Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 452

Monday, March 20 2000

• Horseradish as Moror
• RE: Sheker VeChazav
• RE: Diyyuk Redux
• Re: How can we condemn the church if we do not live up to at least the same standard
• RE: Diyyuk Redux
• Re: Moshe Rabbeinu
• Re: ve-laharog
• Diyyuk Redux
• Re: How can we condemn the church if we do not live up to at least the same s...
• horseradish as marror
• Subject:Re: Bishvili Nivra ha'Olam
• ad d'lo yada
• re:How can we condemn etc.
• Re: How can we condemn etc.
• Purim Torah
• Re: Avodah V4 #450
• Takkanos Redux

Would the person who mentioned several days ago that horseradish as
moror was based on a mistranslation please provide more information. 
Thank you

Avorohom Weidberg

> property tax (arnona). And it isn't just some Charedim who are 
> exempt. Anyone over 65 has a 90 or 100% exemption regardless of 
> income. Guess what Jerusalem is full of? Yup. Retirees. Maybe 
> you think we should kick all of them out too....

And don't forget the *biggest* group that receives 90% exemptions --

The Arab population.

Can we kick them out too?

Akiva


If you drink -- don't drive.

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274  

FWIW, R' SZ Auerbach holds that the third pasuk of kedusha of Uva
liTziyon/Va'to Kadosh ("Hashem Yimloch...") should not be said out loud
(contrary to the "yaish omrim" of Artscroll).  The reason is because this
pasuk is from the Chumash, while the first two pesukim ("Kadosh..." and
"Baruch...") are not.

KT
Aryeh
aes@ll-f.com

============================================

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:22:25 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Diyyuk Redux

Here are a few more on the Diyyuk thread:

<snip>

Saying the the kedusha d'sidroso out loud:
     In KAJ, while they do say kedusha out loud in Uva liTziyon,
     the minhag is NOT to say it out loud in the Va'to Kadosh that is said
on 
     Motza'ei Shabbos, Purim, etc.

On 20 Mar 00, at 10:26, aviva fee wrote:

> Given your response, I have this to say:
> 
> During the Holocaust, what was the chiyuv of the Church to save Jews?  

I think the church did a lot more than just shev v'al taaseh. Nazi 
Germany relied specifically on church doctrine.

Moreover, the Jews were right under the Pope's nose. The pope is 
in Italy, which was part of the Axis. If the Pope had spoken out, 
Italy could have become a safe haven for the Jews. Instead, the 
Jews in Italy suffered the same fate as the Jews in other countries.

More 
> specifically, can't the Pope claim that he had no obligation to save Jews? 

The Pope is a leader the likes of which the Jewish people do not 
have. We do not have one religious leader these days. If we had a 
Moshe Rabbeinu, lehavdil, maybe he would have an obligation to 
speak out about every trouble spot in the world.  But Carl Sherer 
going out and protesting against whatever is going on in the Sudan 
is not going to make a difference to anyone. Carl Sherer is not in a 
position to do anything meaningful with respect to anything going 
on in Sudan or Afghanistan or Bosnia or anyplace else outside of 
Israel or possibly (remotely possible) the United States. 

No one even asked the Pope for money. All we asked (we being 
the Jewish people, not me specifically) was that he open his mouth.

> Pope Pious can quote you by stating that his responsibilities to the 
> billions of Catholics simply left him with no time to help a few million 
> Jews.

Give me a break! Can't you see the absurdity in that statement? 
Someone who is the undisputed leader of a billion people at least 
has the obligation to tell his own people not to join in the party. I 
don't know of any Jews running concentration camps anyplace in 
the world today or at any other time. Are you seriously suggesting 
that if Pius had opened his mouth and said "don't do that," it would 
not have had an effect on the Polish Catholics?

> Franklin Roosevelt will state that hey, we were coming off the depression, 
> the USA simply could not exert the time or money to remove some Jews from 
> the camps.

That's essentially what he said.

> Carl, thanks so much, until your posting, I was never able to be dan lecaf 
> zechut to the Pope and Roosevelt, now I am.  They were way too osek in their 
> work to save Jews.

