communal government. Assumption- not level of carefulness of Ashkenaz in these issues.

page 19- paying the Chazan- better paid or voluntary

page 20- The Rosh- 13 year old davening m'akrai- (not permanent) - can't be permanent but nothing wrong with that. Question of lomdus- communal gov? Yes to all of the above.

pages 21 and 23- Examples of later chachmei Ashkenaz- Maharik, Rama, R' Yosef Cologne- they interestingly love that R' Simcha of Shpira idea of requiring unanimity is something they like- lots of call for unanimity in this matter (pick that out- that spoke to them)

pages 24 and 25- Dealing here with letter- pesukim in Sefarad lands- they followed the Sefarad model. Happens in Ashkenaz-late Rishonim liked more stringent position. Lengthy teshuva on question of appointing- Maharshal (he begins to mix and match)- contemporary of R' Yosef Kairo.

Let's introduce a fun and exciting topic about women being mohalos or sandakaos.

Women and Mila/ Women and being Sandakaos-

Elisheva Baumgarten wrote an interesting book on the nature of family, childhood, the history of childhood in midieval Jewish society. Good book by Phillipe Aries. Centuries of Childhood- argued that in large measure, not that parents didn't love children but they treated them as little adults.

He says that in Jewish society as in Christian society, in 12th century the women were regarded fairy well- but in the 13th century it starts going in a more negative direction. In the 12th century, there were women preachers. By the 13th century, that was no longer okay.

12th century is the Century of the Renaissance. The French Renaissance- arguably more far-reaching (University of Paris reflects that)- century of individual.

13th century is the Century of Piety. (Ba'alei Tosfos flower in 12th and Chasidei Ashkenaz in 13th century- same kind of argument)

Baumgarten has four proofs which she uses to show decline from the 12th century to the 13th century in women's status:

1. Value of the Ketubah turns against women (goes down, not up)- question of whether this reflects on the status of women or is an economic issue

2. Women as Mohalos- She suggests that the history of halakha- we will see the switch of position. In 12th century some/ many Chachmei Ashkenaz allowed it, but then it gets shut down.

3. Mitzvos Asei She'hazman Grama- Rabbeinu Tam held women may not only do this but also make a bracha. 13th century Ashkenaz, Rabbeinu Tam gets opponents.

4. Woman as Sandak- one who holds baby for bris milah-she would hold the baby and Baumgarten argues that the Maharam of Rutenberg says no- talks about tznius issues.

Problem using halakhic texts for history is that you have to correct first for sugyas, etc. What you may be seeing is ure halakha and nothing societal- need to keep that in mind. It's much more nuanced than people realized.

Machlokes Amoraim between Rav and Rav Yonasan about whether a woman can be a moheles - women not included in bris milah but why are they excluded? Completely as though non-Jewish males or is bris milah for all Jews in which case women are equally able to participate even though they are not obligated in the mitzvah for themselves

Tzipporah obviously did milah (right action per all) - her action and relevance not unequivocal that it's binyan av

Father clearly metzuveh initially- what is relationship between ____ and shaliach

Problem 1: Machlokes between Rav and Rav Yochanan, not historically most common- may have been a mail machlokes

Problem 2: Normally speaking a machlokes almost always pasken like Rav as is R' Yochanan. So what Rishonim play with here is less whose machlokes is right and more like what do we pasken.

Rav: Women cannot be a moheles
R' Yochanan: Women can be a moheles

The middle position is that women may if no man is available.

What we're looking for here is patterns: Not so much that Rishonim have new ways to interpret Gemara as much as run the data, argument until late 13th century most Rishonim allow women as mohalos and then stopped. R' Kanarfogel will argue it's not quite true. He believes you can read Rabbinic literature for history- but you have to be careful.

Look first at the Shiltos- page 1-Shiltos is Aramaic for shealois- book of questions- each week during Gaonic times there would be a derasha, usually a halakhic question that would usually relate to the parshas hashavua- the Shiltos is in that model. This question of women being a moheles is in Vayera- (cham hayom by Avraham)- we have less popular edition of Shiltos here (other one is Mossad Harav Kook- for lomdus it's that one- R' Schachter as a young man ate the Shiltos) Our edition we use because we need the variant texts here.

