Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 034

Tuesday, April 27 1999

• Luach II
• dybbuk
• Yom Hoaztmout Anomaly
• Re: Avodah V3 #31
• Re: dybbuk
• Re: Hatam Sofer v. Hazon Ish?
• Re: Avodah V3 #32
• Re: Avodah V3 #33
• Sefeiko Deyomo
• Shmini Riddle
• Re: Sephardi gedolim
• v'chai bahem
• Re: Sefeiko Deyomo
• Re: Sephardi gedolim
• Recommendations for shiur
• calendar (fwd)

Again, with permission...

YGB

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


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:56:49 -0400
From: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky" <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov>


Misconception #11:Jews have always counted years starting from creation. 

Fact:  In the historical scheme, this method of counting is a relative
latecomer. 

Background:  While the secular world is anxiously watching the millennium
digit role over and generate a Y2K crisis, the Jewish calendar is only 3/4
through the current millennium, at 5759.1 But Jews have not always counted
using the current system. In the biblical period the yearly reckoning was
from the time of the exodus, then from the construction of Solomon's
Temple, or according to the reigns of various kings. In post-biblical
times the Jews counted by the Seleucidan Era.2 This system started around
312 BCE and was used by Jews in Sephardic countries until the 16th
century, when it was abolished by Rabbi David ben Shelomo ibn avi Zimra
(Radbaz, 1479-1573, Spain, Sefad, Egypt) around 1527. It is employed even
today by some Yemenite Jews and some Christian sects in Syria. Other
chronologies that commenced with the Babylonian captivity, the liberation
of the Maccabees or the destruction of the Second Temple were also used. 
Finally, according to Azariah di Rossi in Meor Enayim this occurred in the
12th century CE, the counting from the time of creation was introduced.3
The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 9a) recognized that during that era people were
using a variety of counting schemes and gives the conversation factors
between the Seleucidan system, the counting from creation and the count
from the Temple's destruction. The Bible and Talmud give some
chronologies, but the oldest systematic Jewish chronicle is Seder Olam
Rabbah (edited by Yose ben Chalafta, d. about 160 CE). There is a
widespread belief in both the Jewish community and the academic historical
community that the Talmud, Seder Olam Zutta (8th century)  and Maimonides
all fixed the time of the burning of the Second Temple in 68 or 69 CE, in
contradiction to the overwhelming evidence of the secular sources that it
occurred in 70 CE.  Frank4 has demonstrated rather conclusively that all
of these sources accurately placed the destruction in 70 CE, and there is
no discrepancy with the secular sources. This misconception arose due to
errors in converting between the various methods Jews have used to count
years.
  _______________________________

 1In standard Hebrew this is tuv shin nun tet, which is actually 779.  The
five in the thousands place is often simply left off for convenience. The
full four digits are known as the klal.  If the thousands digit is
omitted, the remaining three digits are properly known as the prat gadol.
If the hundreds digit is also omitted, the remaining two digits are called
the prat katon (see SA Chosen Mishpat 43:2). There is a common misuse of
the term prat katon. The familiar lamed peh kuf abbreviation found on
tombstones and the like stands for l'prat katon and is often used
erroneously to refer to the last three, not two, digits.

 2Known in Hebrew as Minyan Shtarot or l'malchut Alexandrus, and scholarly
as SE, Seleucidan Era or Era Contractum. There are three possible starting
dates for year 1 SE:  autumn 313 BCE, autumn 312 BCE (the SE generally
used by the Jews), or autumn 311 BCE.  It seems that the author of I
Maccabees used the first possibility while the author of I Maccabees used
the standard second version.  The understanding of which version was used
has bearing on whether Chanukah occurred in 166 or 165 BCE.  Rabbi Shlomo
Yehuda Leib Rappaport (1790-1867) (known by the acronym Shir, he was a
prolific writer who was appointed chief rabbi of Prague in 1840)
postulated that for the Jews SE began in spring 311 BCE.  This would place
its starting date exactly 1000 years after the exodus, and both eras would
thus have the same units. Frank, page 58, finds several problems with this
hypothesis. 

