Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 033

Monday, August 31 1998

• [none]
• Re: Time
• Re: Bein Hash'mashos
• ascii, html and other formats
• Meshch Chochmah and the Nesivos
• Re: Time
• Re: Time
• Time & Mila
• Re: The Mishnah B'rurah and Ba'al Nefesh Yachmir
• Roshei Yeshiva and Chassidishe Rabbei'im
• Re: Ba'al Mussar and Posek
• Re: The Mishnah B'rurah and Ba'al Nefesh Yachmir
• Problem
• regarding "shkia" etc.
• RE: Orthodox List
• Re: Meshch Chochmah and the Nesivos
• Re: regarding "shkia" etc.
• Re: minhagim
• [none]

subject: bein hashmashot

Daniel Eidensohn writes (from Rav Beinish)

>> We see in fact that the official position has changed over time - though it 
>> is not clear why. Rabbeinu Tam is now only a Chumra.

I am not convinced that many communities do not continue to follow Rabbenu
Tam as more than a chumra. It is true that very few people use Rabbenu Tam
as a leniency on friday night (the story with the Satmar rebbe was
amusing) however that is not the same.

For me one deciding factor is that of the date of a brit milah.
If a baby is born either friday night or motzei shabbat between the
night of the Gra and that of Rabbenu Tam one has to decide whether to
push off the brit or not. If one holds Rabbenu Tam only as a chumra then
one should decide the date of the brit based on the shita of the geonim.
I doubt this is what hasidim and other who hold Rabbenu really do.
I have heard from Rav Soloveitchik that in fact the date of the brit is
determined by what one does on motzei shabbat all year round 
(briskers held at least 72 minutes - I understand the brisker rav held
longer than that).

chaim states

>> The issue of tefillin on chol hamoed and zmanim are pure halachic issues
>> and do not necessarily fall into the guidelines of "al titosh torat imecha"
>> as do minhagim.  Let's not confuse psak with minhag.

Please explain why one can disagree with the shulchan arukh based on
logic but not with a minhag. In any case gedolim have always changed
customs based on their own logic. As one example, Rav Soloveitchik changed
many parts of the davening in his shul based on his logic. One example
is that the shul davened ashkenaz. However for the avodah in musaf of
Yom Kippur they recited the sephard version since Rav Soloveitchik felt
it was more authentic. Of course, the Gra changed myriads of customs
which then became the basis for many minhagim in Israel.

One last remark on Israeli customs. The story quoted by R. Bechhofer
was very interesting. However, old Israeli customs are more kept by
the old yishuv than by the present haredi population of the new yishuv.
One famous example being the differences with regard to shemitta.
Based mainly on Chazon Ish and Brisker Rav very few rabbis in Israel today 
would repeat the psak of Rav Sonnenfeld.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

On Sun, 30 Aug 1998, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> Why did it take 400 years to change? Why did it take 150 years after the Gra
> and the Bal HaTanya poskened like the Gaonim for it suddenly to become
> universal practice? There is apparently no reference in the literature to

I explained this earlier:

1. In Europe in the summer it does not become "completely" dark and even
the GRA/BHT/Geonim time is very late. For example, on Jun 21 in London
even the BHT time is 47 min. after sheki'a, and, as mentioned, there is
no RT darkness whatsoever. (In NY, by contrast, the BHT time that day is
33 min. later, and, in Y-m, 27 mi. later).

2. I believe the minhag in Sephardic lands and EY always followed the
Geonim, so you may want to check your history on this.

> explain this sudden change of a centuries old practice. It boggles the mind to
> say that suddenly with WWI everybody looked up to the heavens and realized
> that the universal practice of following Rabbeinu Tam was wrong! This gets

My mind is remarkably unboggled, as that is when mass migrations started
and they started looking at different skies!

YGB

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

On Sun, 30 Aug 1998, Kenneth G Miller wrote:

> The shiur of 72 minutes is not a European invention. The Gemara Pesachim
> 94a explains that an average person walks 10 parsaos (40 mil) in a day,
> and that there are 4 or 5 mil from alos to netz, and again from shkia to
> tzeis. Various opinions in the gemara itself and in the rishonim later
> discuss whether twilight is 4 mil or 5 mil, and whether the 40 mil day
> runs from netz to shkia, or from alos to tzeis. These discussions result
> in the various shitos for the length of a mil being 18 minutes (1/40 of
> 12 hours), 22.5 minutes (1/32 of 12 hours), or 24 minutes (1/30 of 12
> hours).
>

This is not entirely accurate, as the Gemara in Shabbos explicitly places
Tzeis Ha'Kochavim at 2/3 to 3/4 of a mil after sunset. It is the
resolution of the conflict between the two gemaros that underlies the
entire issue.
 