If that's how you feel, then I think you have a warped concept of 
"dan lekaf zchus." The words "secular humanism" come to mind.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On 20 Mar 00, at 13:51, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:

> FWIW, R' SZ Auerbach holds that the third pasuk of kedusha of Uva
> liTziyon/Va'to Kadosh ("Hashem Yimloch...") should not be said out loud
> (contrary to the "yaish omrim" of Artscroll).  

Other than RYBS, who else holds that the third pasuk SHOULD be 
said out loud? 

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

I thought the midrash (Shabbas 87a; Yevamot 62; Shemot Rabbah 19:3; Avot
d'rebbi Natan A, 2:3 - with a variant that God told him to separate) was
pretty clear that he separated from his wife AFTER matan Torah.

ari


"Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer" wrote:

> Carl Sherer wrote:
> > And, if Moshe had divorced her, wouldn't that have been a maaseh
> > beis din that would have been publicized? Why isn't it mentioned in
> > the Torah? Wouldn't Miriam have known about it?
>
> He presumably divorced her before matan Torah, after the incident in the
> "malon". As bnai Noach (and in Huts la'aretz), No ma'aseh bet din was
> required to effect the divorce. Yitro brings her and the Children Back
> after matan Torah, but there is no concilliation. Everyone knew that
> tsippora was not in Moshe's tent - they may not have known that it was
> permanent.

can you post your dvar torah?


Micha Berger wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 12:12:19PM -0500, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
> : Actualy behind the smiley I had in mind what Poskim write that if one will
> : lose his Yerei Cheit one should not imbibe.
>
> Last year I accidentally built a chazakah of sending out a d'var Torah
> with my Shalach Manos instead of a simple "From the Bergers" card. This
> year's was on "ad dilo yada".
>

It is written in some siddurim that the Aramaic Targum should be said silently.

This poses a problem in how to engineer hashem Yimloch as anything other than 
the chazan syaing it aloud...

If the Chazan prompts with mei'assr beis shechintieh, he is saying some of the 
Aramaic aloud.

If he doesn't how can he prompt other than by saying haShem Yimloch.

OTOH the fact that the fist 2 psesukkim have targum and so does hshem Yimloch 
indicates that it is part of a set.

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Diyyuk Redux 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    3/20/2000 2:01 PM


On 20 Mar 00, at 13:51, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:

> FWIW, R' SZ Auerbach holds that the third pasuk of kedusha of Uva
> liTziyon/Va'to Kadosh ("Hashem Yimloch...") should not be said out loud 
> (contrary to the "yaish omrim" of Artscroll).  

Other than RYBS, who else holds that the third pasuk SHOULD be 
said out loud? 

-- Carl

In a message dated 3/20/00 12:27:30 PM US Central Standard Time, 
aviva613@hotmail.com writes:

<< Franklin Roosevelt will state that hey, we were coming off the depression, 
 the USA simply could not exert the time or money to remove some Jews from 
 the camps. >>

Actually, FDR did save some Jews -- all of them who survived the war in 
Europe, Palestine, and the United States. FDR saved you, me, and everyone 
else on the Avodah line by planning for and executing Hitler's defeat. Had a 
lesser man been the president, it is by no means clear that the Allies 
would've won the war in Europe. Had we lost, then *all* would have been lost.

Removal of Jews from the camps by Allied troops was never an issue of time or 
money. We've been over this a number of times on the Avodah line. I am 
constantly astounded at how difficult it is for Jews to tell the difference 
between their friends and their enemies. It's as if we want to paint the word 
"Victim" all over our faces all of the time, in every context. Somehow it 
makes us feel better. It's the saddest part of Judaism today.

David Finch

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Can you elaborate?  Isn't this considered "Tamcha"?
>
> or is the Amcho wrong about Tamcho <smile>?
>
> Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: Re: Chazeres vs. Maror
>
> This, despite the fact that 's connection to marror is questionable,
> and is probably based on a mistranslation?
>
> -mi

It seems that horseradish is probably a late mistranslation.
for an excellent, very well reserached article on the subject see:

"The History of Horseradish as the Bitter herb of passover" in Gesher 8:217-237.