 3This method is referred to by scholars as AM - Anni Mundi, meaning years
of creation. Frank mentions three "common" variants of the AM system,
based on when year one started. In AM I, the currently used system, year
one started one year before Adam's creation.  In AM II, year one started
on the day of Adam's creation and in AM III, year one commenced one year
after Adam's creation.  In different locations, time periods, and
classical documents all three of these methods were used, and this has led
to considerable confusion. In Jewish literature at least two other methods
of counting AM are found, and in non-Jewish literature there are more than
100 different countings of AM based on the biblical text! See Pitchei
Tshuva EH 127:16, that the phrase found in all Ketubahs (marriage
contracts)  "In the year so and so to the creation of the world according
to the counting in this city ..." refers to the differences between AM I
and AM II.  The phrase also refers to the different counting systems,
since a variant of it is found in gittin than use minyan shtarot.  See
also the phrase used by Rambam in Hilchot Gerushin 4:12. 

 4See Talmudic and Rabbinical Chronology by Edgar Frank, Philipp Feldheim,
Inc. Publishers, NY, 1956. 

anyone care to explain in more detail how Judaism views this?



9. DYBBUK-REMOVAL CEREMONY AROUSES BROAD INTEREST
The media in Israel have widely reported the removal ceremony of a dybbuk
[wandering soul] that was performed by Kabbalist Rabbi David Batzri,
together with some 30 other rabbis, in a Jerusalem yeshiva this past week.
The event has aroused reactions from many quarters, ranging from total
scorn to a desire to repent.  It was broadcast live over hareidi radio
stations, and many people were invited to the ceremony, in order to
"publicize the sanctification of G-d's Name, and to cause more people to
believe in the existence of an afterlife" - according to Rabbi Batzri's
son, Rabbi Yitzchak Batzri.  The younger Rabbi Batzri told Arutz-7 that an
"unbelievable amount of people have called and expressed the desire to
observe the commandments as a result."

Rabbi Batzri [the son] related that a woman whose husband had died three
and a half years ago had recently been plagued by the soul of her husband,
which "entered her body and spoke from within her in his own voice to his
sons and friends...  The woman underwent terrible suffering.  Finally,
after great hesitations, my father agreed to perform this ceremony, feeling
that the life of the woman was at stake - for the dybbuk had threatened to
kill her by choking."  In a subsequent conversation with an Arutz-7
correspondent, the younger Rabbi Batzri explained that a "wandering" soul
suffers more than one that faces immediate divine punishment.  In the
exorcism ceremony, Rabbi Batzri is heard talking forcefully with the
dybbuk, whose short answers are delivered in a raspy and sometimes unclear
voice.  "My father told the dybbuk over and over that he has no right to
harm anyone...  The dybbuk said he had committed many sins, but did not
want to elaborate...  My father then performed a 'tikkun' [sublimation of
the soul], and forced the dybbuk to exit the woman's body through her toe.
She later felt great pain there for a few hours, but now, thank G-d, she is
perfectly healthy."  The entire ceremony [in Hebrew] will be posted on the
Arutz-7 website later today, at <http://www.a7.org/sound/sound.htm>.

>>> 
> 8. On what date in the Jewish calendar do we sometimes recite Hallel
> while, in other years, on the same date, we recite Tachanun?

4 Iyar (is that hallel with or without a bracha?)<<

I find this ironic that when 5 Iyyar falls on Friday Yom Hoazmout is mukdom to 
Thursday 4 Iyyar - because in 1948 the very first Yom Hoatzmaut was a Friday!

Rich wolpoe

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 22:16:43 -0500 (CDT)
> From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> Subject: Urgent Request for "Luach" Marei Mekomos!
> 
> Esteemed Colleagues!
> 
> For a shiur (and essay, eventually) I need your help on marei mekomos on
> the following two (related) topics:
> 
> 1. When the accepted Luach will no longer be valid because Pesach (Sukkos)
> will be too early. (Essays and articles welcome - if someone knows of a
> web resource, that would be very helpful. If someone also knows the date
> offhand that would be extremely helpful - it would help me title the
> shiur!)
> 
> I know there was an essay several years ago in "Intercom", put out by the
> AOJS (I used to be a member. Do they still exist? Do they still put
> "Intercom" out?). If someone has it that would be great - I no longer do.

===> Yes. The AOJS is still "alive and well" in NY.  I would suggest taht
you contact them re their back issues of INTERCOM.  I -- too -- recall the
article of which you spoke. But, I cannot currently get to my my back
issues.
I would also suggest that you contact Leo Levi at the Machon Lev -- who
has done a fair amount of research in this area.

