Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 024

Friday, August 21 1998

• Re: public discussions of matters of arayos
• RE: shogeg/Eliyahu
• RE: shogeg/Eliyahu
• impeachment
• RE: shogeg/Eliyahu
• Zmanim for Ta'aniyos
• RE: Avodah V1 #22
• Re: Zmanim for Ta'aniyos
• Re: Zmanim for Ta'aniyos
• A follow up on Mitasek between - anyone else care to comment?

	Akiva Miller has requested a source for the modern application of
the gemara Rabbi Bechhofer cited in Chagigah, I refer him to a teshuva in
Iggros Moshe (even Hoezer 1 amud 163) where Rav Moshe held that the issue
of family planning and certainly many of the topics addressed in this
forum are included in the broad heading of Arayos. I would like to add
that Reb Akiva may want to examine an article written by Hagaon Harav
Hershel Schachter shlita (Jn. of Halacha and Contemp. Society IV,p. 5
Fall, 1982) which may help shed light on some of the issues that he wants
clarified.


J. Schwartz

R YGB writes:

>If you *know* that the poskim argue the issue of 600,000 and elect to
>follow the majority of Poskim and ignore the MB's ba'al nefesh yachmir -
>your halachic right - and ultimately Eliyahu comes and rules in favor of
>the minority - you are a shogeg and not a mis'asek.

IMHO this is incorrect.  Restated in the abstract, your proposition is
as follows: regarding any halakhic matter upon which there is a mahloket
posekim, if one follows rov posekim (a term we can define some other
time), but Eliyahu comes (bimherah be-yamenu) and adopts the minority
position, then one is retroactively a shogeg.  In other words, you have
violated the Halakhah by incorrectly understanding it.  I have a number
of objections to this proposition.

First, there are a number of midrashim discussing Eliyahu's role in
resolving various issues, such as lineage.  But do they state that
Eliyahu will resolve all halakhic doubts?  In elementary school, we were
all taught what "teku" stands for.  Now that we are out of elementary
school, we should all be aware that what we were taught was wrong.  The
word teku is not rashei tevot, but a perfectly good Aramaic word derived
(if memory serves) from a root meaning "suspended." (Footnote: While
we're at it, the word yarmulke does not come from the phrase yara malka,
meaning fear/awe of Hashem, but a Polish-Russian word.)

Second, even assuming Eliyahu is going to resolve all of the matters
left as teku in the Gemara, this does not assure us that he will also
resolve all of the mahlokot Rishonim which developed afterward, not to
speak of mahlokot Aharonim.  Rather, it is my understanding that such a
responsibility would fall upon a restored Sanhedrin.  I think the
distinction between Eliyahu and the Sanhedrin is significant, however,
for several reasons.  (1)  The Sanhedrin will resolve these issues based
on aharei rabbim le-hatot, rather than Eliyahu's use of nevu'ah.  (2)
It is conceivable that we could restore the Sanhedrin without the
benefit of Eliyahu.  (3)  It seems absolutely clear from the laws of
zaken mamreh that (a) regarding a matter that has not yet been resolved
by Sanhedrin's vote, one can rely on any valid opinion and (b) one does
not retroactively become a shogeg after such a vote is held.

Indeed, the notion that centuries of gedolim from Rashi to R. Moshe
could retroactively become hayyav a korban upon the advent of Eliyahu
strikes me as almost sacrilegious.  Of course, perhaps I am simply
unaware of a very clear source on this matter which is known to R. YGB
(which would make me a shogeg of sorts!).

Kol tuv,

Eli 

          >>>Second, even assuming Eliyahu is going to resolve all of the
          matters
left as teku in the Gemara, this does not assure us that he will also
resolve all of the mahlokot Rishonim which developed afterward, not to
speak of mahlokot Aharonim.  Rather, it is my understanding that such a
responsibility would fall upon a restored Sanhedrin. <<<

I agree with almost everything you had to say and just wanted to clarify
this point, which I'm not sure is correct.  The gemara in Eiruvin (sorry, I
don't recall the daf) has a machloket of whether techumin apply above 10
tefachim.  The gemara attempts to resolve this issue from the fact that
should Eliyahu come on Shabbos/Y"T he would be "flying" in from outside the
techum and the heter would be that he would be coming from above 10
tefachim (this has always been on of my favorite sugyos).  The gemara then
goes on to debate whether Eliyahu can come on a Shabbos or Y'T.

