Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 040

Wednesday, May 10 2000

• Re: Calendar Controversy Article
• Re: shaving on yom ha-atzmaut
• Re: shaving on yom ha-atzmaut
• Re: What Constitues a Tzibbur?
• Re: What Constitues a Tzibbur?
• Calendar Controversy Article
• Question about Shavuos?
• Re: What Constitues a Tzibbur?
• Ozreinu vs. Ezreinu
• Re: Question about Shavuos?
• Re: What constitutes a tzibbur
• Poresh MiDarkei Tzibbur (was Yom Hazikaron)
• Calendar Controversy Article
• Re: Calendar Controversy Article
• Re: Cardinal O'Connor

In v5n38, RYGB and RAZZ are quoted as saying:
: 3 It is possible that Hillel II only established the rule that the seven out
:   of nineteen years be leap years.

I don't think it too likely. Remy Landau's website attributes the cycle to
Meton, a Greek astronomer who was roughly contemporary with galus Bavel.

The Metonic Cycle of 19 years is/was used by other lunisolar calendars. Two
that come to mind are the Chinese calendar still in use, and the Babylonian
calendar from which we get our month names. The Chinese system is identical
to ours, however they are at a different point in the cycle than we are.

Historians debate whether Meton or Bavel was the first note of the 19 year
cycle (see WM O'neil, "Early Astronomy"). They had earlier tried an 8
year cycle then one of 27 years before settling on the Metonic one. This
happened around or during galus Bavel. During galus Bavel (according
to both our chronology and the Greeks') the Babylonians switched from adding
a second Ululu (Elul) to adding a second Addaru (Adar) as the leap month for
all but one of the 7 leap years.

See http://www.friesian.com/calendar.htm for more on the Bavli calendar, the
change in leap month, etc...

Also very telling, the Bavliim also used the measure of a cheilek as the
smallest unit of astronomical time. 1080 (chalakim/hour) was a typical number
for the way they did things. They were weak on fractions, so they tended to
use numbers like 12, 24 and 60 which have many even divisors. This is why,
to this day, there are 360deg in a circle and 24 hours in a day. (Also why
Bavel would never have invented a 7 day week, had they not had a masorah
from Noach.)

Perhaps we took the calendar with us from Bavel, stopped relying on it in
the days of Tzadok and Baisos (as written elsewhere in the article) and
Hillel haSheini restored the system as a means of surviving without a
centralized body.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  5-May-00: Shishi, Kedoshim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 35a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 01:39:31PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: I always understood the concept of a "personal Yom Tov" being 
: based on an event that happened to me personally.

I think it must be an event you personally benefitted from, not that you were
a witness to.

Also, I should note tangentially that such Yomim Tovim are inherited. I know
someone who was saved by a neis that was near-nigleh, and the Belzer Rebbe
told him to make a Purim Katan, and that it should be lidoros.

-mi

On 9 May 2000, at 6:21, Micha Berger wrote:

> On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 01:39:31PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
> : I always understood the concept of a "personal Yom Tov" being 
> : based on an event that happened to me personally.
> 
> I think it must be an event you personally benefitted from, not that you were
> a witness to.
> 
> Also, I should note tangentially that such Yomim Tovim are inherited. I know
> someone who was saved by a neis that was near-nigleh, and the Belzer Rebbe
> told him to make a Purim Katan, and that it should be lidoros.

My wife's cousin has a similar story (he was hit by a car during the 
Yom Kippur War while on his way home from Sinai). But saying 
that the person to whom the event occurred and his children should 
keep the day as a Yom Tov l'doros is still a much more direct 
connection than a Jew living in Israel has to the specific date on 
which the Israeli declaration of independence was signed.

-- 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.

RYGB wrote:

>>I propose that the concept of tzibbur can only be applied to religious 
groupings, not to national or regional societies.>>

See the Rambam in his peirush hamishnayos to Bechoros 29.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

What does he say?

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Gil.Student@citicorp.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>; <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>; <Yzkd@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: What Constitues a Tzibbur?


