Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 035

Wednesday, April 28 1999

• More Luach
• [none]
• sefirat haomer
• Removing a Dybbuk
• Hirsch on Upsherin
• Re: Avodah V3 #34
• Re: Luach Discussions on Avodah (fwd)
• Luach, Response to RZW
• Producing Gedolim (RE: Avodah V3#34)
• Re: sefardi poskim
• Sh-vuos and Shavuos
• Re: speedy driving (was: Dina D'Malchuta Dina)
• Gedolim, Yeshivos
• Kollel Stipends
• Succession Question
• Sefardi Gedolim
• Re: speedy driving (was: Dina D'Malchuta Dina)
• Calendar Controversy -- R Saadia Gaon-Ben Meir
• Shavuos, YT Sheini, and Sefiro

Some numbers:

Average length Julian year: 365.25 days
Average length Jewish solar year (19 yr cycle): 365.2468 days
Average length Gregorian year: 365.2425 days
Average length mean tropical solar year: 365.2422 days

Now, turning to the RSG/BM controversy, leaving aside the issue, for now
of correctness, the question is, according to the Rambam, who holds that
the calendar must be fixed by Eretz Yisroel, what leg did RSG have to
stand on? It seems from R' Kasher's work, that RSG held not like the
Rambam (although the Rambam himself seems to have held that RSG was just
being polemical), but that the chesbon was always primary, way back to the
original "HaChodesh hazeh lachem" - there, therefore, being no reason to
allow EY sway.

But, according to the Rambam, was RSG's position legitimate? This is what
bother me.

BTW, BM was not a Kara'i, but a Rabbani, so his position was not
inherently invalid.

Please comment!

YGB

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

Subject: Bosor SheNisalem Min Ha'Ayin

I received the following message

>
> Rabbi Kulefsky Shlit"a said over this story this past Shabbos:
> 
> Last week, one of his son's (Nosson's) Talmidim in Ohr Somayach in
> Montreal was traveling to E"Y. He was served a Kosher deli sandwich on
> the plane. After opening it, he got up to wash. Upon returning, he
> remembered that he had recently learnt the Halacha of "Bosor SheNisalem
> Min Ha'Ayin" - you shouldn't eat meat if it was left unsupervised, and
> since he wasn't sure whether or not it applied in the case of a deli
> sandwich left out on an airplane, decided not to eat it.
> 
>  After a few minutes, the fellow (non-Jewish) sitting next to him leaned
> over and asked him "Why don't you eat?". He answered, "Oh, I'm not
> hungry". A few minutes later he leaned over and asked him "Aren't you
> hungry yet?". The student replied, "you know, I'll tell you the truth.
> We have a Jewish law not to eat meat sitting out unsupervised, and since I
> left my seat for a few minutes, I don't think I'm allowed to eat this."
> The neighbor said "I see that G-d is on your side. I always wanted to
> know what Kosher meat tastes like, and when you left your seat I leaned
> over and took a slice from your sandwich and replaced it with one of mine!!"
> 
>
Was the fellow required not to eat his sandwich because of
Bosor SheNisalem Min Ha'Ayin ?

Eli Turkel

>>
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. >>

Actually, this is due to the Dvar Avraham that one cannot count the
omer from safek in case one is not sure what day it is.

Rav Soloveitchik is quoted as disagreeing. he says the logic is
interesting but claims there is no source for such a chiddush and logic
without a source is not enough.

Eli Turkel

There are a number of unusual aspects to the story about the recent
removal of a Dybbuk by Rabbi Batsri in Dimona, assuming that the
description in the media is accurate.  The public nature with clear
partisan political ramifications have made it unique.  The soul of the
husband was asked questions about Rav Ovadya Yosef's health and Aryeh
Deri's guilt or innocence.  In general, early halakhic sources for this
practice do not seem to exist, there being no mention of it in either
the Talmud or the Zohar. 
As long as Arutz-7 was mentioned, its coverage was also odd.  On Sunday
a long story appeared in the Hebrew version of the news focusing on the
possible effect on the coming Israei elections but it was not mentioned
in the English translation of the daily news. 
Only in recent years has the need for psychological help become accepted
in the Charedi world. A return to removing Dybbuks instead of therapy or
medication can actually cause great harm.
Sincerely yours,
Yosef Blau

In the d'var Torah I gave at my oldest's upsherin I remember quoting R SR Hirsch
on the topic. It seems some Ungarishe man married a girl from Frankfurt, and
moved to be near her family. As R' SR Hirsch was at the upsherin, of course
he was asked to speak.