The author, Dr. Ari Schaffer (vcaris@agri.gov.il) of the vulcani institute, informs
me that he will send intereted people copies.



I have written the following summary:

The mishna (Pesachim 2:6; 39a) lists five types of vegetables that may be used for
marror. It is difficult to identify what they each are, but it is fairly certain
none of them is horseradish since it probably did not exist in the Middle East in
the talmudic period. In addition, it does not fulfill the talmudic requirement of
marror, since it is not bitter but rather hot and sharp. The earliest mention of
horseradish in rabbinic literature is in the mid-twelfth century. Rabbi Eliezar ben
Nathan of Mainz (c.1090-c.1170), a contemporary of Rabenu Tam mentions it, not as
marror, but as an ingredient in charoset! Similarly, Rabbi Eliezar of Worms
(c.1165-c.1230) mentions it as an ingredient in charoset. By the late 13th - early
14th century horseradish is mentioned as an acceptable form of marror. The reason
was also clearly stated. It was acceptable when the usual forms of lettuce, which
were preferable as marror, were unavailable. As the Jews moved further north and
east into the colder climates it became increasingly more difficult to acquire
lettuce in time for Passover. As the use of horseradish became more widespread, it
eventually became identified, almost certainly erroneously, with either tamcha or
marror from the mishnaic list.
 Aside from the identification, another serious problem was raised with regard to
using horseradish. The mishna states (Pesachim 39a) that one fulfills their
obligation with the kelach of the plant. As early as the 12th century Rabenu Tam was
quoted as explaining that this meant only the stem and leaves, but not the root of
the plant.  When lettuce was used, this was not a problem, when horseradish came
into vogue it became an issue. The irony of course is that horseradish was available
and lettuce not in the colder northern climates where the ashkenazim had migrated
precisely for the reason that it is a root plant and lettuce is a leafy plant. This
continued to bother the decisors for centuries. The ShLA  (119a) rules that
preferably one should not use the roots of the horseradish. Similarly the BaCH  (OC
483) prohibits the use of horseradish roots. The Elya Rabbah  offers a lenient
position and concludes that in a time of need one may use the roots. The use of
horseradish for marror continued to spread among the masses of eastern european
Jewry such that by the 18th century it was being used even in places where leafy
vegetables could be obtained. Some authorities, recognizing that horseradish was not
the ideal marror bemoaned this, Rav Tzvi Ashkenazi (Shut Chacham Tzvi 119) described
how it is that horseradish came to be accepted despite it being less than
preferable. He then decries the problem that this has caused: those who are not
careful in mitzvot do not fulfill their obligation of eating the required amount of
marror since horseradish is too sharp, while those who try to be meticulous in
mitzvah observance and eat the requisite amount endanger themselves due to its
sharpness. The ultimate acceptance of horseradish comes in 1822 when Rav Moshe Sofer
(Chatam Sofer, OC:132) wrote that horseradish may indeed be preferable to lettuce
due to the difficulty in cleaning lettuce of bugs. So what started out as a tenuous
translation of one of the five species of marror that was further encumbered due to
the widespread use of its root has now grown to become the marror of preference.

My Rebbe, R' Shlomo Twerski ZTZ"L, used to quote a story in the name of the
(I think) Rimanover, who said that once he was in a room.  On one wall was
written "Bishvili Nivra ha'Olam" (BNOH) on the second "Ani Ofor VuAfer"
(AOV)  on the third and fourth walls were similarlry themed seemingly
contradictory statements (which I have since forgotten).  The Rimanover said
that he was standing there about to reconcile these ideas when all of a
sudden he heard, "Mazel Tov, it's a boy", and since then he has spent his
entire life trying to understand these ideas.

Rabbi Twerski went on to talk about the need for this dicotomy in every
person and the lifelong struggle between between them.  If I am just in a
state of BNOH, then what need is there to try and grow - I'm perfect.  If
I'm constantly in a state of AOV, and never can appreciate my
accomplishments, how do I get the drive to continue?