R' Isai Gaon is author of the Shiltos- so is this a late Gaon or different gaon? From what we can tell Shiltos are of earliest Gaonic works (dates something like 680-750 CE) -one of the earliest published Gaonic works that we have.

His derasha: It would seem the following- Can a woman be a moheles? Do we say that a Jew, whether or not they've had a bris milah are bris milah ready? Not whether you had a bris milah but whether they are eligible. They would be no better (women) than the non-Jew who had a bris milah. Or do we say that all Jews are under the ____ of milah- not that women don't ned a bris milah but doesn't have orlah problems?

Answers with a sugya in the Gemara (one of key activities during Gaonic period was to teach Gemara to hamon ha'am)- Gemara exists- not a lot of people learning it (very excellent vehicle.)

Avodah Zara 27- Gemara starts with the fact that a non-Jew cannot be a mohel. Dira bar Papa said (Rav Papa's son) quoted Rav who on the question of a non-Jew said "V'ata es brisi tishmor"- and R' Yochanan said "Himol yimol"- so we understand why according to both of them a non-Jew is no good.

Himol yimol- Jewish people, not others- why'd they learn it out from different sources? It's based on whether or not they allow for women mohalos.

V'ata es brisi tishmor- you must be in bris to do it- you have to do it, too. Since women cannot physically have a bris, they can't do it for others either.

Hayimol yimol- Women are included here, hence they are able to perform a bris.

Rav or R' Yochanan- halakha is like R' Yochanan- first opinion out of the Gemara is that women are allowed to do bris milah- this is discussed in the Gemara - Rav and R' Yochanan- halakha is like R' Yochanan- Shiltos allowing women to do so (Tzipporah- can you/ should you learn from Tzipporah?)

Shiltos doesn't seem to tell us what we might say logically- has discussion about non-Jews and women - why go with safek if you can go with vaday - might be that Shiltos already saying.

R' Yochanan - 3rd century (death date 289) considered editor of the Talmud Yerushalmi (finished well before Bavli)

Halachos Gedolos written by the Bahag- Machlokes about who wrote the Halachos Gedolos- Rishonei Sefarad think R' Shimon Kayera lived in mid-9th century and wrote this (was a Gaon)

Rishonei Ashkenaz attribute Halachos Gedolos to R' Yehuda, the Blind Gaon- did put together collection of halakhos called halakhos pesukos- break Gemara down into bodies of halakha

Chachmei Sefarad are more stuck with Gaonim than Chachmei Ashkenaz are. Gaonim are predecessors of Chachmei Sefarad. Rav___ worries about them (by subtraction)

psak!

There's a Tosfos on Meguleh daf daled- Tosfos talking about al hanisim and here psak that was shtupped into the Tosfos.

Let's look at psak here on page 2-

He makes explicit that when no Jewish men who know how to do the bris but women do know how, she does it and she is 100% okay. What doesn't say- since R' Yochanan is the winner- tough fight to pasken like them- if men are available, he should do it- transfers over to Europe- the Ba'al HaItur is a Rishon- R' Yitzchak Bar Abamari of Lunal in Southern France- south of Provence. HaIturi is 12th century Rishon and is contemporary of Rivid of Posquierres. Rivid may have trumped him in the polls.

R' Yitzchak ben Aba Meiri- the Sefer HaItur is not the easiest sefer to find things in- so the Ba'al Ha'Itur accepts- (Ba'al HaMeor is another contemporary of theirs) - same idea, women can but shouldn't be first people called. First men, if no men, then women can do it.

page 4- Rambam- the Rambam talks about a man who hasn't yet gotten a bris, Eved Canaani, Isha and Katan are all malei without man (they are all second responders.) If a non-Jew did a milah don't have to do full thing again- do hatafas dam bris- don't have to redo surgery- so Rambam again expands category of who is in there- paskens like the Geonim.