--Zvi

> 
> Please help - Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> YGB
> 
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 4/27/99 10:45:24 AM EST, azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov writes:

> anyone care to explain in more detail how Judaism views this?

There is a story like this with the Chofetz Chayim Z"L

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Attending a bar-mitzvah celebration this past Shabbat, I heard the mara d'atra, Rabbi J. Bieler, discuss an explanation given by the Hatam Sofer of the mahloket between R. Akiva and Ben Azai concerning the verse "v'ahavta l'rei'akha kamokha."  The conclusion drawn by the Hatam Sofer was that just as all the letters of a sefer torah must be written exactly on the line and all the columns of text must be fully justified, so too our actions must be properly attuned to halachah.  The Hatam Sofer understood this to mean that we not be too mahmir (above the line) or too meikil (below the line) in our performance of mitzvot.  Even apart from the involuntary genetic satisfaction that I could not help feeling when I heard the words of the Hatam Sofer quoted, I also felt a purely intellectual affinity (as no doubt Rabbi Beiler also did -- I suspect -- to his surprise) with that hashkafic insight of the Hatam Sofer.  Can it really be that the Hatam Sofer is the intellectual ancestor of c!
!
!
entrist orthodoxy?  Who would have thunk?

Now, in contrast to this hashkafic position of the Hatam Sofer, I seem to remember once coming across a letter of the Hazon Ish in which he excoriated what he called (please excuse the very rough paraphrase here) the ideology or the shita of the "beinoni."  According to the Hazon Ish, the only acceptable shita is that of the "kitzoni."  Now the Hazon Ish was (and I write this without intending to be ironic) a compassionate kitzoni (in contrast to a kitzoni kanai).  So he did not condemn those who were only "beinoni."  Human frailty being what it is, most people are to weak to reach the level of kitzoni.  But the Hazon Ish could not abide an ideology that made the beinoni (i.e., human frailty) rather than kitzoni the ideal.  Beinoi is something to be accepted reluctantly (and compassionately) but chas v'shalom that it should be elevated as a normative standard of conduct.  Unless the kitzoni is insisted upon as the ideal, people will not even reach the level of beinoni.  (As a !
!
!
parenthetical aside, I would conjecture that the subtext of that letter was beinoni = Mizrachi/modern orthodoxy, kitzoni = Agudas Yisroel/charedi.)

Would anyone care to take sides in this hashkafic mahloket between the Hatam Sofer and the Hazon Ish, or, more likely, explain why my interpretation of what they said is a tendentious mischaracterization of their positions?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

> 
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:24:00 -0400
> From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
> Subject: Producing Gedolim -- Hirschian and otherwise
> 
> Zvi Weiss writes:
> 
> >R. EE Dessler ZT"L
> >wrote in a letter (published in the Hebrew 3rd volume of Michtav...) where
> >he says that the "purpose" of Yeshivot is to "produce Gedolim" (and that
> >is how he distinguished this from the "Frankfort Shita" -- which R.
> >Dessler calimes did NOT "produce" so many Gedolim -- a claim that R.
> >Schwab ZT"L respectfully but forcefully refuted...).  It is this concept
> >of "producing Gedolim" that seems to be behind the "learning all day for
> >everyone"...
> 
> Bi-mhilat kevod R. Schwab, who was obviously a noge'a ba-davar,
> Frankfurt did not produce a substantial number of Gedolim.  Note that in
> Frankfurt R. Hirsch founded a school that did not include a yeshivah
> gedolah.  His school was clearly oriented toward producing frum
> "baalebatim."  Note too that KAJ had to look beyond its membership to
> find a successor to R. Schwab!

===> The poster usees terminology that is improper in citing R. Schwab's
"negius" as being "reason" to invalidate the response.  First of all,
there is the "rule" of Ain meshivin al Ha'ari achar she'meis -- that one
must be extremely circumspect in countering a Gadol -- and which (I
believe) only another Gadol can do).  Second, anyone who knows R. Schwab's
tremedous integrity (at one point he "rejected" Torah Im Derech Eretz
and then reversed himself -- without any hesitation) KNOWS that he did not
respond to R. Dessler simply because of "negiah".  Third, the nature of
the "rebuttal" here causes me to ask if the poster READ R. Schwab's
article before poting here.  The point in that article was NOT simply
defending the "school" but in defending the Shita that even as "frum
ba'alei Batim" were produced, there were ALSO frum Rabbonim produced.
IOW, it was NOT necessary to encourage EVERYONE to go to "Yeshiva" in
order to "get" Talmidei Chachamim.