I remember the contents of the d'var Torah. Hirsch spoke of Orlas HaRosh, as
the minhag comes (in part) from the idea of orlah for trees. He then tied that
to the orlah of b'ris milah, and to peiyos.

Unfortunately, in the past 8 years I forgot WHERE I found this quote. And I
just got email from someone making an upsherin on Lag Ba'omer who wanted the
mar'eh makom.

Anyone know?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-Apr-99: Revi'i, Emor
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 316:5-11
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 72a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Shmuel-II 21

> 
> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Sephardi gedolim
> 
> - --- 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.

===> Given the different methodological approaches between the Ashkenazim
and Sefardim, I don't know if this is a valid metric to use.  It is nice
when someone from the 18th Century (I think that is the time-line for the
Chatam Sofer) cites a 16th century authority but how often do we see ANY
Ashkenazim citing "contemporary" sefardim.  And, given the approach that
is used (which SEEMS to be less "precedent-based" and more
"lomdish-based"), why WOULD they cite Sefardim (who follow a different
"Shitas HaP'sak")?  It seems to me that it is SPECIFICALLY the Sefardim
who seem much more precedent-based who will cite the works of BOTH
Ashkenazim AND Sefardim....  The absence of Ashkenazim -- therefore --
would not necessarily show that the Sefardi is less "international" --
only that the Ashkenazim are not interested...
--Zvi



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment Regarding the Calendar:
I really do not understand why we have to be concerned with the Lu'ach in
terms of the Julian Calendar.  The Birchei Yosef (The Chida) points out
that there was NEVER a "real" disagreement between Shmu'el and R. Adah as
to the length of the Year.  Shmu'el (who cited the Julian length) simply
felt that it was "OK" for Beis Din to "approximate" using the Julian value
with the intent that [when we were mekadesh with Witnesses -- which (I
think) was still the case in Shmu'el's lifetime] Beis Din -- when
necessary -- would apply appropriate "corrections".
It seems that all we REALLY have to be concerned about is whether the
Month of Nissan will be "Chodesh Ha'Aviv" in terms of the Spring Equinox.
As far as THAT is concerned, I think that we are still "OK".  Since
Mashiach is "supposed" to come no later than the year 6000  (when we WILL
have a B"D and Kiddush Al Pi Eidim and the determination of Leap Years
based upon Simanim rather than a formula) -- this may be only a
theoretical issue.

--Zvi

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information:
I have been trying to find out information about both Akdamus and Yetziv
Pitgam.  For the former, there is a bit in the Mo'adim Ba'Halacha, the
Sefer Ha'Toda'a, the TaZ, the [l'havdil] Art Scroll, the World of Prayer
and several sources to which I have no access (such as Sha'ar Efraim).
However, regarding Y"P, I have been able to find almost nothing...  Any
significant sources???  Thank you.
--Zvi

Forwarded Request for Information.

If anyone knows the answer, please share it with us and Mr. Landau!

Thanks!

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: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 06:27:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Remy Landau <rlandau@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Luach Discussions on Avodah

Dear Yosef,

Please feel free to ask. However, please understand that the complex
issues of Rabbinical authority are not in my domain. 

The RBM/SG mahloket of 4680H has been variously interpreted as a matter of
political authority over the Luach. These traditional views appear to have
arisen because all of the calendar controversies recorded in the Talmud
appear to have been only concerned about who held the authority to
ultimately decide calendar matters.

Thus we read from the Talmud about Gamliel v Yoshua, Hananiah v Jerusalem,
and R. Shmuel v the Palestine crowd. The Talmud also includes Akiva
declaring a lear year as an emergency measure in a particular land not in
Palestine. 

So much for the classical ideas. 

However, when one very seriously becomes involved in the mechanics and
dynamics of the Hebrew calendar, which none of the classical historians
have ever done, a thoroughly different concern emerges. 

