- This topic has 39 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
BS”D
Please let’s be nice here! This is a learning question only, not persona.
Regarding the Rashi, I have difficulty how the story proves NDK, when the Tanna in question himself failed in a similar situation brought in the end of Mes. Kiddushin. If a female fails where a similar male also fails, it does not prove NDK.
Now, this is not a question on NDK, just in P’shat Rashi. Did anyone here ever hear this question, or can you help me with P’shat?
Once again, I will ask that you STAY ON TOPIC, and ask the mods to delete off topic posts. This is a Bais Medrash question.
I’m not familiar with the gemara, or the Rashi, only as they were quoted in another thread. Those who did learn this gemara/Rashi, did you look to see if the Mahrsha, Iyun Yackov, Mahral or Ben Yehoyada talk about this gemara/rashi?
He did not fail. Satan himself, with the koach of his Torah, came to his rescue.
Even at the onset, he wasn’t contradicting any Torah idea, he was just mislotzez bovrei avera. Whereas in the other case she was ridiculing a Torah idea. Whether she did or did not actually sin (don’t recall the inyan right now), that’s not the issues. But it wasn’t her Torah to the rescue.
But there’s another issue here. Sometimes HaShem sends an insurmountable temptation for reason known only to Him. Sometimes we too understand a bit. That’s what happened at the story of Yehudah and Tamer. He didn’t have any ‘shaychus’, connection to that episode. So HaShem turned up the heat. He motivated Yehuda’s senses and lusts just for that outcome. SO SAYS THE MEDRASH!
That’s exactly what happened at this Tanna’s ‘test’. ??? ??? ?????, when he’s given the go-ahead, we can be assured he’s doing it with all his capabilities. So I don’t think it was a test (like Rav Amram Chasidah), rather just to prove a point (not to be mislotzez bovrei avera).
I may have an Eizena Kup, but I’m regretfully no talmid chacham. What I wrote just seemed to me that way.
Anyway, getting to the point, Satan had to leave him because in Shamayim they didn’t want him to be worth ???? ???. That’s all. Not for succumbing but for the actual action. Or for the embarrassment for those who didn’t know that it was the satan out in his full glory.
Whereas her nisayon was a regular man made one. They were not machriz ????? ??????? ???????.
Does the Gemorah explain how Nashim are Da’atan Kalos?
Rabbi Avigdor Miller, tz’l, described it as women being more easily persuaded and less stubborn than men, having nothing to do with intelligence.
If it was intelligence based, then it would be forbidden for me to learn Gemara.
The Wolf
I always thought that it was the ability to multi-task vs. concentrating on one thing for hours. Sinai vs. Oiker Harim.
im sure there are many valid Shitas as to what it means. and im sure they are all correct.
I always thought that it was the ability to multi-task vs. concentrating on one thing for hours. Sinai vs. Oiker Harim.
If that was the case, then it would again be forbidden for me to learn Gemara. I’m very good at multitasking.
The Wolf
Obviously I didn’t mean an actual Sinai. Rav Yosef was a Sinai and I don’t think anyone thought he shouldn’t learn Torah. It is just the way I differentiate it in my head.
Why are nashim psul eidus? (Anything to do with Nashim Da’atan Kalos?)
The answer to the original question here is that there is on question that a man has a Yetzer Hara, a Ta’ava. In fact, a man has a bigger one than women. Reb Meir, having learned and broken his nature, reached a level where, as the Chovos Halevavos writes, the Yetzer Hara left him. This is what the Gemara refers to as, Libi Chalal Bekirbi. That being the case, he couldn’t even undertand the concept of battling with the earthly desires, and so he mocked Ba’alei Ta’ava as if they are being manipulated by little force. Therefore, the Sattan came to show him its full force, and that if not for his Torah, Torah Tavlin, he wouldn’t naturally overcome his inborn nature. Hashem made the system that it can be overcome, but don’t think it happens by itself.
Da’aton Kalos, as mod80 said earlier, means that they can be won over. That is why Rabban Shimon bar Yochai was afraid that the Romans would somehow convince his wife to divulge his whereabouts. This Talmid proved to her that she can be convinced, which embarrassed her immensely.
Source is the Gemara.
I’m sure you know the Mamarei Chazal about Dovid Hamelech. It wasn’t simply because of his grappling with his Yetzer.
You asked about the story of R’ Meir, not his wife.
As for your next question, I’m not refering to that Ma’amar. I’m talking about where it discusses that it shouldn’t have happened.
Gavra,
my comment which I’m about to say isn’t meant to be taken seriously
It took the Satan to convince R Meir it took a talmid of R Meir to convince Brureah
For some context. Rashi in avoda relates the story that beruriah disagreed with the saying of chazal “nashim datan kalos aleyhen” which Rashi tells us was said in kiddushin peh amud beis(the statement appears elsewhere in shas too, but rashi specifies this place) where the gemara says this is the reason 2 women may not be secluded with one man. Rashi (in kiddushin anyway) explains datan kalos to mean that they are easily persuaded, and since it is the case, neither woman would be afraid or ashamed to do an aveira because they figure the other will do so as well. Beruriah objected to this explanation Rashi in avoda zAra tells us. R’ Meir sent one of his talmidim who eventually did persuade her (not that she actually did), and out of embarresment she killed herself. I thought I saw it mentioned that r’ meir was able to enter a “beis zonos” and emerge unscathed. It should be pointed out that r’ meir purposely entered that place because he was being chased by the romans who wanted to kill him (for rescuing his siter in law – bruriahs sister – from a beis zona – oh, and she never sinned). What are we trying to prove with this rashi?