Let us look at the Hagahos Maymoniyos- (As for the Rambam, Provencalian Sefer Haitur is holding with the Geonim)

So Hanhagos Mamoniyos are only Ashkenaz thing on this page (except for the Rivid)- he is ringing in- where is Ashkenaz in light of the Rambam? If you look at the Rambam- Hagahos Mamoniyos authored by a studnet of Maharm M'Rutenberg- let's see what he say:

Block letter Aleph: Says Ramban obviously paskens like R' Yochanan and not like Rav. There are 3 Rishonei Ashkenaz who agree with the Rambam - but which part? That woman is kosher? That's she's second place? Who are the three people here? 1) R' Simcha M'Shpira 2) R'eim- R' Eliezer M'Metz, author of a halakhic work called the Sefer Yeraim. Where is Metz? Easternmost France- very close to Rhineland Germany though- is Metz French or German? Sefer Mitzvos also here- the Northern French are called semag- Sefer Mitzvos Gadol. The Smag is a frenchman- sounds like paskening that women may be mohalos. Everyone seems to be meikil. (Nothing about second responders, though.)

There are manuscripts of the Sefer HaMitzvos which have a mistake- say R' Yochanan prohibits this, which is not true. This tzitut may have caused Prof Spiegel of Bar Ilan to write his article- version of Sefer Hamitzvos that allows it and versions that don't. Some point in 13th century the tide turns against this lenient position- some people try to fix the text of Sefer Hamitzvos to have him assir it. Who prohibits a woman from being a mohel?

page 11 - Tosfos prohibits a woman from being a mohel. Spiegel reasons Tosfos on Avodah Zara were put together late 13th century- Tosfos Rabbeinu Peretz as it were- everything humming along until 1240 - everyone holds women can be a moheles. Then the bar goes down- some people try to make the Smag say like the Tosfos.

(Key variant Tosfos is on pages 9 and 10)

Earlier & better manuscripts show Semag saying okay, then the later ones having him say no.

page 5- Sefer Yeraim- R' Eliezer in Metz, Talmid of Rabbeinu Tam, dies in 1198- in between culturally and rabinically considered German. Very sensitive, theoretical sefer, almost like Sefer HaChinuch but written before. The Semak in Northern France works off of the Sefer Yeraim. So Re'aim- Rabbeinu Simcha to Semag (very reasonable lineup.)

Let's see what he says: A woman who doesn't have a bris milah is included.

page 6- This is the Raviya- another student of R' Eliezer from Metz. This is in mesachtas Shabbos because discussed the issue of milah here.

Where there is no Jew who knows how to make a bris but a non-Jew knows how- don't use a non-Jew, and if you did, it is pasul and you need hatafas dam bris again. But you could use a woman. (A Jewish woman.) A non-Jew may not, but a woman may. The idea is to get the best mohel you can- always better to get the best male athelete (big man) available- footnote in kesav yad- woman is fine but use the best man available.

Can't prove that Rabbi Yochanan says women are only good b'dieved.

The Raviya is going back and to __ Habahag- Gaonim- Try to avoid machlokes trap- Raviya even though more restrictive than some of the Germans- Germany still

page 7- Or Zarua- Blames the psak on the Shiltos in Parshas lech-Lecha . Quotes a Gaonic work called The Barbecue even though our Gemara says we don't learn from Tzipporah, nevertheless we pasken this way. So he gives a simple YES.

So the Raviya is the one German holdout. Everyone else seems to be saying YES without the pecking order.

[fun point: The Or Zarua raises the following issue- and what if the mohel is a Jew but a meshumad- don't know what to do! Maybe side to allow it- except for the fact that meshumad is better than a woman- original tzivuy- he has all the ma'ailos- and for the proof Gemara doesn't use meshumad as possible nafkamina between R' Yochanan and Rav. So meshumad has fewer disabilities than those raised in the Gemara. But that kills off the meshumad- a meshumad is not having kavanas kol kach retzuyos- not having the right idea.]

page 8- Woman has 2 or 3 children who die because of bris (hemophiliac) - quoting Gemara itself which says don't necessarily learn from Tzipporah

skip pages 9 and 10, go to 11- page 11- Tosfos decides to assir it and assir it completely. We pasken like Rav. Tosfos says to pasken like Rav. Even though in terms of mechanics of Gemara usually pasken like R' Yochanan in this section we pasken like Rav.

