Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 043

Wednesday, May 5 1999

• Minhagei Sefira and Lag B'Omer
• R Shimon bar Yochai
• Yissochor/Zevulon
• The Rav ZT"L
• The Rav on Sefiro
• YT Sheini and Maariv
• Re: Date of the current calendar algorithm (fwd)
• Shiv'im Ponim - Shiv'im Zekeinim
• Individual Personality
• gedolai ha-dor and retrospective reinterpretation
• Re: The Rav on Sefiro
• Re: Negi'ah and P'sak
• Ma'aser Kisafim and Yissachar
• Re: Ma'aser Kisafim and Yissachar
• Re: Talmidie R. Avkio and the Holocaust
• Comment on Mr. Stokar's Quoted Passage (fwd)
• Re: Sefiro History Questions

Regarding differences between Sfard and Ashkenaz re: minhagei sefira, see
Daniel Sperber's _Minhagei Yisrael_, Vol. I, Chapter 12.
Regarding Talmidei Rabbi Akiva, I once heard a suggestion that they were 12
thousand "zugot", implying that they were matched pairs. The suggestion was
that one set were Talmidei Rabbi Akiva in learning, the other set were
talmidei Rabbi Akiva in his support of the Bar Kochba rebellion. These
Talmidim did not have Kavod for each other, which brought about their
deaths. A "vort", but a timely "vort".

Shalom Berger 

Does anybody have an explanation for the astounding event
described in Pesachim 112a when R. Akiva was imprisoned for
teaching Torah. R. Shimon visits him and asks him to teach him
Torah. When R. Akiva refused because he didn't want to endanger
his students life - R. Shimon threatens to get his Rebbe in
trouble with the government.

[While there is a different version found in Otzair Medrashim
which doesn't mention a threat - the gemora version is more
authoritative.]

1) Why did R. Shimon threaten his own Rebbe? Is there any other
example of such behavior?
2) What was the significance of the 5 (6 according) to the
Medrash that R. Akiva taught in response to the threat?

So far I found that Rashi, the  Maharsha and the Maharam M'Pano
take the event at face value.

                                      Daniel Eidensohn

I do not know that any specific Kavanna was required on the part of the Y
learning "to include" his Z counterpart.  Maybe someone else has a source.
The gemara in the case of Shimon Achi Azarya seems pretty clear -- though
-- that there was some sort of one-to-one realtionship.
However, it does NOT appear to indicate anything negative (i.e., there is
no notion that the Y "loses" because of thise arrangement -- only that the
Z gains thereby.)

As far as the discrepancy, since the Gemara seems to refer to the
agreement between the SHEVATIM, I am *guessing* that it is also possible
to set up such an agreement on a "macro" level.  That is, the GDP (GNP?)
og Z was calculated and 1/2 was forwarded to Y and then Y had the
responsibility that ITS members would actually learn.  This implies that a
"Kollel" could be set up without a strict one-to-one relationship as long
as there is an overall one-to-one between the supporter(s) and the
learner(s).

--Zvi

I remember that when the Yated published the "obit" on the Rav ZT"L, I was
very very upset -- and people around me thought that I was just being
"political" (which upset me even more!).  Too bad that Kavod Hatorah
appears to have been less important that Kavod one's personal Hashkafot.
One thing that I noticed at YU (for all of YU's admitted flaws) was that I
never heard people putting down OTHER Yeshivot, Gedolim, etc.....

--Zvi

R. Moshe:>>The Rav also believed that music
is permitted provided that it's not at a party (seu'dat m'rai'ut).<<

Indeed I heard besheim the Rav that it was the reius part that was critical.  so
listeing to music in private was ok, but playing a guitar amongst friends was 
not.  My 9th grade rebbe interprted the Rav to prohibit group acitivites such as
attending baseball games, because of the reius aspect.  

So corresponding to his "kulo" (so to speak) re: music was his "chumro" (so to 
speak) re: any social acitivity.  