R. Meir picked an extension of 642 halakim for the limiting time of the
molad zakein. No historical source, to my knowledge, ever noted that this
value was within 15 halakim (50 seconds) of the absolutely necessary limit
to the molad zakein rule. And certainly, no historical source has ever
been able to explain the reasons why R. Meir chose the 642 halakim value.
Why not a larger number? 

The R. Meir modification would not have distorted the Luach. It would
simply have changed the dates of some, very few in deed, Rosh Hashannot by
one or two days. Only 3 years were affected in his days, and these are
shown in the technical analysis on the web page. The analysis also shows
that after 4687H the Rosh Hashannot dates would have remained the same for
the next 180 years. 

Consequently, the question posed by the RBM/SG mahloket of 4680H was not
really "Who has the right to set the Luach", as classical traditional
thinking would have us believe, but rather, "Do we have the authority to
make any change to the Luach's method of calculation?". 

Now, may I ask your group this question? 

A little while ago I noticed that various calendars used for shule
purposes, and published apparently in New York, subtracted 6 hours from
the times of the moladot. I have not found any legitimate basis, either
religious or scientific for the practice. Therefore, can the times
published by these calendars legitmately be used in announcing the time of
the molad on Shabbat MeVorchim? 

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Regards From  Remy  Landau /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Downsview, Ontario, Canada \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

> Comment Regarding the Calendar:

> I really do not understand why we have to be concerned with the Lu'ach
> in terms of the Julian Calendar.  The Birchei Yosef (The Chida) points
> out that there was NEVER a "real" disagreement between Shmu'el and R.
> Adah as to the length of the Year.  Shmu'el (who cited the Julian
> length) simply felt that it was "OK" for Beis Din to "approximate" using
> the Julian value with the intent that [when we were mekadesh with
> Witnesses -- which (I think) was still the case in Shmu'el's lifetime]
> Beis Din -- when necessary -- would apply appropriate "corrections".  It
> seems that all we REALLY have to be concerned about is whether the Month
> of Nissan will be "Chodesh Ha'Aviv" in terms of the Spring Equinox.  As
> far as THAT is concerned, I think that we are still "OK".  Since
> Mashiach is "supposed" to come no later than the year 6000 (when we WILL
> have a B"D and Kiddush Al Pi Eidim and the determination of Leap Years
> based upon Simanim rather than a formula) -- this may be only a
> theoretical issue. 
> 
> --Zvi
> 

It seems that since we blithely follow the Julian calendar for Tal
u'Mattar that there is a nafka mina. (I am not yet clear on this, but what
about Birkas HaChama?).

Allso, for those who put needles in their water barrels on the Yom
HaTekufa (not me), that seems to still follow the Julian calendar (see
your Ezras Torah luach).

YGB

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

>Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:23:56 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net>
>Subject: Re: Avodah V3 #32

>===> 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"...

R' Moshe Eiseman of Ner Yisrael,  in a discussion several years ago about the "competitiveness"  in our Yeshivos today, told us that he knows for a fact of several promising talmidim of the Alter who were "crushed" - ie their growth slowed dramatically -  when R' Aharon Kotler came to the yeshiva, as it seems that the Alter dropped them to concentrate on R' Aharon. He asked R' Ruderman why/how the Alter could do this to those talmidim. R' Ruderman answered that without R' Aharon there is no Torah in America.

Sender Baruch

--- Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net> wrote:
> > From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
.. . . .
> > 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.
.. . . .
> >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.)
> 
> ===> Given the different methodological approaches between the
> Ashkenazim
> and Sefardim, I don't know if this is a valid metric to use.  It is
> nice
> when someone from the 18th Century (I think that is the time-line
> for the
> Chatam Sofer) cites a 16th century authority but how often do we
> see ANY
> Ashkenazim citing "contemporary" sefardim.  

My point is how many Ashkenazim cite 18th and 19th century poskim. 
Clearly, it is rare to see Rav Moshe Feinstein citing Rav S. Z.
Auerbach (or vice versa).