> I think far too many people confuse the term "bein hashmashos" with the
> phrase "from shkia until tzeis". I was taught that everyone agrees that
> there are 4 mil from shkia to tzeis, and everyone agrees that bein

No, see above.

> hashmashos lasts only 3/4 of one mil, and everyone agrees that one may do

Yes, but the question is when they start. For RT to lay the groundwork for
his opinion he had to posoit a second sheki'ah, when the sun "sets" by
starting to rise up above the dome that is the heavenly sphere. Pure
RTists hols that our perceived sunset has no halachic ramifications, and
it is this second sunset that counts, thus allowing them to do melacha
Erev Shabbos unti 3&1/4 mil after our perceived sunset - during which
time, RT held, the sun travels in a straight line out from its location
under the dome to beyond the dome.

> melacha until bein hashmashos on Friday, and one may do melacha after
> bein hashmashos on Saturday. The only machlokes is whether the bein
> hashmashos is the first 3/4 mil after shkia, or the last 3/4 mil before
> tzeis.
> 
> I think this confusion arose because of a lack of clear definition of the
> word "shkia", which led to some poskim making reference to a "first
> shkia" being when the sun sets, and a "second shkia", which I understand
> as meaning when the *light* sets (admittedly too vague). In any case, it

Not exactly, see above.

> is undeniable that the gemara above makes reference to the length of a
> day, and that the end of the day and/or tzeis hakochavim takes place well
> over an hour past astronomical sunset. I think that those of us who
> believe that the <<< physical evidence is on the side of the Gra and
> geonim and against Rabbenu Tam >>>, need a better understanding of what
> the Gemara and Rabenu Tam meant by "tzeis hakochavim". Perhaps the many
> stars which we see shortly after shkia were considered by Rabenu Tam to
> be too large to be significant, and that's why they want us to wait 72-96
> minutes, until the appearance of what they call *medium* sized stars!
> 

As Prof. Levi points out, the stars that become visible only 72 min. after
sheki'ah are those between the fifth and sixth (the faintest level)
magnitude, and this difference is not discernible by the unaided eye. In
fact, the tzeis hakochavim factor dovetails almost precisely with the
BHT's time for the Geonim's shitta.

YGB

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

Could I please request from everyone that all email be in ASCII
(standard text) only. We all use different mailers with different
capabilities. In particular I use a UNIX system and don't use my
browser to read mail. Hence, mail written in HTML, Microsoft word,
base64 (pine) and other such formats are unreadable except with
a great deal of effort.

Eli Turkel

For the record, R.Meir Simcha in Ohr Sameach ( which although published before
Meshech Chochmah was written after), in, I think, his first piece on Hilchos
Gerushin, rejects the sevarah of the Nesivos regarding a derabanan done
beshogeg. 

 Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Aug 1998, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>
> > Why did it take 400 years to change? Why did it take 150 years after the Gra
> > and the Bal HaTanya poskened like the Gaonim for it suddenly to become
> > universal practice? There is apparently no reference in the literature to
>
> I explained this earlier:
>
> 1. In Europe in the summer it does not become "completely" dark and even
> the GRA/BHT/Geonim time is very late. For example, on Jun 21 in London
> even the BHT time is 47 min. after sheki'a, and, as mentioned, there is
> no RT darkness whatsoever. (In NY, by contrast, the BHT time that day is
> 33 min. later, and, in Y-m, 27 mi. later).
>
> 2. I believe the minhag in Sephardic lands and EY always followed the
> Geonim, so you may want to check your history on this.
>

Rav Benish chapter 44 summarizes many pages  by saying there are five zones.
1) 30- 36 degrees North. Israel and surrounding countries Egypt, Iraq, Syria,
Northern Africa followed the Gaonim
2) 36-42 degrees North. Northern Mediterranean countries e.g. Greece followed the
Gaonim but starting approximately 1700's they switched  to R. Tam.
3) 44-46 degrees North. Italy generally followed R. Tam
4) 47-52 degrees North Southern Europe R. Tam
5) 53 - degrees North. Northern Europe R. Tam.