Rich Wolpoe

CB: >>Ma'ariv is never described in the gemara as a minhag; Y"T sheni is.  See 
Ch. HaGriz in the kuntras on Yoma, Sukkah for his discussion of the machloket 
Rambam and R"T re: berachos on minhag as it relates to Y"T sheni. I don't see 
in any sugyos that kulos of Y"T sheni are do to the way the minhag was 
nitpashet; contrast Y"T, for example, with the sugya in A.Z. 36.  It is 
interesting that you use halvayat hameit to illustrate the difference between 
Y"T rishon and sheni.  See Rambam 1:22-23 who prefaces his discussion of this 
distinction by stressing the fact that the two days of Y"T are parallel in 
chiyuv (and note here the Rambam refers to Y"T sheni as divrei sofrim, not 
minhag!) and meit is an exceptional distinction.  Perhaps halvayas hameit 
fits the pattern that chachamim were not gozeir b'makom mitzva, consistant 
with Rambam's shitah that a milah shelo b'zmana is doche Y"T sheni.  Netziv 
on Parshas Emor has a nice discussion of these topics.  <<

Yasher koach for the sources.

Some quick points:
1) Do the sources discussed how Hillel II's takkono might have influenced the 
original YT Sheini?
2) The analogy to Maariv had to do more with HOW it is binding upon us, rather 
than how it originated in halacho.  And ein hochi nami, the ananlogy goes only 
so far.  I would concede that prior to Hillel II that YT Sheini WAS a halachic 
imperative (Divrei Sofrim), but now,  given that onu beki'im it REMAINS in 
effect due to Minhog Avoseinu beyodeinu.

IOW, were someone were to make the point that entire globe is now "mokom 
sheshlichim magi'im" due to telephones, internet, email, etc., and that YT 
Sheini is therefore no longer applicable, I would answer them minhog avoseinu 
beyodeinu.

Rich Wolpoe

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, 4 May 1999 04:16:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Remy Landau <rlandau@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Date of the current calendar algorithm (fwd)

On Mon, 3 May 1999, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
 
> the "Letter of the Rosh Hagolah" which
> explains that year 4595 (836) follows the siman "Zayin Chet Gimmel"
> (i.e. Rosh Hashana is on Shabbat, the year is deficient and Pessach
> falls on Tuesday), while, according to the modern calendar algorithm the
> siman should be "Zayin Shin Heh". There are ambiguities in the letter so
 
Would it be possible to note a nother technical difficulty in the above?

The year 4595H according to the currrent FIXED calendar rules began on 
Monday and was 355 days long. That would have given it the siman of 
*Bet Shin Heh*.

The next year, 4596H according to the FIXED calendar rules, would begin 
on Shabbat and be 385 days long, thus according it the siman 
*Zayin Shin Heh*.

The siman for 4597H according to the fixed calendar rules would be 
*Zayin Het Alef*

One of the key difficulties in the above note is the numeric error made 
by the correspondent. It may be due to typographical reasons. We are all 
capable of so doing.

However, reading a bit into medieval practices, it becomes apparent that 
a number of epochs were in use at the time of the note (circa 835). Each 
of these epochs differed by one or 2 years from the world era that we use 
today. This fact may also be found in the En Judaica under the article 
*CALENDAR*. 

Since the epoch is a critical factor in mapping the given Hebrew date 
onto the world era epoch now in use the question in my mind is "what was 
the epoch referenced by the note?".

It seems to me that if speculation is permitted, then the original note 
may have been using an epoch whose initial year 1 corresponded to the 
world era year 3H. Thus 4595 in the note would actually map onto the 
world era year 4597H, which would have the siman *Zayin Het Alef*, if my 
calculations are correct.

Since that is out by a single character, an alef instead of a gimel, I'm 
just wondering whether or not an error was made in reconstructing the 
critical fragments of the note.