Methodology: These rules of psak only in place if I have no other way to solve the machlokes than to do like so. But only in absence of other indications.

Tosfos says there is an indication.

Here the halakha is like Rav because the Gemara here is discussing each Amora here had a motto/ slogan. Both agree a non-Jew can't do milah- Mol Hamol vs Brisi. Tosfos says there's a point in Gemara where Gemara brings a powerful raaya to Rav's opnion. He cites a braisa in the time of R' Yehudah haNasi that quotes rav's position.

So if you have a beraisa from R' Yehudah HaNasi then you have to pasken like Rav. So most follow that indication. Beraisa says v'ata es brisi tishmor so gives more credence to Rav.

Baha- In this case the halakha k'rav- it holds like him (the beraisa)- raw material that will lead to this material - Tosfos says the Bahag paskens that a woman can do milah. So they say we understand that we're against the Bahag. Only bothered because there's a Gemara in Kiddushin where it says ka'asher tziva oso- Gemara there darshens oso and not osah. Talmudic exegetical question, if hold women could but shouldn't, it works for the Bahag. According to us, doesn't make as much sense (why need to differentiate? You'd think obviously she can.)

If father's not there, Beis Din must go see/ find a mohel. So it means the woman is peturah from doing the milah- in finding people to do the milah. So that's what it means in the Gemara in Kiddushin (when differentiates oso and not osah.) Till 1250 everyone agreed- till 1260 the clock struck 12.



Obviously you can say all internal halakhic climate.

Baumgarten says pietism in Catholic world and then goes over to Judaism- takes a bit in 1250.

Once Tosfos changes their mind and here everyone changes their mind/ try to undo it (Machiavellian) this shita even strated little before (people who tried to get the Smag to live up with him.)

pages 9-10: Rabbi Kanarfogel's taanah here- Spiegel knows this- look at Tosfos R' Elchanan and Tosfos Rosh MiShantz- all say the same thing- so it's a Tosfos problem (all agree with pointed Tosfos that paskens like the Rav- that's what they say.)



Problem: We have dates on these Tosfos and they are from before now so Tosfos Rosh Mishantz no later than 1210. So well before R' Eliezer M'Metz who dies in 1198 this shita of assaring (psak like Rav) is around before now. Not having your chronological data right- chronology is all off!

Quite possible R' Elchanan comes first saying that it is assur. (Fact that it's France versus Germany is interesting but not a chronological proof.)

Baalei HaTosfos viewed themselves as equal to Gaonim- Ba'alei Tosfos regard themselves almost like Amoraim of their day. Mishna and Gemara are inviolate. Look at pasuk first, then commentaries. We tend to have bias toward knowing French Tosfos- if you want to look at full Tosfos, bring in the German ones- mesorah selected what it has selected. This Tosfos in Avodah Zara is late-based or earlier French Tosfos (significantly earlier). French assur it well before 1250.

Germans said yes.

French said no.

Smag a little different.

a) following Sefer Yeraim

b) has Spanish piece



pages 9-10- The printed Tosfos that we have- standard Tosfos- is shortest that we have. The variant Tosfos - Tosfos Rosh MiShantz and R' Elchanan etc- almost always longer treatments- our Tosfos underwent editing (compression.) Part of the reason that printed Tosfos is hard to learn is due to the compression of several generations of Ba'alei HaTosfos- can have people who didn't end up with each other together (cutting and pasting)- editors of Tosfos put togethr different generations sometimes (don't always get as many citations and get connections blurred otherwise.)