> And, given the approach
> that
> is used (which SEEMS to be less "precedent-based" and more
> "lomdish-based"), why WOULD they cite Sefardim (who follow a
> different
> "Shitas HaP'sak")?  It seems to me that it is SPECIFICALLY the
> Sefardim
> who seem much more precedent-based who will cite the works of BOTH
> Ashkenazim AND Sefardim....  The absence of Ashkenazim -- therefore
> --
> would not necessarily show that the Sefardi is less "international"
> --
> only that the Ashkenazim are not interested...

I agree with you that Ashkenazim's shitat hapsak would tend to cause
them to quote less from others.  Nevertheless, Ashkenazi poskim who
are lomdish-based would be more likely to quote the "best"
sevarah--no matter where it comes from--since they are not as
interested in precedent based psak.  For example, R. Akiva Eiger is
often quoted because he is considered one of the most brilliant
lamdonim and not because he is considered the major posek of the
time.

In fact, I am often flabbergasted at how much Ashkenazi psak Rav
Ovadia Yosef quotes considering that he ought to be most interested
in Sefardi precedent.  The Ashkenazi in me says that he's really
impressed with the Ashkenazi lomdus, but who knows?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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

A poster mis-transliterated the name of a tractate. Since he did so in
+ACI-public,+ACI- I feel compelled to make the correction in +ACI-public.+ACI-

The name of the Masechet is Sh-vuot, which is the plural of +ACI-sh-vu'a,+ACI- the
Hebrew word for +ACI-oath.+ACI-

The holiday which takes place seven weeks after the second day of Pesach is
called +ACI-Shavu'ot,+ACI- which is the plural of +ACI-shavu'a,+ACI- the Hebrew word for
week.  The word +ACI-sheva,+ACI- meaning the number seven, is obviously the root of
the latter.

It happens to be that (1) there are about 49 dapim in the aforementioned
masechet and (2) there is a shas sugya with reference to nedarim and shvu'os
that has the expression +ACI-mushba v'omed maay-har Sinai.+ACI- Perhaps +ACM-1, or +ACM-2 in
which the two concepts dovetail is the source of the common
mispronounciation.

--- Michael Poppers <MPoppers@kayescholer.com> wrote:
> excessive speed introduces other variables into the
> benefit/risk equation, including the capabilities of the hardware
> (car and
> all its parts) and the software (the driver), as it stresses same
> and can
> reveal weaknesses that would not otherwise have come into play. 

Agreed.  But I, who drive an Infiniti J30, have better control (etc.)
than someone driving a 1979 Chevy.  

> Speed
> limits are an example of laws written for the average person, the
> "silent
> majority" of society; 

Actually, the laws are probably written for the bottom 10% of drivers
(and the bottom 10% of cars).  From a statistical standpoint,
worrying about 10% of cars can save thousands of lives.

> specific examples you may bring WRT your own
> above-average driving skills are not m'vatail the speeding laws,
> much less
> the reasons behind their existence.
> 
From the perspective of legal theory, laws are often passed for the
masses despite the fact that it would make much more sense (other
than from the perspective of even-handed law enforcement) to have a
sliding scale.  Speeding is one of those things where most people
violate the de jure law but de facto the law enforcement officials do
have some sort of sliding scale (e.g., going 5 miles over the speed
limit will not get you a ticket usually, except if there are slippery
conditions).

Additional point: Since many states view the speed limit as a way to
raise money, some have proposed making the process more efficient by
simply giving people the right to go 20 miles over the limit in
return for a monthly fee of let's say $100.

From the perspective of Dina D'Malchuta Dina (DMD) the issue here is
how DMD deals with laws which de facto have different enforcement
standards.  I would think that the chiluk that the rishonim make
between DMD and Dina D'Malka (DDM) should apply here.  Somehow, it
seems ludicrous that DMD should force us to drive at the speed limit
when most people don't.

P.S. some years ago I asked Rabbi Michael Rosensweig of YU about
speeding and my recollection (which could be faulty) is that he felt
that there was no violation of DMD.  I'm not sure he provided any
reasoning.  Anybody (in his shiur) want to ask him?

Kol tuv,
Moshe



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

Zvi:>>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"...<<

I heard besheim R. S. Schwab (source supplied offlist) that he insisted that the
reason today's yeshivos produce fewers Gedolim is is that they are supported 
with "tainted" money.