> 
> A similar argument could be made about YU, which has ordained many
> rabbis, but produced few gedolim.  Of course, it is a misnomer to speak
> of an institution "producing" Gedolim.  I firmly believe that a Gadol is
> not manufactured.  Most of the Gedolim of the last century were not, I
> think, produced by the institutions at which they learned.  Moreover,
> some of the same institutions, such as Volozhin, which produced gedolim,
> also produced leading maskilim.

===> HOwever, R. Dessler's letter DOES seem to focus on such "production"
and in fact overtly alludes to the fact that only a FEW will succeed and
MANY will fail -- but the "cost is worth it"...



> 
> That having been said, it is obvious that a potential Gadol needs to
> have time to become a Gadol.  In the last century, the most promising
> students were often married off very young (i.e. age 12-14) and
> supported by their father-in-law, not by a community.  Moreover, many
> did not learn in a kollel, but went into "galus," leaving wife and
> children behind and learning in seclusion, often alone, sometimes with a
> single hevruta.
> 
> In the early part of this century, promising students from small
> communities were sent to a big yeshivah to learn, often supported by the
> community that sent them.  Most married late, waiting until around age
> 30.
> 
> The point is that, historically, the prevalence of kollelim which exists
> today is simply unprecedented.  The change is partly a reflection of the
> increased wealth of the Orthodox community generally.  Talmud Torah has
> increased both quantitatively and qualitatively.  And, outside of Eretz
> Yisrael, the Frankfurt model of the learned baal ha-bayit has spread
> widely within the frum community, to the right and to the left.  More
> importantly, the yeshivah-kollel system can be credited with producing a
> huge number of talmidei hakhamim of varying caliber.  Whether the system
> will succeed in producing "Gedolim" has yet to be determined.  Certainly
> we are still waiting for the next Hazon Ish to appear.

===> I think that there were other factors here -- besides the wealth of
the community.  In fact, the unfortunate isntances of "scandals" would
seem to give the lie to such claims of "wealth"...

--Zvi



> 
> Kol tuv,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 

> 
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:16:42 -0400
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Kollel Stipends
> 
> Zvi Weiss: >>===> I dunno..  The "modern" Kollel is really a recent development.
>  I think that we are talking AFTER the time of R. Yisrael Salanter.  <<
> 
> 2 quick qeustions:
> 1) What is the earliest source of the Yissochor-Zevulun arragnement

===> The midrash on Birchot Yaakov, I think).


> 2) Wouldn't that arragnegement be a form of learning for schar or is
> the Rambam 
> v'sayosso mechalek?

===> I do not think so.  Here, there is an explicit quid pro quo.  There
is a "partnership" that INCLUDES both Torah and the Secular World.  Think
of it along the lines of a partnership where one party "keeps house" and
the other "goes out to make a living".  You COULD argue that the
"housekeeper" was being paid OR you culd say that actually BOTH parties
have to keep house AND earn a living.  For sake of efficiency, a "deal"
was cut.  It is certainly possible to structure a Kollel along THOSE lines
-- but I am not sure if that is ever actually done.

--Zvi


> 
> Rich wolpoe
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:27:00 -0400
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Where were all the Gedolim from?
> 
> Eli Clark>>
> Bi-mhilat kevod R. Schwab, who was obviously a noge'a ba-davar,
> Frankfurt did not produce a substantial number of Gedolim.  Note that in
> Frankfurt R. Hirsch founded a school that did not include a yeshivah
> gedolah.  His school was clearly oriented toward producing frum
> "baalebatim."  Note too that KAJ had to look beyond its membership to
> find a successor to R. Schwab!<<
> 
> BTW, YRSRH has a working Kollel nowadays, and licho'ora is using the more 
> litvisher Yeshiva model as opposed to the "Frankfurt" model.
> 
> I do not know what R. S. Schwab said re: the Frankfurt Yeshiva, but he
> attnede 
> the Mir and was thoroughtly immmersed in Yiddish, etc.  IOW, I would say his 
> advanced learning took place in Poland not in Fraknfurt.

==> Again, R. Schwab himself notes the legitimacy and importance of the
Shittah that R. Dessler cited.  He simply noted that the "Frankfurt
Shittah" was valid and that the "fault" levied by R. Dessler against it
was not true.  Also, as noted earlier, R. Schwab had -- at one point --
sort of repudiated Torah im derekh Eretz....