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

R. Moshe>>The brother of the Marahal emphasized that each person
is different and that is why the Torah was given with shiv'im panim; 
in fact, each person at Mt. Sinai understood something slightly 
different.  So personality does count.  Nevertheless, the posek must 
ensure that he is striving for "truth" within the shiv'im panim.<<

The parallel to Si'vim sekeinim is obvious.  Does anyone discuss this in detail?

Any poseik will bring his individual personality into the fray.  The idea of 
consensus suggests a common denominator.  In the days of Sanhedrin, consensus 
could be achieved within the 70. Afterwards, concepts like nispashet provide a 
consensus...

Rich Wolpoe

>>in fact, each person at Mt. Sinai understood something slightly
different.  So personality does count. <<

Years Ago,(early 1980's) R. Glucksman spoke at KAJ between Mincho and Maariv 
(parshos Semos or Vo'eiro I believe) saying the following

The reason that we say Elokei Avorhom, Elokei Yitzchok and Ekokei Yaako and not 
1 Elokei for all 3, is that while Hashem is one, each one of the Avos discoverd 
Hashem himself. Implicit is that each  Av perceived a different aspect of 
Hashem..that we need more than one POV to comprehend and appreicate Hashem, etc.

Rich Wolpoe 

Well (tongue in cheek) if people citing a gadol for interpretations opposite
of what one actually said, then I guess we should disqualify the Lubavitcher
Rebbe and Reb Moshe as well, nu?

--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> R. Moshe:>>The Rav also believed that music
> is permitted provided that it's not at a party (seu'dat
> m'rai'ut).<<
> 
> Indeed I heard besheim the Rav that it was the reius part that was
> critical.  so
> listeing to music in private was ok, but playing a guitar amongst
> friends was 
> not.  My 9th grade rebbe interprted the Rav to prohibit group
> acitivites such as
> attending baseball games, because of the reius aspect.  
> 
> So corresponding to his "kulo" (so to speak) re: music was his
> "chumro" (so to 
> speak) re: any social acitivity.  
> 

I heard that too.  To be honest, I never understood that chumrah. 
"Seudat m'reut" implies more than just a group activity; it implies
simcha caused by group activity.  With respect to attending a
baseball game--(1) it is not clear that this is true "simcha" and (2)
while it is in public and a large crowd does enhance the excitement,
it is not clear to me that this is parallel to the simcha caused by
PERSONAL interaction with a group.

I also wonder how the "seudat m'reut" stricture should be interpreted
in 1999, in a society where pleasures are easy to come by (as a
matter fact, I always wondered about those who didn't listen to music
on the radio during sefirah but do other much more pleasurable
activities, e.g. go to an excellent restaurant).  The seudat m'reut
of chazal was a special event causing lots of simcha; when I attend a
baseball game (and, admittedly I'm not a rabid fan) I don't get
terribly excited or happy (maybe young kids do).

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

In a message dated 5/3/99 2:49:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, micha@aishdas.org 
writes:

<< 
 If one believes that halachah offers multiple options, and it's the job of 
the
 posek to determine which is appropriate, then neig'ah is not only 
inoffensive,
 but perhaps even necessary! How else is the poseik to determine which of the
 darchei noam is appropriate for his kehillah?
 
 OTOH, if the job of a poseik is to find the singular true halachah, then
 negi'ah would get in the way of an objective search for truth. To imply that
 someone, despite knowing themselves to be nogei'ah, would still make a
 statement would be implying a kind of dishonesty.
  >>


This definitely leads back to the discussion about the influence of the 
Brisker Derech, and the development of a kind of objective psak, as 
personified by some Roshei Yeshiva today, in both the Chareidi and YU 
community, who do not also serve as community Rabbis. 
BTW, I did not mean to write this post, but another one, which goes as 
follows:
Last night (5/3), my wife and I had a baby boy. 
We are thrilled to pieces!

Going now to speak to the Mohel.

Jordan Hirsch
 

In v3n37, Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> writes:
:> In any event, it seems clear that this is NOT Shlichus nor "remuneration"
:> (since the "Learning partner" is GIVING UP his Torah to the other person).