> > explain this sudden change of a centuries old practice. It boggles the mind to
> > say that suddenly with WWI everybody looked up to the heavens and realized
> > that the universal practice of following Rabbeinu Tam was wrong! This gets
>
> My mind is remarkably unboggled, as that is when mass migrations started
> and they started looking at different skies!
>
> YGB
>

Please pardon my obtuseness but I find your answers confusing. You originally stated
that the shift to the Gaonim as opposed to R. Tam was inevitable because the metzius
is in agreement with the Gaonim.

> If you read the Maharam Alshakar inside it is obvious why the position was
> changed by the Gra & Ba'al HaTanya - back to that of the Ge'onim - the
> reality is not as RT assumed, that the sun goes directly "out" from the
> "first" sheki'ah, and that there is a "second" sheki'ah when the sun goes
> up behind the dome. It therefore becomes untenable in reality to accept
> RT's kulla of the second sheki'ah and untenable lomdishely to accept his
> reconciliation of the Gemaros in Shabbos and Pesachim.

When I requested an explanation of why the shift back to the position of the Gaonim
took so many centuries - till WWI - you asserted that the sudden changes were
obviously the result of mass migrations at that time.  I don't understand how mass
migrations within Europe would explain switching to the position of the Gaonim.
[This type of explanation would make sense,however, if everyone had moved to
Israel]. The pattern of light and dark did not change in Europe [which has always
poskened like R. Tam] - so why did Europeans change?

In sum. Are you asserting that 1) the change to the Gaonim was inevitable because
that fits the observable pattern of light and darkness while R. Tam does not? Are
you also asserting that 2) the sudden change of European poskim after WWI to the
Gaonim  was because the mass migration - within Europe - finally opened their eyes
after many centuries to the fact that R. Tam does not fit observable reality? 3) Are
there any statements in the literature consistent with  these contentions?


                                        Daniel Eidensohn

On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> Rav Benish chapter 44 summarizes many pages by saying there are five
> zones.  1) 30- 36 degrees North. Israel and surrounding countries Egypt,
> Iraq, Syria, Northern Africa followed the Gaonim 2) 36-42 degrees North.
> Northern Mediterranean countries e.g. Greece followed the Gaonim but
> starting approximately 1700's they switched to R. Tam.  3) 44-46 degrees
> North. Italy generally followed R. Tam 4) 47-52 degrees North Southern
> Europe R. Tam 5) 53 - degrees North. Northern Europe R. Tam. 
> 

It is gratifying that your source confirms my theory (see my earlier
response to R' Akiva Miller).

> Please pardon my obtuseness but I find your answers confusing. You
> originally stated that the shift to the Gaonim as opposed to R. Tam was
> inevitable because the metzius is in agreement with the Gaonim. 
>

It certainly is. See the aforementioned post to R' Akiva Miller. We all
accept that there is no dome in the Heavens.
 
> When I requested an explanation of why the shift back to the position of
> the Gaonim took so many centuries - till WWI - you asserted that the
> sudden changes were obviously the result of mass migrations at that
> time.  I don't understand how mass migrations within Europe would
> explain switching to the position of the Gaonim.  [This type of
> explanation would make sense,however, if everyone had moved to Israel].

I do not know about the Europeans who remained in Europe. I am talking
about the Europeans who moved to the USA and Israel.

> In sum. Are you asserting that 1) the change to the Gaonim was
> inevitable because that fits the observable pattern of light and
> darkness while R. Tam does not? Are you also asserting that 2) the

No. The observable pattern of darkness in Much of Europe fits a pattern of
RT - but shelo me'ta'amo. I.e., if London only becomes BHT dark 47 min.
after sheki'a in June, and matters deteriorate as you go further North,
you readily understand why the 3/4 of a mil in EY was questionable in N.
Europe.

The metzi'us azoi vee the Ge'onim was and always will be that there is no
dome, nor no two sheki'os. (Plus the problem wiith the visibility of
stars, see the aforementioned post.)

YGB

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

Eli Turkel wrote:

> Daniel Eidensohn writes (from Rav Beinish)
>
> >> We see in fact that the official position has changed over time - though it
> >> is not clear why. Rabbeinu Tam is now only a Chumra.
>
> I am not convinced that many communities do not continue to follow Rabbenu
> Tam as more than a chumra. It is true that very few people use Rabbenu Tam
> as a leniency on friday night (the story with the Satmar rebbe was
> amusing) however that is not the same.
>
> For me one deciding factor is that of the date of a brit milah.
> If a baby is born either friday night or motzei shabbat between the
> night of the Gra and that of Rabbenu Tam one has to decide whether to
> push off the brit or not. If one holds Rabbenu Tam only as a chumra then
> one should decide the date of the brit based on the shita of the geonim.
> I doubt this is what hasidim and other who hold Rabbenu really do.
> I have heard from Rav Soloveitchik that in fact the date of the brit is
> determined by what one does on motzei shabbat all year round
> (briskers held at least 72 minutes - I understand the brisker rav held
> longer than that).