Printed Tosfos- chic choc- hard to follow the moves. Nothing new in printed Tosfos- argument from earlier texts- something new happening there- anything you find in printed you'll find in earlier as well. Rosh involved in Tosfos Rosh- most Tosfos on daf are Tosfos Rash Mishantz - most common name is Tosfos v'Eliezer. Everyone used to think it was French Toues- others say it's Turchasin- don't know R' Eliezer MiTuch that well (they're all contemporary, by the way.) One who is least known as separate lamdan is R' Eliezer miTuch- seems like he was mostly an editor.



The Mordechai is an exact contemporary of Rosh, Rabbeinu Peretz. The Mordechai did such a good job doing Reader's Digests that the originals got lost. The printed Tosfos in Avodah Zara are late 13 century.



No private Torah- no copyright (in Ashkenaz) - you can import/ export stuff all the time- part of the challenge here. Avodah Zara is Tosfos Rabbeinu Peretz- Urbach's forensics are fun.

page 14- The Sefer Mitzvos Katan by Yitzchak ben Yosef of Korbeil- the Smak writen somewhere around 1265- called amudo goleh- idea of Smak was to create literally almost Kitzur Shulchan Aruch- broken up into Sheva Amudim. When he takes up issue of milah, if there's no father around, it goes to Beis Din- only 2 players who need apply. Women need not even apply. Everybody loses their minds once ___ brings.

Not being mechadesh anything here- taking women out of the discussion but women's non-role has been around for quite a while.

Hagahos haRif- Rabbeinu Peretz- in spare time wrote footnotes to the Smak. No one talks about women here- hundred years French chumra on this topic.

So we see shift it Germany et all? Well, once you get printed Tosfos and Smak- becomes almost a slam in Ashkenaz halakha- ballgame over. When do we find out final exit of women in Germany as mohalos- at some point losing your edge- The Smak didn't have to get it from the printed Tosfos- not that he's following a new position!

Fascinating differences between Smag and Smak- Smag used Rambam every 5 minutes. The Smak- number of times quotes Rambam, about 10- closer to 3 or 5 really. Smak doesn't quote. Smag who was in Spain- having to do with learning. Women as sandak- up through mid/ late 13th century. Women would take baby and hold on their laps until Maharam from Rutenberg - comes and knocks whole thing on its head. Change here which reflects changed status of women.

Kuf nun hey- read starting from eino nireh li klal- I don't like it - not a kosher minhag- I don't like this minhag which is being practiced in many places that women come into the men's side and the baby is circumcised in her lap. Not derekh eretz (even if the mohel is her husband) - not nice to have a woman all decked out here in front of the men and the Shechina.

1. Not good shul policy/ public policy so logistical
2. Woman is not a milah attendant- has no chiyuv to give her son a bris- she's grabbing a mitzvah that's more of a men's mitzvah

Whoever can protest should protest!

Baumgarten says: "Listen- Maharam is arguing fairly soft halakha here- second part don't get. What is concept of taking mitzvot?" Whoever does mitzvah takes mitzvah- Rashi in Chumash- positive concept- chatifus- Bilam getting up in the morning- Jews want to grab mitzvos.

Chatifas Mitzvot- used as encouragment- love to grab mitzvot. No Talmudic chatifas mitzvot- turned around positive Talmudic usage and applied in somewhat artificial way- why is that? Gender theory that need to remove women from public roles.

page 19- Gemara (gold coins) - taking mitzvot
page 17- Women being sandak with family
page 18- Before Maharam, women not coming into shul

page 19- Explicit Gemara which says not nice to take mitzvot from other people- have to pay cash (Tosfos says too literal kind of pay)

page 16- Women as Sandakaos- It doesn't seem to me ot be at all a good idea for the women to serve as the Sandak in the men's shul. To have a woman all made up between men and Shechina.

The first thing the Maharam says is:

1. Not Tznius
2. Why are we making the woman into a main player when it's not about her- they're trying to grab away the mitzvah from the men!

Baumgarten's point: It's not completely tznius issue is really what's bothering him.

Idea of chatifah- grabbing mitzvos. There's a notion that Jewish people are like an ari and they grab mitzvot.