: I seem to recall that as a result of this, one cannot use Ma'aser
: Kesafim to pay for a Yissachar/Zevulun relationship.

I have a standing challenge to the chevra to show that there actually is a
halachah of "ma'aser kesafim". R' Yissachar Frand implied that there was
not. It really looks like a minhag we're currently creating, whose only
source (if any) was the 10% tax many autonomous kehillos required from
their population.

To say that "one can not use ma'aser kesafim to pay for X" would actually
require proving that it's not only a minhag, but a minhag yisroel or at least
a din. Otherwise, I'd think the "can not" is a bit harsh.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287      MMG"H for  4-May-99: Shelishi, Behar-Bechukosai
micha@aishdas.org                                     A"H O"Ch 317:9-15
http://www.aishdas.org                                Eruvin 75a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.     Kuzari II 9-12

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> 
> I have a standing challenge to the chevra to show that there
> actually is a
> halachah of "ma'aser kesafim". R' Yissachar Frand implied that
> there was
> not. 

Did you hear this orally from him or did he write it somewhere?

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

In v3n42, Richard Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:
: 2)  Hashem does not mete out massive punishments without major provocations.  
: How does shello kibdu qualify as criteria for captial punishemnt for 24,000 
: people? IOW, it does not meet the threshold of evil. ...
(#3 omitted, as I'm not sure what it adds.)

Talmidei R' Akiva were the first generation not to have lived through the
churban. Churban bayis was about sin'as chinam. To think that they didn't
learn the lesson...

And had they lived, these would have been the leaders of the next generation.
24,000 people would have set the tone back to the lack of unity of the
pre-Churban generation.

As to whether this sets a precedent for our descendents 500 years from now to
find a sin that caused the holocaust... There's a clear difference, as the
holocaust was a national tragedy, killing the potentially sinfull and the
newborn alike. At best, these descendents could find the crimes of the nation
that lead to the Shoah. There was no corellation between who within the nation
died and who was guilty.

It's interesting to notice that both tochachos, Devarim 11 (Vehaya im Shemo'a)
and Haazinu are all written on the national level. There's no statement
guaranteeing an individual's ruin because of his own sin.

In the same issue Abraham Pechman <APechman@mwellp.com> writes:
: Talmidei chachamim are held to a higher standard (HKB"H medakdeik im svivov
: k'chut hasaara).

And I think the comment I made earlier is why. Talmidei Chachamim not only
figure in terms of their own s'char va'onesh, but also play a greater role
in the development of Adas Yisrael. A smaller deviation has a greater impact
in our effectiveness as a people.

:                                            Wasn't there some sort of plague
: which killed them over a range of time (giving at least some of them the
: chance to do tshuva, which they apparently didn't take advantage of)?

They died of a lung disease. There's some belief amongst modern scholars that
perhaps this disease is a metaphor for Hadrian, and they actually died
supporting bar Kochva.

Richard again, same issue:
: 2) What caused aveilus to be observed during Sefiro

According to the Aruch HaShulchan, we observe sefiro to commemorate talmidei
R' Akiva and those killed in the Crusades.

: 3) What prohibitions are observed because of Sefiro?  How did they evolve?

In the next halachah he explains that the minhag emerged in the days of the
ge'onim not to get married during omer. Later, we accepted upon ourselves a
more complete availus.

To me it really looks like the Ah"Sh is implying that it was the Crusades that
triggered this intensification.

: 6) There are 2 prevalent minhiogim wrt to observing aveilus. How did they 
: evolve?  (Hint: this relates to question 2)

R' Akiva's talmidim died for 32 days. L'fi peshuto, up to Lag Ba'omer. The
Crusaders reached Ashkenaz in late Iyar. Depending upon which is primary, I
could see justifying observing either part of omer.

Akiva Miller <keeves@aol.com> found 12 different methods of observing:

A- The Ari, as per the Shaarei Teshuva 493:8, who is quoted by R' Eider,
   "Halachos of Persach" vol II, pp 330-331. It's also mentioned by R'
   Blumenkrantz, "The Laws of Pesach - A Digest", 5753/1993 edition, pp 17-2,
   17-3, as custom 4a.