My father z"l told me, I believe in the name of the Avudarham, that it
was customary to sing a zemer of verses, alternating praise for tzadikim
with g'nus of r'shaim. (Similar to Melech Elyon and melech evyon on Rosh
Hashanah, though we apparently omit most of the evyon paragraphs. I
suspect that is the reason the stanzas begin with every *other* letter of
the alef-bais.) The song was sung by a leader, with the refrain by the
audience of "Boruch Mordechai" for the former, and "Arur Haman" for the
latter  When one had sufficiently imbibed to be confused as to the proper
retort (which is well before becoming inebriated) he was in the state of
lo yada bain arur Haman l'varuch Mordechai."

A freilichen Purim to all.

Elazar M. Teitz
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Aviva and Eluzor Feinberg write, "During the Holocaust, what was the
chiyuv of the Church to save Jews?  More specifically, can't the Pope
claim that he had no obligation to save Jews?  
Pope Pious can quote you by stating that his responsibilities to the
billions of Catholics simply left him with no time to help a few million
Jews.

"Franklin Roosevelt will state that hey, we were coming off the
depression,  the USA simply could not exert the time or money to remove
some Jews from the camps."

If it is intended to compare their actions to the failure of Jews *as
Jews* to protest situations in various parts of the globe, there are two
basic differences: (a) The Holocaust was the work of Christians; current
events are not the acts of Jews.  (b) Pope Pius (not Pious, at least in
my opinion) was in a position not merely to protest, but to help, unlike
Jews in current matters.  (a) applies to the pope; (b) applies  to
Roosevelt as well.

Sadya N. Targum
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

In a message dated 3/20/00 4:37:17 PM US Central Standard Time, 
targum1@juno.com writes:

<< (a) The Holocaust was the work of Christians; current
 events are not the acts of Jews.  (b) Pope Pius (not Pious, at least in
 my opinion) was in a position not merely to protest, but to help, unlike
 Jews in current matters.  (a) applies to the pope; (b) applies  to
 Roosevelt as well. >>

Current events are not the acts of Jews? Jews are unable to "help" in current 
matters? Roosevelt didn't "help" the Jews during World War II? Really? 

Let us pray that HaShem saves us from ourselves.

David Finch

This came from Les Fried, who got it from Len Dryer. I think Len 
actually wrote it. Freilichen Purim to those for whom it is Purim 
already. And a special Happy Birthday to CZ who is 19 tonight :-) 
....

-- Carl (a baseball fan in Yerushalayim Ir HaKodesh, but can't stand 
Rickey and his hammies :-) 

In the spirti of the Seasons- Purim and Baseball I thought you might enjoy
this bit of Purim Torah.