> 
> R. Hirsch's successor - R. Schlomo Breuer - was a native of Hungary.  R. 
> Schwab's successor - R. Zecharyo Gelley - is an "oberlander" Hungarian.  

==> Yes.  But he was also already married into the family.  And, I believe
that (in Frankfurt) the rest of the family FIRST received their education
at the RealSchule BEFORE going out to other Yeshivot...

ALso, there WERE Talmidei Chachamim that went to the Hildesheimer
Seminary...

--Zvi


> 
> My impression (from lectures I attended) is that Hungary trained several 
> prominent Western European Rabbonim, and that Litta trained a number
> of rabbonim
> (in contrast to Rebbes) in many of the predominantly Chassidishe
> communities of 
> Galicia, Ukraine, etc.
> 
> Rich Wolpoe
> 

Moshe :>>I find the above to be somewhat problematic.  I seem to recall that 
the reason people in chutz la'aretz did not count today "hayom 25 or
maybe 24" (despite making two sedarim; we count "mi'macharat 
hashabbat") is that a "sefirah"--counting--requires certainty.  I 
would think that the same reasoning should apply to Rav Goren's 
circumstance.<<

My understanding is that lemaase there IS no sfeiko deyoma bizman haze.  Rather,
we observe YT shel Golyus, etc. primarily out of a minhog avoisenu beyodeinu 
that behaves AS IF there were a sefiko deyoma. This is limited to only those 
specific situations in which we were mekabel to observe sefeiko deyoma.

EG Chanuko, Purim, have no sefeiko deyoma. (imagine lighting 2 menoras every 
night with different numbers of candles...<smile>)  Sefiro, is proabably 
analogous to Chanuko and Purim, in that it is (according to most shitos) 
miderabboon bizman hazeh, and therefore Sefieko diyoma - even as a minhog - was 
never applied.

This explains how we can be meikel on YT sheini re: EG levayos, gebrukts, etc., 
because it is primarily al pi minhog.  (Plese, let's not touch mevaze YT sheini 
<smile>)

Rich Wolpoe

>>
 This expression which I have never heard is probably a very a-grammatical
 way of expressing the following:
 When [Parshas] Shemini falls on Shemini (the 8th day of Pesach in diaspora),
 i.e. when the first and last days of Pesach fall on Shabbos and Parshas
 Shemini would have been read--as it in fact is in Israel-- on the second
 shabbos, the first aliyah of parshas shemini is read 8 times >>
AFAIK the simon is Shmini (B)Shmini Shmini Shmoinoh.
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind<<

When I was a child, the baal koeri in our shul (a survivor from Budpest) told 
me:

Shmone Shmini Shono Shmeino
IOW, when we read Shmini 8 times, it's a fat (blessed) year.

Rich Wolpoe

Here's a list of sephardi poskim from the past 300 years: (in no particular
order)

Yechave Da'at (R. Ovadiah Yosef)
Yaskil Avdi (R. Ovadiah Hadaya)
Massa Chayim (R. Chaim Palaggi)
Shemesh Tzedaka ((R. Shimshon Morpugo)
Sdei Chemed
Ner Maaravi
Neeman Shmuel
Ora Latzaddik
Michtam LeDavid
Mishpatim Yesharim
Kerem Shlomo
Divrei Emet
Edut B'Yossef
Divrei Shmuel


Josh

This past week Rabbi Frand in his dvar toarh quoted Rav Moshe who supposedly in
Igros moshe discusses
Targum Onkeloses translation of v'chai bahem. Does anyone know where it is in the
Igros Moshe?

--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> Moshe :>>I find the above to be somewhat problematic.  I seem to
> recall that 
> the reason people in chutz la'aretz did not count today "hayom 25
> or
> maybe 24" (despite making two sedarim; we count "mi'macharat 
> hashabbat") is that a "sefirah"--counting--requires certainty.  I 
> would think that the same reasoning should apply to Rav Goren's 
> circumstance.<<
> 
> My understanding is that lemaase there IS no sfeiko deyoma bizman
> haze.  Rather,
> we observe YT shel Golyus, etc. primarily out of a minhog avoisenu
> beyodeinu 
> that behaves AS IF there were a sefiko deyoma. 
> . . . .
Correct.  However, it is my understanding that even when there was a
safek, the Omer was not double counted.