Rav Beinish page 420 states that "Nevertheless as far as deed even they i.e.,
Satmar and Klausenberg hold that one should be machmir for the start of Shabbos
like the Gaonim. And also for the fixing of the day of Mila (for example if he was
born after Shkiah - which is still day according to Rabbeinu Tam - he is
considered to be born bein haShamashosh) in spite of the fact that according to
the shita of Rabbeinu Tam this becomes a Kula - that is the day of mila is pushed
off till the 9th day. Thus in actuality they follow the chumras of both shitos."
He quotes the Satmar Rebbe as saying "It is absolutely clear that the Shulchan
Aruch hold that the halacha is according to Rabbeinu Tam and that is what we hold
l'maaseh except for Milah".

                                             Daniel Eidensohn

In v1n28, R' YGB writes:
:                                                           It is clearly
: not the ba'al nefesh of R' Chaim Volozhiner, PA Chap. 3, who dsays it
: means one who overcomes his material substance with spirituality (nefesh). 

I'm not sure I'd read this the same way you would. (He says, without having
accessed the quote.)

According to sifrei Kabbalah -- including R' Chaim Vilozhiner's own Nefesh
Hachaim -- "nefesh" is the most gashmi aspect of the soul. I would therefore
had assumed the "nefesh" refers to the material desires, not the spirituality
doing the overcoming. In other words, a ba'al nefesh is one who took ba'alus,
mastery, over his nefesh, his physical urges. I leave it to someone who has
access to the text to tell me if my reading is possible.

If not, then why "ba'al nefesh" and not "ba'al ruach" or "ba'al neshamah"?

: I think, rather, that the MB subscribes to the philosophy of psak espoused
: by R' BZ Abba-Shaul, that halacha is hypothetically always open to review
: and if you follow the "wrong" opinion - even if now it may be espoused by
: a majority of poskim - you may be in for an unpleasant, quite hot
: surprise, in Olam Ha'Emes.

I'm not sure why you'd say this, as this would imply that the Chafeitz Chaim
would be willing to risk the neshamos of people who don't consider themselves
ba'alei nefesh. If he really felt like R BZAS, he'd /require/ the more chamur
position.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5908 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 30-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In v1n28,  Joel <Joelirich@aol.com> writes:
: I've heard it said a number of times that mitnagdic roshei yeshiva are now
: like chassidic rebbes.  Has anyone posited a theory as to why 2 diverse
: movements have resulted in this approach in the same historical time frame(eg
: outside sociological developments, 'trasference' from one movement to the
: other,etc.)?

I don't find it not that surprising.

The Yeshiva movement's term for approaching a Rosh Yeshiva for personal advice
is "da'as Torah" -- a usage first coined by Rav Yisrael Salanter. Which would
indicate that it's an adaptation of a mussar concept.

Mussar and Chassidus share much in common:

- They both were formed to combat an overly cerebral, overly legalistic style
  of Orthodoxy. (Although they did so by introducing very different motivating
  forces behing that law.)

- Both embraced the idea of using extra-halachic practices to acheive those
  goals, thereby not limiting the means of their atainment to following
  halachah.

- Both embraced meditation. (See Michtav Mei'Eliyahu on the proper was of
  learning a line of mussar, to see what I mean.)

So, the fact that they both suggested a tight mentor-follower relationship is
unsurprising. Perhaps even necessary in a movement that suggests
extra-halachic practices, as these ought not necessarily be chosen for oneself.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5908 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 30-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In v1n29, <sroth4@juno.com> Paul Rothbart writes:
: I think that this identification of the Chofetz Chaim as a baal musar and
: therefore claiming that his sefer follows a musar derech to such an
: extent that the "usefulness of this sefer for someone who doesn't follow
: that derech is suspect" is going a bit much to say the least.

I agree, I stepped a tad out of line.

Perhaps it's more correct to say that the mussar leanings may render the sefer
less useful than the Aruch HaShulchan (for example) for someone who doesn't
follow that derech.

