Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 042

Sunday, May 14 2000

• FW: What constitutes a zibbur
• Re: FW: What constitutes a zibbur
• Re: Calendar Controversy Article
• Re: Question about Shavuos?
• Re: Defining Adas Yisrael and Am Yisrael
• Re: Calendar Controversy Article
• Re: Calendar Controversy Article
• Ozreinu vs. Ezreinu
• Limud Tanach
• ayin tachas ayin redux
• Re: ayin tachas ayin redux

-----Original Message-----
From: Shinnar, Meir 
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 1:59 PM
To: 'areivim@aishdas.org'
Subject: RE: What constitutes a zibbur



RYGB has suggested that zibbur is a purely religious rather than political
grouping.  Bimhilat kvod torato, I find this an amazing statement, and would
request sources.  Even the establishment of two different minhagim in a
single geographic community was viewed as splitting the community, and my
understanding is that it dates as a common phenomenon only from the
beginning of gerush sefarad.  The separation of the religious from the
public and political seems to be late, as most early sources (IMHO) don't
separate the  two.

Meir Shinnar

RM Shinnar wrote:

>>Even the establishment of two different minhagim in a single geographic 
>>community was viewed as splitting the community, and my understanding is that 
>>it dates as a common phenomenon only from the beginning of gerush sefarad.  

Isn't that what the gemara means when it says shnei battei dinim be'ir achas?

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 02:10:25PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: [I] guess that the answer is simply that it does not matter enough to be
: precise - kind of like pi=3 in halacha.

More than that, in neither case is perfect precision possible. Pi is an
irrational number, and so probably is the ratio between the average
solar year to the average lunation.

When did the calendar first fail? I am under the impression the first time
Nissan wasn't chodesh ha'aviv was quite recently, in the 1980s. My guess
is that they decided the error was assumed not to be a problem because who
expected us to still not have a Sanhedrin?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 5-Iyar-5760: Revi'i, Emor
micha@aishdas.org                                           A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                      Yuma 4a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.           Yeshaiah 4

On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 09:43:19AM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
:>  I.e., an example where person-x can make a ruling on 'y' without having to
:>  know about 'y'?

: The point is that he needs to know the entire spectrum and their names, not 
: enough that he is certain of this particular color.

Perhaps this is because the kohein is doing more than paskening. He's not
deciding whether or not the person is already a matzorah -- his decision
is part of the process. It's a kiyum, not a birur.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 5-Iyar-5760: Revi'i, Emor
micha@aishdas.org                                           A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                      Yuma 4a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.           Yeshaiah 4

I wrote:
:                                    .... The first he associates with the term
: "_eidah_" [congregation], which he relates to the words "_eid_" and "_eidus_"
: [witness, testimony]....

: [RSRH, in his commentary on our verse, reaches a similar definition of the
:  word _eidah_ but does so using a different etymology. He finds the root to
:  be _ya'ad_, to fix or appoint. "A society united by their common calling."

On second thought, I don't think RYBS and RSRH disagree. According to R'
Matisyahu Clark's (REC's father's) dictionary, Hirsch defines the /yud-ayin-
dalet/ shoresh to mean to "arrange; set specifics" -- the latter clearly
sounds like eidus.

From there he gets: 1- meeting together (no'adti licha sham), 2- setting
a time (va'ed), 3- arranging a marriage, 4- community (eidah), 5- criminal
court (from #4), 6- ranks of soldiers (also from #4), 7- meeting place
(from #1; ohel mo'eid), 8- time to meet with G-d (mo'adim, from #1).

All this is very close to his comments on /ayin-vav-dalet/ = endure;
continue. Which in turn is expressed as: 1- enduring (le'olam va'ed --
see /y`d/ #2!), 2- witnessing, establishing facts (his example: tihyeh
li li'eidah!), 3- testifying, conjuring in mind (ha'eidosi bachem hayom),
4- continuing (od), 5- being upright (vinis'oded), 6- warning (vaya'ad
H' biYisrael, from 2 or 3), 7- undermining endurance, 8- always (od
yehallelucha), toward.

He sees the progression of related roots to be:
    /`dd/ (tear), /`dh/ (decorate), /`wd/ (endure), /y`d/ (arrange)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 5-Iyar-5760: Revi'i, Emor
micha@aishdas.org                                           A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                      Yuma 4a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.           Yeshaiah 4

In a message dated 5/11/00 9:04:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

> When did the calendar first fail? I am under the impression the first time
>  Nissan wasn't chodesh ha'aviv was quite recently, in the 1980s. My guess
>  is that they decided the error was assumed not to be a problem because who
>  expected us to still not have a Sanhedrin?
>  
The problem won't accure untill after Bias Goel Tzedek (which won't be a 
problem as we will have Sanhedrin), as Chodesh Hoviv could include even the 
last day, (Al Achas Kamoh Vkamoh before Pessach).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

On 11 May 00, at 19:38, Micha Berger wrote:

> When did the calendar first fail? I am under the impression the first
> time Nissan wasn't chodesh ha'aviv was quite recently, in the 1980s.

Huh? In 1956 Erev Pesach was on March 25, which means that 
Rosh Chodesh Nissan was about March 10 or 11. Same with 1975 
and 1994. Well before the equinox....