We are deducing a halacha from the behavior of Eliyahu with no other
source.  Perhaps you will argue that it is Sanhedrin (or the sugya) which
is arriving at that conclusion and Eliyahu just serves as a ma'aseh Rav in
that context, but I'm not convinced.

It seems to me that in the Eiruvin context Eliyahu is coming to reveal a
law which has not been resolved in any other way (e.g. braitot, sevara,
etc.), much like a teku.  A machloket is where the law has been resolved -
it has just been interpreted to have different resolutions to different
people.

-Chaim B.

It is possible to see Yehoyada's actions in replacing Atalya with Yoash
as impeachment rather than a revolt.(Melachim 2 11) However this is not
a vakid proof of ahether a king can be impeached because Atalya was not
a true king who ascended to the throne in a proper and Halachic manner.
Avi Parnes 
Dolev Israel

On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> R YGB writes:
> 
> >If you *know* that the poskim argue the issue of 600,000 and elect to
> >follow the majority of Poskim and ignore the MB's ba'al nefesh yachmir -
> >your halachic right - and ultimately Eliyahu comes and rules in favor of
> >the minority - you are a shogeg and not a mis'asek.
> 
> IMHO this is incorrect.  Restated in the abstract, your proposition is
> as follows: regarding any halakhic matter upon which there is a mahloket
> posekim, if one follows rov posekim (a term we can define some other
> time), but Eliyahu comes (bimherah be-yamenu) and adopts the minority
> position, then one is retroactively a shogeg.  In other words, you have
> violated the Halakhah by incorrectly understanding it.  I have a number
> of objections to this proposition.
> 
>

The source of the assumption about Eliyahu I think is the gemara in Asara
Yuchsin where it says that he does not come letaher mamzerim - me'klal
that he does come to rule on other issues. I believe the Brisker Rav
somewhere says that Eliyahu comes to restore the chain of mesorah.

But, the truth is, I was using this comment just in the context of its
normal idiomatic usage - that something is clarified to be other than it
seemed. I did not mean it to be precise. What I meant to depict was only
that, since rov nowadays is not absolute as it was in the times of the
Sanhedrin, it is possible that relying on a rov is not considered to be
mis'asek. Who can or will overturn the rov was peripheral.

YGB
 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Once Richard Fiedler go uss on the topic of variant zmanim, I would like
to voice a pet peeve of mine that is a direct result of misinformation on
zmanim.

There are prominent Shuls and Rabbonim that announce the onset of a
ta'anis d'rabbanan as 72 minutes before sunrise (alos ha'shachar).

There are prominent Shuls and Rabbonim that announce the end of a
ta'anis d'rabbanan as 50 minutes after sunset (tzeis ha'kochavim).

The former seems too great a kulla, the latter too great a chumra.

The 72 minutes is a difficult statement by the Rambam, elsewhere he says
90 minutes. The other Rishonim all say 90 min. (this based on the shiur of
a mil, that most Rishonim hold to be 22.5 min. Even those, like the
Terumas HaDeshen that say 18 min. are probably referring to Magen Avraham
minutes, which are = to the period between alos and tzeis divided by 720).
Regardless, even like the Rambam, the 72 min. is equinox day (16.1d
beneath the horizon - 90 min. = 19.8d) and must, logically, be adjusted
for time of year - for summer ta'aniyos, a significant difference
l'chumra.

The 50 minutes is really difficult to explain. The main opinions in the
determination of tzeis are the Gra, who uses sea-level calculations
(4.81d) and Ba'al HaTanya, who uses mountaintop calculations (5.95d).
Prof. Levi's astronomical analysis of realtime tzeis is closet to the
Ba'al HaTanya - almost precisely, in fact. That is also, obviously,
seasonable adjustable, but never more than about 35 min., tops (in N.
America). There is, of course, Rabbeinu Tam, who uses  4 mil - either 72
or 90, the same measure as alos ha'shachar.