   All of these use the phrase "ad Erev Shavuos" implying that one may get a
   haircut erev Shavuos during the day. They make no mention of not having
   to observe Lag Ba'omer.

B- Same as A, but ends the morning of the first of the Y'mei Hagbala.

C- Rama 493:2, as per MB 493:6 and Bei'ur Halachah "Yeish Nohagim". In the BH,
   it is the second custom listed under the first opinion. It's mentioned in
   the Igros Moshe (2nd custom) and R' Eider (ibid; B), quoting this Rama,
   Blumenkrantz (ibid; custom 1) and R' Aharon Fleder in "Moadei Yeshurun".

   In the last two sentences of the teshuva, R' Moshe says that the Rama was
   giving this opinion for Sepharadim, disagreeing with the Mechaber (next).

D- Shuchan Aruch 493:2, as explained in the MB (ibid) and BH (ibid; 1st custom
   in the 1st opinion), the Aruch haShulchan 493:4, Igros Moshe (ibid; 1st
   custom), R' Eider (A) and R' Blumenkranz (custom 2).

E- BH (ibid; second opinion). He takes this as an explanation of K, and not a
   separate custom. IM (6th minhag), quoting the Magen Avraham (no reference),
   however, R' Moshe holds no one follows this custom. Of the 39 days, 6 are
   going to be Shabasos, leaving 33.

F- IM (5th minhag), quoting MB 493:15 from Siddur Derech haChaim. This is the
   custom of Frankfurt.

G- Magen Avraham, as per Beer Hetev 493:8, MB 493:15 (who also quotes Chayei
   Adam), AH 493:6, IM (4th minhag), R' Eider (C, "The is..."), R' Blumenkrantz
   (custom 3b), R' Felder and is the custom in Elizabeth (R' ED Teitz's
   esteemed father).

H- Beera Hetev 493:3, quoting Or Zarua

I- R' Blumenkrantz (custom 3a)

J- IM (3rd Minag) quoting the Rama 3 and MA 5, and R' Felder.

K- Rama 493:3, first opinion, as explained by MB 493:14 (2nd half) and 493:15
   (1st sentence), Beer Hetev 493:7 (quoting the Bach), Beiur Halachah (ibid;
   2nd opinion), R' Eider (C: first 2 paragraphs).

Akiva lists the first two opinion of the Beiur Halachah as (what I rendered
into) D and C above. The BH doesn't believe anyone holds by the third opinion,
so it isn't listed.

R' Moshe lists 6 customs, given here as: D, C, J, G, F, and E. R' Moshe says
that the Rama paskened against the first of these (i.e. D), and that in
practice, no one follows the last (E). He shows that the other 4 are variations
of the same minhag, and therefore 1 can switch among them without hataras
nedarim.

The two most common minhagim, which was Rich's original question, are probably
C and either J or K.

                             A B C D E F G H I J K
               Pesach        X X X X              
            Isru Chag        X X X X X            
       24 - 29 Nissan        X X X X X X          
    1st day R"Ch Iyar        X X X X     X X
    2nd day R"Ch Iyar        X X X X     X X X
            2-17 Iyar        X X X X X X X X X X X
          Lag Ba'omer        X X n X n   n   n n n
              19 Iyar        X X   n X X X X X X X
           20-29 Iyar        X X     X X X X X X X
           R"Ch Sivan        X X         X X X X X
              2 Sivan        X X     X   X X X X X
     1st Yom Hagbalah        X n     X   n X X X X
2nd, 3rd Yom Hagbalah        X       X     X X X X
         Erev Shavuos        n       X       n n X

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287      MMG"H for  4-May-99: Shelishi, Behar-Bechukosai
micha@aishdas.org                                     A"H O"Ch 317:9-15
http://www.aishdas.org                                Eruvin 75a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.     Kuzari II 9-12

We are in waters that are wa over my mathematically-challenged head here,
but I am sure some of you have this all down pat!...