Regarding the difference between Chanukah and Yom Tov: Clearly, it
would make sense that when there was sefaikah d'yoma, chazal would be
more machmir with regard to d'oraita than d'rabbanan.  Nevertheless,
one would have thought that since (1) sefirah is d'oraita according
to some and (2) sefirah is the means by which we determine the date
of Shavuot, chazal might have enacted a double counting (if not for
the point that I mentioned (in my prior post, above).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> Here's a list of sephardi poskim from the past 300 years: (in no
> particular
> order)
> 
> Yechave Da'at (R. Ovadiah Yosef)
> Yaskil Avdi (R. Ovadiah Hadaya)
> Massa Chayim (R. Chaim Palaggi)
> Shemesh Tzedaka ((R. Shimshon Morpugo)
> Sdei Chemed
> Ner Maaravi
> Neeman Shmuel
> Ora Latzaddik
> Michtam LeDavid
> Mishpatim Yesharim
> Kerem Shlomo
> Divrei Emet
> Edut B'Yossef
> Divrei Shmuel
> 
Don't mean to start a fire here, but I think it would be interesting
to do a survey how many of the above Gedolim were viewed as
"international Gedolim"--i.e., achieving status even in Ashkenazic
circles and being quoted in Ashkenazic teshuvot.

For example Maharam Al'sha'ker, living in the 16th century was
oft-quoted in Ashkenazic teshuvot (e.g., Chatam Sofer on issue of
Kisui Rosh).  Rav Ovadia Yosef quotes Chatam Sofer, R. Akiva Eiger,
R. Chaim Ozer, etc.  Do Ashkenazi poskim quote Sefardi poskim of the
past 300 years?  (Of course Rav Ovadia Yosef quotes more than any
other shu"t, so maybe the comparison is unfair, but you get my point.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

I have offered to give a shiur on Shavuot.  The theme of the night is
"lo ta'aneh b'rei'acha ed sha'ker."  I can speak about anything
remotely related including: 

1.  Issues of testifying in an American tribunal regarding the
wrongdoing of a Jew (issue of Moser; famous Rabbi Tendler case);

2.  When is permissible to lie?

3.  Anything (almost) in Masechet Shavuot.  (Sh'vuat Haset, etc.)

Does anyone have any other creative ideas/topics for a shiur?  I'd
like to choose a topic that will hold people's attention late at
night.

Thanks.
Moshe

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

More information, courtesy of another chaver.

It seems that Eilu va'Eilu:

Vis a vis the Julian calendar, Pesach is receding. As mentioned, this year
Pesach fell almost completely within the Julian winter, and some years it
will do so totally (just look at your Ezras Torah Luach for the Yom
Ha'Tekufa - used for V'sein Tal u'Mattar - that now occurs on the 7th or
8th of April, July, October and February). I.e., were the Julian calendar
still in use, we would be in "trouble"!

On the other hand, vis a vis the Gregorian calendar, as the essay below
indicates, we are galloping ahead (well, not exactly galloping. Perhaps
"cantering").

YGB

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


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:22:56 +0100
From: David Herskovic <david@arctic1.demon.co.uk>
To: YGB <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: calendar

Here it is!

The link is:
http://www.jchron.co.uk/jc/jcdat/97/APRIL11/JUDA_3.HTM

Hope it helps,

Dovid Yosef Herskovic

--------------------------------------------------------------


Why Pesach is now falling out of season?

IS PESACH this year later than it should be, according to the dictates
of the Torah?

The straight answer is yes. But if April 22 — on which the first day
falls — is considered late, think ahead to the year 2005, when the first
day will fall on April 24. Indeed, in some years — 1929, 1948 and 1967,
for example — Pesach began on April 25.

To understand why it is biblically inappropriate for the festival to
fall so late in the year, one has to consider the conditions governing
its date.

The Torah specifies two criteria. “The festival of matzot,” it says in
Exodus 34:18, “shall be kept… at the appointed time in the month of
Aviv.” In Leviticus 22:6, the “appointed time” is given as the 15th of
the month.

Aviv means spring, so it is necessary to determine what is meant by the
first month of spring. The first month is required on the principle that
a mitzvah should be performed as soon as possible.

Although the Jewish festivals are placed in specific lunar months, the
tekufot, or seasons, are governed by the solar calendar. The lunar month
which is designated as Aviv is dependent on a civil date.