The 50 minutes is really the Ba'al HaTanya with some tacked on time in
order to rounf off + fulfill Tosefes Shabbos. That is reasonable because
of the chumra of Shabbos + the mitzva of Tosefes Shabbos. It is not
clear to me why anyone need be machmir for a  ta'anis d'rabbanan.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

-----Original Message-----
From:   INTERNET:avodah@aishdas.org 
Sent:   Tuesday, August 18, 1998 12:17 AM
To:     INTERNET:avodah-digest@aishdas.org
Subject:        Issur of Hotzas Zera Levatalah

I am not sure whether it was established that this was an Issur DoRaisa or
MeDerabonon. 
I have understood it to be a DoRisah
I have a general question on DoRisah and DeRabonon 
There must be some establishe criteria as to what is a DoRisa and what is a
DaRabonon. 
What are they and what is the source?
For Instance what are the Sheva Mitzvos Bani Noach?
Are they DoRisa? And if yes how come they arn't mentioned in the Torah?
And if not how come there is a Din Misah if they are Over on these mitsvos?

Thank you

Doesn't Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe (I believe vol. 4 orach chaim)
claim that Rabbeinu Tam in America(N.Y.) is around 50 minutes - and a mil is
around 13 minutes.

Kol Tuv,
Shraga

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> The 50 minutes is really difficult to explain. The main opinions in the
> determination of tzeis are the Gra, who uses sea-level calculations
> (4.81d) and Ba'al HaTanya, who uses mountaintop calculations (5.95d).
> Prof. Levi's astronomical analysis of realtime tzeis is closet to the
> Ba'al HaTanya - almost precisely, in fact. That is also, obviously,
> seasonable adjustable, but never more than about 35 min., tops (in N.
> America). There is, of course, Rabbeinu Tam, who uses  4 mil - either 72
> or 90, the same measure as alos ha'shachar.
>
> The 50 minutes is really the Ba'al HaTanya with some tacked on time in
> order to rounf off + fulfill Tosefes Shabbos. That is reasonable because
> of the chumra of Shabbos + the mitzva of Tosefes Shabbos. It is not
> clear to me why anyone need be machmir for a  ta'anis d'rabbanan.
>
> YGB

On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Shragai Botwinick wrote:

> Doesn't Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe (I believe vol. 4 orach chaim)
> claim that Rabbeinu Tam in America(N.Y.) is around 50 minutes - and a mil is
> around 13 minutes.
> 
> Kol Tuv,
> Shraga
>

I believe R' Moshe actually says 50 minutes in the USA reflects the Ba'al
HaTanya. I recall that he advises - for reasons I cannot grasp - waiting
the same 50 minutes after a ta'anis d'rabbanan. I remember that he says
that 72 minutes in America is not an adequate reflection of RT, but rather
that a Ben Torah should be stringent in that regard because that was the
time as kept in Europe.

The 13 min. mil is something I never heard of and would put R' Moshe in
direct contradiction with several Gemaros and all the Rishonim.

YGB 
 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

***Since a few new issues are raised, I figure I'd see if anyone else cares
to comment on YGB any my "family" discussion.***

ME:Another point I'm unclear on is does the suspension of mitasek=a
suspension of the ptur of ones?  The Pnei Yehoshua in Shabbos discusses a
case where you aren't even aware that you are eating and discover that you
haveswallowed cheilev (as oppsed to the you-thought-it-was-shuman case).
Raises possibility of "ones gamur" but says he couldn't find support for
this idea in Rishonim.  Hmmm.....Any thoughts?
>
YGB:> I think it is the same, and that there is no oness in the aveira of
chelev - I think the Acharonim connect the issue of a guy forced to eat
matzas mitzva to mis'asek b'chalavim v'arayos (in the reverse, of course).
>
ME: As for relying on a Rabbi to pasken a chalavim/arayot issue, if the
error is factual, i.e. they pasken a treifah is kosher ac. to Tos. I guess
you would have to bring a chatas.  However, if the error is a hachra'ah
that a latter authority disagrees with, lets say a Shach that is cholek on
a Taz, I don't think the Taz would have to go out and kasher his dishes and
bring a chatas.  MAkes it kind of dangerous to be a posek! Do you
disagree??
>
YGB:> Yes, I disagree - while it is imposssible to be machri'a in most
cases, where there some mechanism to do so he would have to kasher.
>

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]