STEALING HOME
I. INTRODUCTION)
As the Major League Baseball season is due to open in a few weeks, we would
like to take a look at an issue that has often been ignored over the course
of the storied history of the sport. As this Chabura will attempt to
uncover, there is one major element of the game that has often been taken
for granted, an error that we hope to correct herein. As this issue is a
huge one, we will likely not be able to cover all details this week (don't
hold your breath waiting for Part II). As always, please remember that we
are not a qualified poseik, and all umpires' decisions are final.
Rule 4.01(b) of the Major League Baseball Handbook states that "a player,
having safely reached first base, may reach second base without  another
batter reaching base by 'stealing' said base during one of the  ensuing
at-bats..." This rule is further applied to the stealing of both third base
and home, and is paralleled by a virtually identical formulation in the
Official Little League Handbook, Rule 12.004(c), section 4.
While nothing more is said in the rule books, this point raises an extremely
troubling question: Based on the gemara in Bava  Kamma 97, we rule that
karka einah nigzelet. What this means is that the act of stealing does not
apply to land (as opposed to moveable objects).  This being the case, how
can we ever have a situation where a base is  stolen?  To answer this
question we have to analyze several aspects of the case.  First, we will
have to see what the essence of the problem of karka  einah nigzelet is.
Second, we will have to assess the degree to which a  base is considered to
be part of the ground. Finally, we will have to take a  look at various
types of bases at various levels of competition.
II.	SOME REAL TORAH (SORT OF...)
The easiest solution to our problem will be to follow the view of Sifrei and
Ritva, who hold that one can steal land. However, as we do not follow this
opinion, it behooves us to figure out why land cannot be stolen and how
those details square with the facts of our case. The first possible
deficiency of stealing land is that there is no action involved. A classic
case of land-theft occurs when one individual moves onto the land of another
individual and refuses to relinquish his newly-established claim.  However,
no action is done to the land itself. In this regard, stealing second base
is very similar - while the base runner may be moving at a relatively high
speed, the fact remains that all that he does is stand on a base that he had
not earned via a hit or walk. This being so, he can stand there as long as
he wants, but he still has not executed any action necessary to effect an
act of stealing.
The issue gets much more complicated when we look at the commentaries on the
Tur (C.M. 376). According to the Perisha, one who steals land is a "gavra
gazlan d'rabbanan," meaning that the individual is defined as a thief, even
though the theft is ineffective and the object does not change ownerships.
The Sma makes a similar comment, claiming that in such a case the individual
violates a negative commandment, but does not fully violate the commandment
not to steal. He also holds that land cannot actually be stolen. What
results from these views is a very interesting situation, one that plays out
on the two levels of the sport. While the person who steals the base can get
credit on the stat sheet for having stolen it, as he is defined as a thief
within the parameters of this particular case, the base itself is not
considered to be stolen, and thus his team would not seem to benefit from
his action.
We next must consider the view of Rashi in Shevuot 37b. He claims that the
problem with stealing land is that it never fully comes into the position of
the thief. He demonstrates this by approaching the issue from the other end,
namely the requirement of a thief to return that which he has stolen.  Since
the land has never moved, it is as if it is already returned, and thus it is
as if the theft never fully happened. This creates a complicated situation
for us, as baseball does not have a mechanism by which a stolen base can be
returned. Even further, it is unclear who the original owner of the base
was. If the entire fielding team fills the role of "owner," then we enter
into a situation of shutfin, or partners (the full explication of this issue
is too broad for our present forum). If the owner of the base is the
individual who owns the actual stadium (assuming, again, that it is not
owned by a group), then there may be grounds to allow the stolen base to
stand. How so? Since the owner profits from such an occurrence, as it tends
to generate fan interest and thus increase ticket sales and profits, we can
perhaps postulate that the base-stealer actually acquires the base from the
owner with the tovat hana'ah (resultant benefit) that comes about due to his
actions.  Finally, we will mention the view of Netziv. He posits that there
may be a violation of stealing land since the thief denies the owner the
full ability to use his own land. Thus, he has removed it from the owner's
domain, and the only question is whether or not he has been able to acquire
it for himself. In this light we must note MLB Handbook Rule 135.28(q) which
says that if two runners occupy the same base at the same time, one or both
of them may be tagged out. As a base is intended to be a safe haven from the
tags of the opposition, this rule seems to show that a runner standing on a
base denies any other runner the opportunity to occupy that base to the
fullest extent and to enjoy all privileges that result from such occupation.
Taking both of these factors into account, it would seem that we have a
situation potentially similar to that produced from the views of the Perisha
and Sma, namely that the base has clearly been stolen qua the original
owners, and thus the runner may be credited with a steal in the box score.
However, as we cannot state for certain that he has done enough to bring
this base into his own possession, it is possible that his team is still
legally considered to have a runner on first base and not on second, despite
the fact that he is physically standing on second base.