> RYGB wrote:
> 
> >>I propose that the concept of tzibbur can only be applied to religious 
> groupings, not to national or regional societies.>>
> 
> See the Rambam in his peirush hamishnayos to Bechoros 29.
> 
> Gil Student
> gil.student@citicorp.com
> 
> 

IIRC, Rav Yisroel Reisman in one of his Novi tapes discussing the
calendar, mentioned b'shaim a sefer whose name escapes me that although we
pasken like Rav Ada for Ibur Shonim which is nimsar to Bais Din,  Chazal
left the  60 day calculation for V'sain Tal U'motor in place based on the
simpler cheshbon of Shmuel's tekufa (and disregarded the date slippage
over the centuries) because it's nimsar to every yochid around the world
to make make the change from V'sain brocho.

KY

Avrohom Weidberg

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

Eric Simon wrote:

<< In  rabbinic  jargon, the first opinion appears  under
the appellation "Shemuel's tekufa," while the latter view
is   referred  to  as  "Rav  Ada's  tekufa."    Shemuel's
calculation corresponds directly to the Julian system. If
we   count   sixty  days  beyond  the  autumnal  equinox,
September 23, we arrive at November 22. When Pope Gregory
instituted  his  corrected calendar,  the  Jews  did  not
immediately comply.  They stood by Shemuel's calculation,
i.e. the Julian calendar (perhaps denying the validity of
the  science  of  the  time).  Thus,  they  believed  the
equinox  to  occur  10  days  after  the  new  "Gregorian
September  23."  In other words, they believed  that  the
equinox  should  be calculated according  to  the  Julian
system,  which  meant  that it would  fall  on  the  date
formerly  called September 23, which was now  changed  to
October  3.  Many years (or even centuries)  later,  when
most   Jews   accepted  the  accuracy  of  the  Gregorian
calendar,  they nevertheless continued the  tradition  of
their  predecessors,  saying  "ve-ten  tal  u-matar"   on
December 2 (sixty days after the Julian equinox,  October
3).   Although abiding by the Gregorian calendar in other
areas  of  their  lives, for the purpose  of  calculating
tekufot Jews still adhered to the position of Shemuel  in
the gemara, i.e. the Julian calculation.

Any comments on this last part?  >>

I have a question about tzaaras that arises in Tractate Shavuos.

Somewhere approx daf 6a, the Gemara is trying to find where it is that we
learn that Rabbi Akiva has the view that of the four levels of tzaaras,
each one can 'join' with one that is the adjacent level.

The gemara brings proof: his son once asked him, why couldn't the Mishna
(which lists all four levels) have asked it more simply (simply saying "egg
white membrane and above).  (Following the argument up to here is not
necessary for the following question.

R. Akiva's response was: all the levels are listed in order to show that
the Kohain that pronounces tzaaras must know all four levels.

My chevrusa, (more learned than I), was puzzled.  He thought that the
Kohain _doesn't_ have to know all four levels--that the Kohain could bring
an expert, that was is necessary is that the Kohain make the pronouncements
("tzaaras").  Again, the Kohain must make the announcement, but doesn't
necessarily have to be an expert, personally, on the four shades of white.

Any insights into any of this?

Thanks,

-- Eric

Come on, it's printed in the standard Shas :-)

The Rambam says that all those and only those Jews who live in Eretz Yisrael are
considered a kahal (with halachic ramifications).  It seems that a regional 
society is considered a grouping.


----- Original Message ----- 

What does he say?
     
----- Original Message ----- 

> RYGB wrote:
> 
> >>I propose that the concept of tzibbur can only be applied to religious 
> groupings, not to national or regional societies.>>
> 
> See the Rambam in his peirush hamishnayos to Bechoros 29. 
> 
> Gil Student
> gil.student@citicorp.com

Someone davening in Teaneck ended Tachanun with EZreinu, and after services I 
quietly mentioned it should be OZreinu.  

EZreinu = Our help
OZreinu = Help Us!

The guy argued that it was an alternate nusach
Then he argued it was Lithuanian dialect.

Is EZreinu an actual alternate nusach?

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com  

In a message dated 5/9/00 1:01:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, erics@radix.net 
writes:

> R. Akiva's response was: all the levels are listed in order to show that
>  the Kohain that pronounces tzaaras must know all four levels.