I can't totally reject the sentiment, as I was told something along those
lines by Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l. He told me that every home (including the
one I was about to establish at the time of this conversation) needs to own
both, but the Aruch HaShulchan is a better guideline. This (in some version)
was one of the reasons he gave.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5908 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 30-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

On Sun, 30 Aug 1998, Micha Berger wrote:

> I'm not sure I'd read this the same way you would. (He says, without having
> accessed the quote.)

I am well aware of R' Chaim V's definition of nefesh in the Nefesh
HaChaim, but the reality is that here in the Ru'ach Chaim he says what he
says!

> I'm not sure why you'd say this, as this would imply that the Chafeitz Chaim
> would be willing to risk the neshamos of people who don't consider themselves
> ba'alei nefesh. If he really felt like R BZAS, he'd /require/ the more chamur
> position.
> 

I read that he really wants people to be ba'alei nefesh, he just knows he
cannot compel such behavior.


YGB

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

Hi,

I got an encoded message between two messages from Chana Luntz,
and I can't read it easily since my mail system re-encodes such
stuff - it might have been an enclosure.  Do you intend to make
a habit of distributing that sort of thing?

Pesach Rogoway

Regarding the word "shkia":

We intuitively read "shkia" to mean what we
call the sun setting below the horizon.  In the
usage of the gemara and the rishonim it would
appear to mean "when the sun is submerged in
the 'obie harakia'"(ie. some pt. _after_ astronomical
sunset.  Cf. "submerging" the maror in charoses in
Arvei Pesachim).

Otherwise it is impossible to make sense of the
Yereim, who explains "safek chasheycha safek
eyna chasheycha" as referring to 18 minutes
before shkia.  If shkia is sunset, the Yereim
is calling broad daylight "safek chasheycha".

A thorough article on this topic appears in
a Jubilee volume in honor of R. Kopperman
of Michlala.

Also, I would appreciate it if someone could pt. me
to the source in the gaonim that has been mentioned.






_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Yes let's keep this list an Orthodox list. This is the only one I know that
is Orthodox. Those who have strong views that are in direct opposition to
Mesoroah have AOL or the Israeli/Jewish forums on CompuServe where Kol
Tzurui vCol Zov in the name of "open discussion" and "freedom of speech"
are given a platform to speak against Hashem vAl Mashechi.

On the other hand I would welcome a discussion on different Shitous even
BeEynyoni DeKadusha. For instance the Steipler's Hadrocha to Chasanaim that
the Mitzvos Onah is like the Mitzvah of Eating Matzo on Pesach night with a
strong emphsis on Bain Odom LeCavero and VeSimach es Eishtoh Versus the
Bais Yisroels (Gur) Hadrocha to Chasanim where the attitude of Mitzvos Onah
is, it's difficult to find a good example let's say, like fasting on Yom
Kippur, ignoring the aspect of Bain Odom LeChavero. 
Here we have the exact same Mitzvah with diametrically opposing views from
ManHegi Hador.  
Is this a Chasidus versus Litvish issue or is this more fundamental?
Perhaps someone will explain this?

mendel

It is in Gerushin 1:17 and Korban Pesach 4:2. It is not clear that he
renounces altogether what he says in the Meshech Chochmo. I think he still
holds of his dichotmy between a regular shogeg and one that is akin to
mis'asek.

YGB

On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 JoshHoff@aol.com wrote:

> For the record, R.Meir Simcha in Ohr Sameach ( which although published before
> Meshech Chochmah was written after), in, I think, his first piece on Hilchos
> Gerushin, rejects the sevarah of the Nesivos regarding a derabanan done
> beshogeg. 
> 

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

On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Telly O'Logical wrote:

It is not germane what "Telly O'Logical" wrote.

I was previously bothered by a participant who went exclusively by his
first name, but I am far more disturbed by participants who go by
pseudonyms. I, personally, cannot bring myself to respond to a facade.