“I’m very good at multitasking.”
Wolf, I’m impressed…this is the first time I’ve seen you not be self-deprecating 🙂
What does the Gemorah’s principle of Nashim Daatan Kalos teach us today; how would we apply it?
Peacemaker, I believe the answer may be that women know things because they sense or feel that they are happening (that means even if they see something, it is seen as a feeling), as opposed to men who see things by seeing them happen.
If you have a mother or have been married for at least five minutes, you will know what I’m talking about!
Therefore ‘Witnessing’ has to be based purely on vision without any feelings or emotion or sensing.
If you want pshat. Look at the gemara Rashi in Avoda Zara quotes. Kiddushin peh amud beis. Rashi in Kiddushin, tells you exactly what the term means.
Rashi is not trying to prove NDK.
Rashi mentions the story in the context that bruria “scoffed” (anyone have better translation?) at the halacha that 2 women do not act as a shemira for each other when with one man and an issur yichud remains because of NDK. As Rashi explains since they are easily swayed (at least as far as this topic is concerned – see gemara in sota, rotze kav echad etc) each woman will assume the other sinned and will not be embarressed to refrain herself. Bruria disagreed. R’ Meir proved that she could eventually be swayed. Where do you find that R’ Meir “failed” such a nisayon?
didnt read this whole thread because I have no clue what you guys are talking about but what I do know is that we are not DUMB were just wired differently and are generally not so technical and “deep learners” but are more tuned into emotions and stuff
we are not DUMB were just wired differently and are generally not so technical and “deep learners” but are more tuned into emotions and stuff
i couldnt have put it better
wow a compliment from you?!?!?! thanks
Did I say that Reb Meir said Libi Chalal Bekirbi? I explained that he scoffed at those who gave in to their desires, and that he was, obviously, very removed from that struggle.
The Gemara actually explains that Dovid Hamelech said of himself that he had no Yetzer Hara. His Chet was caused by him asking for a Nisayon, and for himself actually wanting not to be triumphant on Hashem, and to show the power of Teshuva. Therefore, this answers your question about why Reb Meir couldn’t bring proof from David Hamelech that the Yetzer is very powerful. That case was an exception as David Hamelech himself said, that he has no Yetzer Hara.
See the Maharal in chidushei aggados. This is a summary.
The lesson to both R’ Meir and R’ Akiva (very next gemara) is that even when one manages to completely separate themselves (he ties how the yetzer hara appeared to them to the passuk lo bashamayim vlo me’ever layam) from a yetzer hara it is because they worked on it and more importantly the torah that they learned is a special protection for them. When Hashem removes that protection, they are as vulnerable as everyone else. In fact, the greater the person, the greater the yetzer hara.
Under normal course of events, R’ Meir would not be nichshol, but the lesson to him is, you still need the siyata dishmaya, maybe even more than the average person.
It would be an interesting tidbit to know if this incident with the satan happened before or after the incident with bruriah.
The Gemara says it as fact about Dovid Hamelech, not just that he thought so.
I happen to be coming from that Maharal that apashutayid mentioned. You asked where the Gemara mentions that Reb Meir said Libi Chalal Bekirbi. The Gemara does not say that he said so. I explained that he reached the level of what the Chovos Halevavos talks about, which is found in the Gemara with regards to Dovid Hamelech.
You and EiseneKop are saying that she failed faster or easier than him. That is not the point. In fact, none of them failed. A point was proven to both.
Besides, you should realize that doing an Aveira because of your desire is one thing. Many men do that, IIRC. The point of Da’atan Kalos is that she had no desire on her own, she was won over.
Furthermore, Reb Meir did not succum to anything. He was merely shown the Yetzer’s power. However, the rule that Torah protects you from sin, that worked for him until then, continued to work for him. The Maharal explains that that is what is meant by what is says that he climbed half the tree, and Rebbi Akiva went across half the river. They did not actually get close to the sin, but they felt its pull. The Torah did, indeed, separate them from the actual sin.
So, no one failed. He was shown the actual power of the Yetzer, and she was shown the power of convincing that can have an effect on women. It was not a failure on her part, it was a physical shortcoming.
“The point of Da’atan Kalos is that she had no desire on her own, she was won over.”
Which is more clearly spelled out in Rashi in Kiddushin peh amud b. The mishna says 2 woman are not a shmira for each other regarding yichud with a man. The gemara says it is because “ndk”. Rashi explains each one can be persuaded to sin (and the other one knows the possibility exists) so neither is worried about sinning and the other finding out. “Persuaded more quickly” is how Rashi interprets “ndk”, at least in kiddushin.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.