And so is the Halacha Rambam Hil. Tuma'as Tzoras 1:3
  
>  My chevrusa, (more learned than I), was puzzled.  He thought that the
>  Kohain _doesn't_ have to know all four levels--that the Kohain could bring
>  an expert, that was is necessary is that the Kohain make the pronouncements
>  ("tzaaras").  Again, the Kohain must make the announcement, but doesn't
>  necessarily have to be an expert, personally, on the four shades of white.

If he relies on the Chochom then he need not know, if he rules on his own he 
needs to know, see Rambam Hil. Tuma'as Tzoras 9:2

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind  

In response to my original post

>
> > However, in the face of communal danger, I think that that right
> > disappears, which is (IMHO) the point of the rambam.

RYGB asked

>
> What communal danger?
>
> Are you trying to say that they are b'geder rodef if they do not stand still
> for a siren, observe State holidays etc.?

1)Unfortunately, medinat yisrael and toshaveha are still in danger.
Yom Hazikaron is one of the responses of the community to acknowledge both
the current danger as well as past losses. An essential part of Yom hazikaron
today is recognition of the ongoing nature of the losses. If we have peace,
in a few years Yom Hazikaron would have a different status (more like Memorial
Day and Veterans Day in America).
2) There is a difference between not participating in the response to the
danger (poresh midarche tzibbur) and being a rodef - actively assisting
the enemy. (By the way, I would classify those who try to assist the enemy
as a mosser (rambam hilkhot tshuva 3:13, thematically linked to the rambam
I cited) ), as I think that being a rodef implies that the individual has
some power to damage, which may not be necessary for a mosser.)

> I am not sure danger and sorrow are the same - my point above. I could hear
> very well someone arguing that Moshe Hirsch, the self appointed Neturei
> Karta "Foregin Minister" had a geder of rodef once upon a time, but I cannot
> see that apply to those who do not affiliate with the practices of a tzibbur
> that is not theirs.

The issue of when a community can separate off another is
complicated. Furthermore, the whole genesis of the edah haharedit is
problematic (see the letter of R Zvi Pesach Frank). However, I think that
separating a community for the sake of different minhagim or different control
of the haluka is fundamentally different than under conditions of war and
zarat hazibbur. It is precisely the view that the "tzibbur is not theirs",
acceptable for minhagim, that is problematic when the tzibbur is under attack
and constitutes prisha min hatzibbur (see shirat dvora).

Meir Shinnar

I have already responded to the following post in #45,
However I did so without the benefit of actually seeing the Rambam which RSM is
using as proof to show, that, by not standing for the siren - one is a Poresh
Midarkei Tzibbur and therefore loses his Chelek L'Olam Habo(!) - ukedelehalen:

>Shinnar, Meir wrote:               Subject: Yom Hazikaron
>
>With regard to not standing during the siren,... the Rambam's dictum...Haporesh
midarche tzibur, af al pi shelo avar averot ela .....velo nichnas bezaratan, velo
mitaneh beta'anitan, ela holech bedarcho ce'echad migoye ha'aretz, ucheilu
eyno mehen, eyn lo chelek leolam haba.
>
>Someone who is yere shamaim (shelo avar averot) loses his helek by not participating
>in the tza'ar of of the community.  Yom Hazikaron is what the Israeli community has
>decreed as a commemoration for its tza'ar over the korbanot of tzahal. ...  Clearly,
>there are segments of the haredi community...who do not participate in the general
>tza'ar and korbanot of the entire community.  By removing themselves,they may
>have no helek in olam haba.

I have since looked up the Rambam  (and I invite everyone to do so as well.)

(In Hilchos Tshuva Perek 3) - from s.6 he mentions all who do not have a
Chelek L'olom Haboh, including: minim, apikorsim, kofrim betorah, betchiyas
hamesim, bevias hagoel, machtiyei horabbim, haporshim midarku tzibbur, oseh
averos b'yad romoh bifresia, baalei loshon horah etc. The Rambam goes on
to explain who and what these types include.

Then in s.14 he states that one should *beware of all those types of people
and keep away from them*.