YGB

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

          >>>Please explain why one can disagree with the shulchan arukh based
          on
logic but not with a minhag. In any case gedolim have always changed
customs based on their own logic. As one example, Rav Soloveitchik changed
many parts of the davening in his shul based on his logic.<<<

Your comment raises two questions: (1) what is the boundry between psak and
minhag - e.g. is nusach hatefilla a function of psak or minhag.  This
question is too broad for me to tackle and I don't have a clear answer.
(2) The ability of a posek to change minhagim - since I just read this over
breakfast let me refer you to Yechave Da'at II:7.  One of the earliest
sources is the Shut MaHaRiK (#9) who cautions a posek against changing any
minhagim.  R' Ovadya argues that the MaHaRiK is limited to a minhag kasher;
a posek has the authority to nullify a minhag ta'ut. (Determining the
boundry between kasher and pasul seems to bring us back to item #1, psak
vs. minhag, see R' Ovadya Yosef's tshuvah and how he handles it).  Perhaps
R' Soloveitchik's amendation to the tefillah is relevant to his bais
medrash, where he has the authority to be kove'ah the minhag from square 1.
I think you will be hard pressed to find poskim who would allow a Rav to
enter a shule that davens straight nusach Ashkenaz for the avodah of musaf,
which has been accepted in many kehillot for generations, and to suddenly
declare the nusach invalid and switch to nusach sefard.

-Chaim B.

Akiva Miller says
>> The shiur of 72 minutes is not a European invention
>> I think far too many people confuse the term "bein hashmashos" with the
>> phrase "from shkia until tzeis"

   To clarify  the issue I am reprinting the notes from the
internet dafyomi of Rabbi Kornfeld:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shabbos 35

1) BEIN HA'SHEMASHOS
QUESTION: According to Rebbi Yehudah, the duration of Bein ha'Shemashos 
(from Sheki'ah until three stars come out) is either 2/3 (Rav Yosef) or 3/4 
(Rabah) of the time that it takes to walk one Mil. However, in Pesachim 
(94a) there is a discussion concerning how long it takes for the sun to go 
through the "thickness of the firmament" (that is, for its light to 
disappear). The Gemara says that it takes from sunset (Sheki'ah) until the 
stars come out (Tzeis ha'Kochavim) for the sun's light to disappear. Rebbi 
Yehudah there says that the period from Sheki'ah to Tzeis is the amount of 
time that it takes to walk *four* Mil! 

How could Rebbi Yehudah say that the duration of Bein ha'Shemashos is 
*four* Mil, when here he says that it is only 2/3 or 3/4 of a Mil?

ANSWERS: 
(a) TOSFOS (DH Trei) explains that there is a difference between our Gemara 
and the Gemara in Pesachim. When the Gemara there says  "*mi'Sheki'as* 
ha'Chamah," (and not *mi'Shetishka* ha'Chamah, as it says in our Sugya) it 
is referring to the moment that the sun disappears *from our eyes*. At that 
moment, though, it is still journeying through the firmament. When the sun 
reaches a certain point in the thickness of the firmament, its light 
*begins* to disappear. This is referred to as "*mi'Shetishka* ha'Chamah." 
Shortly afterwards, its light disappears altogether and three stars can be 
seen. In summary, the order of events is: (1) the sun disappears, (2) a 
period of 3 1/4 (or 3 1/3 according to Rav Yosef) Mil passes, after which 
time the light of the sun *begins* to totally disappear (this is the start 
of the Beis ha'Shemashos of our Sugya), and then (3) a period of 3/4 Mil or 
2/3 according to Rav Yosef) passes, after which the sun has completely 
disappeared and the stars come out. This is the view of RABEINU TAM.

(b) The VILNA GA'ON (SHENOS ELIYAHU, beginning of Maseches Berachos, and in 
BI'UR HA'GRA OC 235 and 261) explains that both here and in Pesachim, the 
times mentioned (3/4 Mil and 4 Mil) start from the time that the sun 
completely disappears from our view. However, the Gemara in Pesachim is 
talking about a different *Tzeis ha'Kochavim* than our Gemara (and not a 
different Sheki'as ha'Chamah, as Rabeinu Tam suggests). In Pesachim, "Tzeis 
ha'Kochavim" refers to the time at which every last ray of light disappears 
from the sky (which is four Mil after sunset), and *all* of the stars can 
be seen. In our Gemara, "Tzeis ha'Kochavim" refers to the time at which 
*three medium-size stars* can be seen, which is the Halachic definition of 
nightfall. (The Gemara in Pesachim, by contrast, is an Agaddic discussion 
and is not referring to the Halachic Tzeis ha'Kochavim.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As we see according to Rabbenu Tam after 3 1/4 Mil we have the end of sunset.
However, certainly in Israel at that time it is pitch black with many stars
out. Hence, my feeling that this shita is against the astronomical facts.
BTW it is clear that according to the GRA that the morning and evening
cycles are not symmetrical.

Eli Turkel

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


[ 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 ]