III.	GROUNDED
The next main focus that we will take is whether or not second base is even
considered to be part of the ground to begin with, or if it really falls
under the category of moveable objects. To fully understand this part of the
discourse, we must find an analogue in the gemara that can best serve to
bring to light the nature of a base.  It would seem that a Succah offers us
the possibility of getting to the bottom of this issue. Is a Succah
considered to be land or is it considered to be a moveable object? On the
one hand, the gemara in Succah 28b tells us that we must relate to the
Succah as a permanent abode during the course of the holiday. As houses
generally do not move (the recent relocation of the Empire Theater in New
York notwithstanding), this would seem to be able to be extended to say that
a Succah is considered to be land (since anything that is connected to land
gains the status of land as well), a view assumed by Rav Akiva Eiger.  On
the other hand, Maharam and the Magen Avraham note that, practically
speaking, it is possible in many cases for one to drag or even lift up a
Succah, a fact that would logically lead to the conclusion that a Succah
falls under the category of moveable objects! Thus, our dilemma becomes
which set of factors do we privilege in this case: do we care more about how
one relates to the object or do we care only whether or not the object can
actually be moved?
At this point, we have to consider the various types of bases that are used
at different levels of baseball competition. On the major league level, the
bases are made with spikes on one side so that they can be securely rooted
in the ground. However, that does not necessarily produce a situation of
total permanence. As several newspapers point out, Rickey Henderson, upon
stealing his 1,000th career base, was able to lift the base out of the
ground and hoist it over his head, an act that would seem to lend support to
the view of the base as a moveable object.  Nevertheless, most views invoke
the principle of "ein meivi'in ma'aseh listor," namely that we do not bring
in one solitary case for the purpose of uprooting what otherwise seems to be
a solid halacha. Thus, the conclusion would seem to be that bases can be
judged as land. Little league competition presents a thornier problem. Due
to issues such as having to play in public parks where the league does not
have exclusive rights, the bases are generally carried around by the coaches
from game to game, and are merely placed at the appropriate spot on the
basepaths come game time. As such, they are easily moved when a player
slides into them, and can easily be relocated to another part of the field.
Our question here is whether we consider the specific inadequacies of this
situation or whether we simply claim that the major league model holds for
all levels of play, regardless of the particular set of details. This
question has yet to be dealt with by any of the major Acharonim, and thus is
left open for discussion.

Best wishes for a "freileche" Purim from all the residents of Freedonia
Lenny D


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

VOTE FOR OUR DAUGHTER, THE BEGUILING AVIGAYIL FOR 
RABBANIT PURIM

To subscribe to my Jewish humor list, send a message with
the subject "subscribe carl's jewish humor list" to 
sherer@actcom.co.il. To unsubscribe send a message with
the subject "unsubscribe carl's jewish humor list" to 
the same address.

You can get three more humor messages per day by subscribing
to my private humor list.  To subscribe, send a message 
with the subject "subscribe carl's humor list" to 
sherer@actcom.co.il.

Thank you to Active Communications Limited for making
this list possible.  For information about becoming 
an Actcom subscriber, point your web browser to 
http://www.actcom.co.il and make sure you tell them 
that you saw it here.

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:26:55 -0500
> From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
> Subject: Re: berachah at the seder
> 
> RE Turkel wrote:
> 
> >>I was discussing with our local rabbi a problem of making a beracha at
> a second seder for Israelis coming to Russia to help. He said that one could not
> make a beracha on a safek yomtov even if both days were safek.
> 
> That lead to the question of what would have been done in Bavel in the days of
> the second Temple wherever the messengers did not reach. Did that mean they made
> a seder on both possibilities both without any berachot because each day was a
> safek? What about tefillot for yomtov?>>
> 
> I believe that this was a big machlokes halachah lema'aseh between the Rambam
> and the Chachmei Luneil.  I think most of it can be found in the Kessef Mishnah
> if you can find the place in the Rambam, which shouldn't be too hard.  IIRC, the
> lomdus was whether Yom Tov Sheini is a vadai chiyuv mita'am safek or a safek
> chiyuv.  Mv"R R. Mayer Twersky wrote an article about it in one of the Beis
> Yitzchak journals around '93/'94.
> 
I thought that discussion concerned the status of the second day of
yomtov after
the establishment of the fixed calendar.
I was asking the question about the era before any calendar and the
month was set
by witnesses. I assumed that then it was truly a safek chiyuv,

Anyone with access to the article in Bet Yitzchak would be helpful.

Eli Turkel

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:42:48 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re: Takkanos Redux 

<<Mi shei'no melamed bno omnus, melmdo listus...
Is any further takkanah needed?>>

	Yes:  Maniach ani kol umnus sheba'olam ve'eini melamed es bni elah
Torah.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

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


[ 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         ]