Chatifas mitzvot- grab extra mitzvot usually a positive. Here the Maharam makes it a negative. Baumgarten gives this as an example of the attitude changing.

page 17- Teshuvos u'Psukim book- a child was born and fight between grandmothera s to who would be the Sandakes

page 18- R' Yaakov HaGozer - either a barber or mofel- and his father- were cutters. (Anan ben david- Karaite had requirement to use scissors for milah.) This R' Yaakov HaGozer - early 13th century work- this was imported into a halakhic collection called Sefer Ha'Asifus by German student of Rokeach an dRaviya.

The women of the Ba'al HaBris- could be sandak or kfoter- brings the baby b'hadar to Beis Kneses- as soon as the davening is over, the Ish goes out to take the baby from her- this text clearly holds women doesn't go in typically. Doesn't mean it's assur - just that this text shows the rov cited by Maharam isn't so Rov. What does Maharam mean by Rov? Rov on his particular area- where he lives! Definitely possible that Maharam concerned about it in HIS area. This text may date from 1215-1230- well before Maharam's day already places where Sandakah is not so ubiqutious.

(Rabbi Kanarfogel is suggesting you need to know how big a change the Maharam is making. Maharam's working with spiritual vs halakhic proofs.) Maharam's dates are approximately 1220-1293. Clearly writing here after 1271.

MOST IMPORTANT POINT: Bigger problem with whole scenario is Chatifas Mitzvos question- sources well before Maharam that talk about Chatifas Mitzvos concept in the negative sense. In fact it's even already on record- having to do with a bris milah. Therefore a question- not as holey (full of holes) an argument as the milah argument but again, you need to be aware places already in early 13th century where women are already not in the shul. Therefore mharam is famous in his day as one of the last figures in Ashkenaz for closing a lot of circles- R' Gershom had already done away with idea that women couldn't demand a divorce. Problem got to the point where women were using this too much- the R' Gershom had to get away from it- Takanah of Geonim.

Maharam- in fact all Maharam is trying to do is finally close the door. Hyperbole- not so many women who were doing this- want to finally close the door. Same sort of thing by women as Sandak- women had come out of that role before this. Maharam wants to standardize all of these positions. Anachronisms- way of trying to close th edoor existing already-

What happens if somebody's about to schecht a beheima of someone runs in and covers the blood? 2 separate mitzvos but really a compound mitzvah.

The Gemara says R' Gamliel required that he pay a big fine- already concept of chatifas ha'dam negative- Whole discussion of Tosfos- can we do this- knas- fines not levied. That's big problem Tosfos has- Tosfos gives a case where the Chazan called him up for an aliyah and the Chazan calls up the Amora and someone else runs up instead- so Rabbeinu Tam had simple solution- the lane who chopped the idea gives him a chicken to schect (which also has two brachos.) The Ri didn't like this solution- the Ri said you have to pay the fine.

Rabbeinu Tam said we don't have to collect fines because the answerer who says "Amen" gets more reward (on brachos.)

Maharam not scradical in announcing chatifas mitzvot.

page 20- The one who was supposed to be a Chazan- he wrote Piskei Mahariach-

His take on sugya in Bava Kama- someone was assigned to be the Mohel and a ssecond Mohel came and grabbed the chance- he did the mitzvah. This case Rabbeinu Tam said sorry- not much I can do for you- can't put a fine on you.

But idea of Chatifas Mitzvot- specifically in terms of Milah (Mohel grabbing them or other Mohel issue) or guy taking another guy's aliyah- Riva says what Rabbeinu Tam says- let him answer Amen to the guy's bracha- he'll make it up. Penalties not as sever here.

Baumgarten also talks about how women were allowed to make brachos on mitzvos asei shehazman grama- ongoing process.

Ongoing halakhic process- here to be able to really date/ locate Rabbinic texts- you want to use before you use them- at that point you're on much safer ground-within halakhic discussions before- go back to drawing board to try again.

*

GOOD LUCK ON THE FINAL.