Would I be correct in assuming that the majority of Chavrei Haknesset (past
and present) qualify under the Rambam's "ein lohem chelek l'olam haboh"?
And if so, can one really think that the Rambam - in the piece quoted by RMS
- paskens that customs initiated by such an assembly - are to be considered
"Darkei Tzibbur"? Hayitochen!?

But if there are still ANY doubts on the Rambam's idea of a *Poresh MiDarkei
Tzibbur*, let the Rambam tell us himself - in Hilchos Ovel 1 S.10:

"Kol *HAPORSHIM MIDARKEI TZIBBUR* - V'hem - Ho'anoshim sheporku ol hamitzvos
m'al tzavoron v'ein nichlolin b'chlall yisroel b'asiyas hamitzvos ub'kovod
hamoados v'yeshivas botei knesiyos ubotei midroshos - harei hem k'vnei chorin
l'atzmon kshaar ho'umos.... ein misablin alehem, eloh...krovehem....ochlim
v'shosim usmechim, sh'harei ovdu sonov shel HKBH"!!! Clear enough??

PS. I recently heard a story about someone who came to Rav SZ Auerbach zt"l
complaining about a certain Rebbe who regularly davvens well after the Zman
Krias Shma and Zman Tfilla.

RSZA told him, that we have a Klall "Mitzva Goreres Mitzva" and "Aveira
Goreres Aveira". Therefore, if I saw that Rebbe doing other Aveiros as
well, that could be proof that he is doing wrong. However, all I see him
do is learning Torah and Mitzvos and Maasim Tovim, so obviously his late
davvening is also a Mitzvo. (V'divrei Pi Chochom Chen)

The moral and message of that story should be to all those who are concerned
about the Yiras Shomayim and Olam Haboh of Chareidim/Meah Shearimites -
"Zorgts Enk Nisht!" These people live a Torahdigeh life 24-hours a day
7-days a week. Mitzva Goreres Mitzva.

SHLOMO B ABELES

<<I find this to be an inspiring paragraph!  Even those who have rejected
the most basic fundamentals still agree on a calendar.

I can't help but think, with the respect to this, that the first mitzvah
given to the Amcha Yisroel was Rosh Chodesh, and speculate that there is
a connection.>>

	I always understood the connection when,  upon announcement of the
molad,  we say mi she'oso nisim la'avoseinu....chaverim kol Yisrael,  to
mean that we don't have "molad leshitas hageonim,  lehaRambam,  the Gra, 
the Mogen Avraham,  the Chazon Ish,  etc.  One molad.   This is truly a
nes,  and shows that at least in this respect chaverim kol Yisrael.

	One quibble on the JO article:  only one author (RAZ) was identified. 
Our own RYGB was not.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Typo. The essay was full of them (only one of which was my fault).

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 10:33 PM
Subject: Calendar Controversy Article


> One quibble on the JO article:  only one author (RAZ) was identified. 
> Our own RYGB was not.
> 
> Gershon
> gershon.dubin@juno.com
> 

I wrote:

>>See Tosafos and Tosafos Rid in Bechoros 2b.  The problem with a 
partnership is that you might cause the gentile to take a shevuah to their 
a"z.  Since Xtians take a shevuah to their shutfus, and taking a shevuah 
to a shutfus is mutar for a gentile, there is no issur of having a 
partnership with a Xtian.  See also the Chiddushei HaGriz and Sefas Emes 
there.>>

Chana Luntz wrote:
     
>>if you hold that shutfus is assur for a goy, then you cannot rely on 
this Tosphos - so you cannot have a partnership with one.>>

No.  I am differentiating between worshipping a shutfus - which is 
assur for a gentile - and vowing to a shutfus - which is mutar for a 
gentile.  While the Tosafos is vague, see the Tosafos Rid, Griz, and 
Sefas Emes above.  I am reading understanding Tosafos like they did and 
not like the Rama.  See also the Noda BiYehudah I Y"D 148.
     
I would venture to say that most rishonim assumed that Xianity was avodah zarah,
or rather that it was an assur form of worship for a gentile, and still managed 
to live with them.  They found heterim for what was permissible and lived with 
the necessary issurim.  See, for example, Tosafos in Avodah Zarah 2a.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.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         ]