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, 4 May 1999 21:01:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Remy Landau <rlandau@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Subject: Comment on Mr. Stokar's Quoted Passage

May I be allowed another comment regarding Mr. Stokar's observations?

The following opinion found in a Sar Shalom work is quoted by Mr. Stokar:-

     I entreat such a person to read through Rav Kasher's treatise and search
     for an answer to the following question: How can he explain the fact
     that according to the letter of the Rosh HaGolah the year 4596 is
     "deficient" while according to the rules of the calendar in use today
     the year should have been "full" ? Rav Kasher simply overlooks this
     clear proof

The logic used is not a *clear proof* and does not disprove anything that
the Rav Kasher might have concluded in his writings.

It is very likely that the author was unaware or never considered the very
real possibility that the Rosh HaGolah might have been reckoning the Hebrew
year count in terms of the *Aera Adami* and NOT in terms of the *Aera Mundi*
generally used today.

It might be worthwhile at this stage to look at some of Albiruni's comments
related to the Hebrew calendar. Albiruni was a Shiite Muslim scholar who
lived near Bagdad sometimes in the 10-11th centuries.

The comments below are found on pages 64-66 in an 1879g English translation
by Dr. E.C. Sachau of Albiruni's "The Chronology of Ancient Nations".
The "Chronology" was first produced in the year 1000g (4760H).

     And this has also produced a difference regarding the order of
     intercalation in the Mahzor. For some take the current year of the
     Aera Adami, ... , dividing them by 19, ..., and as a remainder, the
     years of the Mahzor not yet finished, including the current year.
     And then the order of the leap-years is fixed according to the
     ... 2nd, 5th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, and 18th years.

     Others take the years of the Aera Adami, subtract one year, and fix
     the order of the leap years in the remainder of the years of the
     incomplete Mahzor according to the ... 1st, 4th, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th,
     17th years. These two cycles are attributed to the Jews of Syria.

     Others again subtract from the sum of years two years and compute the
     order of the leap years by the formula ... the 3rd, 5th, ... 8th,
     11th, 14th, ... , 16th ..., and 19th years.

     ...

     All three modes of computations are to be traced back to one and the
     same principle ...

By way of explanation, the *Aera Adami* is an epoch whose year 1 coincides
with the year 2H of the Aera Mundi (World Era) which we use today.

In the Aera Adami, the year 4596 would correspond to the year 4597H of the
Aera Mundi. Therefore, it would be the larger number that would have to be
used for calculating according to the fixed calendar rules relying
on the GUChADZaT leap year distribution, and the epochal molad of BaHaRaD.

Otherwise, if 4596 were to be used, then you would have to rely on the
leap year distribution 2 5 7 10 13 16 18, and the epochal molad 6d 14h 0hl,
because that year is reflected as a year in the Aera Adami.

And when that is done, then both methods come up with *Zayin Het Alef* as the
keviyyah for the year in question. 

Both set of rules are the same. They only differ as to the starting point
of the epoch. But note, the adjustment made by the Aera Adami people
is precisely to keep completely in step with the underlying Aera Mundi.

In other words, there was no difference between the calendar method used
by the Rosh HaGolah and the "modern" method cited by Mr. Stokar. And
both manners of computation produce the *deficient* year at the same
spot on the mapping of the two epochs.

The math behind all this is fairly elementary and may be easily worked out.

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

In a message dated 5/3/99 11:24:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
moshe_feldman@yahoo.com writes:

<<   The Rav also believed that music
 is permitted provided that it's not at a party (seu'dat m'rai'ut).  
 
 It's interesting that the "velt" has become so machmir regarding
 sefirah.  Can anyone guess why?  
 
 Also, is there any point at which even talmidim of the Rav would have
 to accept upon them not shave because that is "minhag America?" >>

The Seudat Mraiut issue also leads to the interesting conclusion of seeing 
movies during s'firoh.

Jordan

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


[ 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         ]