Rich Wolpoe

Zvi>>  Here, there is an explicit quid pro quo.  There
is a "partnership" that INCLUDES both Torah and the Secular World.  <<

Question: in this quid pro quo is it allowed to be done despite that beshito you
oppose taking money for Talmud Torah?  or since this is a form of shelichus, it 
is not considered remuneration for learning?

Rich Wolpoe

Zvi:
>> 
> R. Hirsch's successor - R. Schlomo Breuer - was a native of Hungary. .  

==> 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...<<

Question: How did happen that R. Shlomo Breuer, a son-in-law, succeeded RSR 
Hirsch when he had a son Mendel who was qite a capable Talmid chochom in his own
right?

Rich Wolpoe

>>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.<<

BTW, in the post holocaust era, I would concede that we have a fairly level 
playing field.  Any reference I made wrt to a greater prolifertion of Ashkenazi 
Gedolim was limited to the era post Beis/Bet Yoseif and pre-1939.

And as above, I refer to Gadol more in terms of influence than just erudition.  
IOW, an anynonymous Talmid chochom is by my definition not a Gadol.

Rich Wolpoe

In a message dated 4/28/99 12:26:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
moshe_feldman@yahoo.com writes:

<< 
 From the perspective of Dina D'Malchuta Dina (DMD) the issue here is
 how DMD deals with laws which de facto have different enforcement
 standards.  I would think that the chiluk that the rishonim make
 between DMD and Dina D'Malka (DDM) should apply here.  Somehow, it
 seems ludicrous that DMD should force us to drive at the speed limit
 when most people don't.
 
  >>
of course one could say the same thing about taxes, yet I don't believe that 
the majority(or any ?) poskim say this because all agree that it applies to 
mamanot unless it's some kind of 'unfair' tax.  I think it goes more to the 
issue of the sources(eg is it hefker bet din hefker, kibbush, general 
consent......)

Kol tuv
Joel Rich

RYGB asked for sources regarding the calendrical controversy between R.
Saadia Gaon and Ben Meir.  A valuable discussion of the controversy was
written by Jacob Katz, "Rabbinical Authrity and Authorization in the
Middle Ages," in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, ed.
I. Twersky.  Highly recommended.  For primary sources, see Otzar
ha-Geonim, Sanhedrin, no. 207, and an beautifully circumscribed
collection in Dinur, Yisrael ba-Golah I:2, 394-403.

As people familiar with the controversy are aware, R. Aharon ben Meir --
in Jerusalem -- announced that the in the year 922 both Heshvan and
Kislev would be haser.  However, according to the calculation in Bavel,
both months would be malei.  Ben Meir asserted that the Eretz Yisraeli
calculation was authoritative, because ibbur ha-hodesh has always been
determined by the beit din there.

In response, R. Sa'adia argues that the fixed calendar was received from
Hashem, who decreed that yom tov would be one day in EY and two days in
HuL.  Only in response to minim did Hazal seek to demonstrate that the
fixed calendar was in harmony with kiddush al pi re'iyah.  Thus, EY
never had superior authority in fixing the calendar, only superior
knowledge of the calculations.  By the 10th century, however, this
knowledge was held equally by Bavel and EY; hence, the calculation of
ben Meir is not authorittative.

Note that Ramban, in his hasagot to Sefer ha-Mitzvot, aseh no. 153,
argues that Hillel ha-Sheni, in establishing the fixed calendar,
prospectively sanctified all future new moons.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Moshe:>>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..<<

YT Shini of Shavuos is an anomaly in that being 49 days after 16 Nissan, there 
is no real s'feiko deyoma anymore.  This gets compounded by the fact that we 
count sefior w/o sefiko deyoma.   

some quick points

YT Sheini of Shavuos is explained as a "lo plu"g

Maybe (JUST maybe <smile> the sfaiko deyoma re: Sefior in Golus is something 
that would lich'ora disappear before R. Chodesh Iyyar, and therefore is not 
applied even at the beginning of Sefiro.  This becomes in a sense a retro-active
lo plug, IOW'
Since the sefiko deyoma is resolved before Sefiro ends, we don't bother with it 
even during the tiem it could exits because of lo plug.

Rich Wlpoe

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


[ 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         ]