It is generally accepted that the first day of spring in the northern
hemisphere is when the length of the day — which has been increasing
steadily since December 21 — equals the length of the night. This occurs
on March 21 in a normal civil year, and March 22 in a leap year.

How does one know which lunar month includes the first day of spring? In
the Talmud (Sanhedrin 13b), Rabbi Samuel, the son of Rabbi Isaac, states
that the first day of spring should occur in the lunar month while the
moon is still waxing.

The moon grows from new to full in the first 14.5 days of the month. If
a Rosh Chodesh (new moon) occurs at any time between the sixth and the
20th of March, then on the 21st the moon will still be waxing and that
month is designated as Aviv. If this is not the case, the next lunar
month is chosen.

The earliest date that Pesach can occur is March 21, and the latest it
should occur is April 20. Yet an examination of the calendar from 1920
to 2019 shows the earliest date to be March 26.

Instead of the festival falling between March 21 and April 20, this
century has seen the first day being celebrated at some date between
March 26 and April 25.

Future calendars reveal a gra-dual shift of Pesach — and, consequently,
of the other festivals — to progressively later dates. In the century
from 2950 to 3050, the first day of Pesach will be found to fall between
March 31 and April 30. What is happening? And, more importantly, is it
possible to rectify the situation?

The origin of this glitch lies in the fixed Jewish calendar that has
been in use for the past 1,650 years. The calendar attempts to correlate
the solar year — the time the earth takes to go round the sun — with the
lunar month, during which the moon circles the earth.

The year determines the seasons, while the months — in their appropriate
seasons — determine the festivals.

The present fixed calendar is based on the premise that 19 solar years
are exactly equal to 235 lunar months.

Dividing 19 into 235 gives 12, with seven remaining. Thus, in every
19-year cycle, seven years acquire an extra month, which is why we have
Jewish leap years every 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th and 19th year of
the cycle.

The 19-year Metonic cycle is named after the Greek astronomer, Meton,
who devised it in around 430 BCE. It was well known to the rabbis of the
Talmud.

When, in 350 CE, the Roman authorities limited the authority of the Nasi
— the spiritual leader — in Eretz Yisrael, regarding the proclamation of
Rosh Chodesh, Hillel II, the then Nasi, instituted the present fixed
calendar, based on the Metonic cycle.

Although it was remarkably accurate for its time, it is not exact. The
235 lunar months exceed the 19 solar years by a little more than two
hours. Spread over 1,000 years, this totals some 4.5 days.

One thousand years ago, the first day of Pesach would have fallen, on
average, four or five days earlier in the year than now, in the correct
solar time span as dictated by the Torah.

Is it possible to remedy the present situation, and to halt the gradual
shift of Pesach?

In his book, “Rabbinical Mathematics and Astronomy,” Dr W. M. Feldman
suggests a new basis for a fixed Jewish calendar.

He demonstrates that if, in a cycle of 334 years, 123 of them were leap
years, the differential between the Jewish and the civil calendar would
amount to no more than 39 minutes.

It would take 12,500 years to accumulate a one-day discrepancy, instead
of the 230 years it takes under the present system.

Feldman proposes constituting the 334-year major cycle as a series of
19-year minor cycles, with the odd 11 years forming the beginning of the
next major cycle.

If Feldman’s 334-year cycle had been employed over the past 1,650 years,
instead of the present 19-year cycle, there would have been one less
leap month.

To make the festivals less movable in the future, and to accord more
accurately with the requirement for Pesach to fall in the month of Aviv,
one designated leap year would have to lose that status.

The next most suitable year for this purpose would seem to be 2005
(5765). By making it a regular year instead of a leap year, Pesach would
commence on Saturday, March 26, instead of Sunday, April 24.

The year 5765 would be the 89th year of a 334-year cycle, the 13th year
of the fifth 19-year cycle within the larger cycle.

From this basis, future dates could be computed, demonstrating that
Pesach would be confined to its designated Torah place for the
foreseeable future.

The year 2005 is sufficiently far ahead to enable one to compute, and
adjust to, the new system. Even the most forward-looking parents will
not yet have booked their sons’ barmitzvahs!

Dr JOHN ZUCKER 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Zucker is a research fellow in physics at King’s College, London
University. 

From the Jewish Chronicle
11/4/97

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]