-- Carl


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.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

>SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>  wrote:  subject: Ozreinu vs. Ezreinu

>>richard_wolpoe wrote:         Subject: Ozreinu vs. Ezreinu
>>
>>Someone ...ended Tachanun with EZreinu....I quietly mentioned it should be OZreinu.
>>..EZreinu = Our help....OZreinu = Help Us!
>
>>Is EZreinu an actual alternate nusach?

>Very doubtful. It is after all a Posuk in Tehillim - 79:9
>(unless one can supply an alternative Posuk).

OTOH in Tehilim 144:8 we find:
"Ezrenu B'shem Hashem Osei Shomayim Vo'oretz"

Knowing very little about dikduk (amongst other things...),
I'll leave it to the experts.

SBA

>>And - in my experience - many Sefardim and Teimanim 
know Tanach backwards and : forwards, and not always 
are they such bekiim in gemoro... Li nir'eh that the 
gemara means learning tanach without peirushim<<

See B.M. 33 that ba'alei gemara are on a higher level 
than ba'alei mikra; Tos. d"h acheichem explains that
[those who are ba'alei mikra alone] 'ainam yod'im dinim
v'hora'os ki im al pi ba'alei hagemara'.   

-Chaim B.  

Torash Aish:
RABBI AVI WEISS
Shabbat Forshpeis 
In this week's portion, the Torah proclaims the famous dictum "eye for an eye." 
(Leviticus 24:20)  The message seems clear.  If one takes out the eye of a 
neighbor, his punishment is that his eye is taken out.
     The oral law, however, explains through logic that "eye for an eye" is 
monetary compensation as it may be impossible to carry out equal justice through
a physical penalty. For example, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai said, if a blind person 
damaged the sight of another_how would he be able to give an eye for an eye? The
school of Hezekiah added that it can sometimes happen that more than an eye 
could be taken from the perpetrator if in the process of taking an eye, the 
assailant dies. (Baba Kamma 84a)
     The Talmud also uses a textual proof for its thesis.  The Torah states "You
shall not take a ransom for the life of a man who is condemned to death." 
(Numbers 35:31)  This implies that for the life of a murderer you may take no 
ransom, but you may take ransom for the major organs of the human body which do 
not grow back.  (Baba Kamma 83b)
     One wonders, however, if "eye for an eye" is monetary, why doesn't the 
Torah spell this out clearly?  Perhaps it can be suggested that the written law 
sets the tone, gives the direction, and presents the teaching.  As the Torah is 
read the listener hears the words "eye for an eye" and concludes that if I 
remove the eye of another, the crime is so heinous it is deserving of my eye 
being removed.  In the words of Ha-ketav Ve-ha-Kabalah "the Torah mentions here 
only what punishment the perpetrator of bodily injuries deserves."
     The oral law, however, which is the interpretation of the Torah, tells us 
how these rules are actually practiced. While one who removes the eye of another
may be deserving of physical punishment, in practical terms he receives a 
monetary penalty<<

this is the basic post I did a few months ago.  R. Gorelick asked the same 
question, if ayain tachas ayin was never intended to be done literally - why 
write it that way

Answer: on the dina shmaya level (or psycholgically speaking) etc.

The next question is if this were a mesorah why do we need a rationale?  isn't 
the Mesoarh sufficient to guide us, what's the point of all these apologetics?

My Answer:  (sorry Micha!) to teach us how to read between the lines.  IOW the 
shakla v'tarya is saying If Halacha X cannot be literally true, then what do we 
do with it?  In this case we have a mesorah.  In other cases we may not.  But 
analysis alone teaches us that we NEED a mesorah that the literal peshat falls 
short of provdiing a practical solution.

My further spin is that Ayin Tachas Ayin is not meant literally because it is an
idiom - a legal idiom - that indicates to us to compensate an eye with an eye in
terms of being just.  Or iow not a random compensation, not a fixed 
compensaation, but an equitable compensation based upon the actual damange. W/O 
ayain tahcas ayin we might have thought that we are might punish the perpetrator
as a manner of deterence.  The Torah teaches us to RECTIFY the damage done by a 
full complte compensation.  This idomatic version SOUNDS harsh but is quite just
on the practical level, and that harshness of the language theefore can serve as
a  deterent - asusming the audience cares about the Torah's POV.

Then this illustrates a classic case of the Torah Shbichsav operating on 
multiple leves, halachic, machshovo, literary, etc.

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com

RA Weiss wrote:

>>The oral law, however, explains through logic that "eye for an eye" is 
>>monetary compensation as it may be impossible to carry out equal justice 
>>through a physical penalty. 

>>Perhaps it can be suggested that the written law sets the tone, gives the 
>>direction, and presents the teaching.  As the Torah is read the listener hears
>>the words "eye for an eye" and concludes that if I remove the eye of another, 
>>the crime is so heinous it is deserving of my eye being removed.

>>The oral law, however, which is the interpretation of the Torah, tells us how 
>>these rules are actually practiced.

So as not to lose my RW credentials let me start out by saying that I do not 
regularly consult Nechamah Leibowitz's commentaries.  I just stumbled upon this 
on the internet and liked it.

She suggests that the simple peshat of "ayin tachas ayin" is the way Chazal read
it.  It was not a derasha (oral law), it was reading peshuto shel mikra (written
law).  She quotes a number of sources including R. Sa'adia Gaon.

http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/torani/nehama/emor.html

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         ]