Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 002

Tuesday, October 3 2000

• Re: Tefillah and Normative Beliefs
• Machnisei Rachamim Apologetics
• Unilateral mechilah
• Redundancy in R"H Mussaf
• Re: Modern Orthodoxy
• asking mechilah
• Re: asking mechilah
• Re: Avodah V6 #1-no fish on Rosh Hashanah?
• Re: Dor Revi'i on kol shofarot k'sheirot and the Akeidah
• correction of the baal kriah
• Re: Redundancy in R"H Mussaf
• Re: Modern Orthodoxy
• asking for mchila
• KODOSH ATOH...
• Re: Avodah V6 #1-no fish on Rosh Hashanah?
• Re: asking for mchila
• Fish on Rosh Hashanah
• Re: asking for mchila
• Kiddush Livanah and Mashiach
• Re: Kiddush Livanah and Mashiach
• Re: Kiddush Livanah and Mashiach
• morah av ve'em
• Re: Kiddush Livanah and Mashiach

On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 13:07:42 -0400 Micha Berger said:
>The issue of whether Hashem necessarily accepts requests for rachamim directly
>or via a mal'ach is not necessarily relevent. You can believe the latter and
>still hold that saying "machnisei rachamim" is assur and minhag ta'us.

Briefy that IS the implication of addressin a BEING other than HKBH,
and Machnisei - at least on the surface - does this. Therfore its
pre-supposition is apparently that this is OK. BEH I will post a better
resolution...

Shanah Tova - Happy New Year
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

There is a "machlokes" whether or not to recite Machnisei Rachamim.

Those in favor probably rely upon tradition that it is ok.

Those who omit it, cite the Rambam's 5th principle of Addressing our Prayers
to G-d along and not to agents or angels.


The following post is based upon the premise that Machnisei is OK to
recite, while still respecting the Rambam's premise.
Moreover we can appreciate the elegance of a poem
w/o necessarily being offended not buying into its apparent premise.

    There is an old joke about 2 litigants coming to a rabbi to decide
their dispute.  Litigant #1 recites his side and the rabbi answers:" You
know you're right."  Then litigant #2 recites his counter-complaints and to
him the rabbis also responds You know you're right."  The rebbetzin
overhearing this asks: "how can they BOTH be right?".  To which the rabbi
answers "You know you're right too!"

In this spirit I will endeavor to make both sides right.  You might quibble
with some specifics, nevertheless don't dismiss the approach,  because it is
in the spirit of Eilu v'eilu.

Since we enjoy stories, here is another:

    There was a very shy fellow named Abraham who was assigned to
address a large audience of about 1,000.  With his meek voice, he was unable
to be heard.  In order to assist him, a fellow named Eliezer was recruited
to install and monitor a sound system.

    During a practice run, Abraham began speaking w/o the mike.  "Speak
into the Microphone," advised Eliezer.  Before long Eliezer explained the
advanced electronics, of how the mike went into a wire into an amp into
speakers, etc. So Abraham started saying "Dear Microphone please tell the
wire  to tell the amp to tell the speakers to tell the audience that...".
"No no,"  advised Eliezer.  "when you speak into the mike, all the
electronics should be ignored as transparent to the user.  Even though you
are speaking into a mike, address the audience directly. ONLY the audience
should be the subject of your address!"

    And so it was. Abraham addressed the audience via the electronic
system and things went smoothly.

    One day, Eliezer caught he flu and was unable to assist Abraham's
broadcast. Feebly, Abraham set up the sound system and did what he could.
His address went OK, but it was clear that Eliezer was a wizard at
electronics and had been using sophisticated techniques of raising and
lowering the volume to make Abraham's speech all the more effective.

    At the end of Abraham's address, he uttered a prayer that had
nothing to do with the content of his speech. Abraham asked, "Please restore
Eliezer to health, Please have the mikes and speakers work optimally.
Please fine-tune the sound system, etc."

Abraham was not addressing the sound system in order to deliver the
CONTENTS of his speech. Rather now Abraham was requesting intercession that
the sound system OPTIMIZE the impact of his speech.

Those who recite Machnisei Rachamim are not praying to Agents in terms of a
prayer. They are requesting aid and assistance that the prayers get
delivered OK.  Another example:
    I might address a package to President Clinton in the White House
and as an aside I can tell the postman to be very careful in handling the
parcel...

So on one level, Machnisei Rachamim is not objectionable at all, it is not
truly a prayer to a "being other than G-d" rather it is just a request that
those agents do their tasks well in order to deliver the precious parcel of
prayers.

On another level, those who do object to Machnisei Rachamim can rightfully
cite that on a plain level, it is phrased as a request to being other than
G-d and had no place in a Tefillah, either because of how it is appears as
peshat  or because the unsophisticated might not get the nuance and
distinction made above and therefore it is better omitted.

Machnisei is therefore both OK and objectionable, just on different planes
of reference.

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

It is generally assumed, based on the tefillah zakah, that if a person A
wronged person B, person A will be forgiven if he does tshuvah bein adam
lamokom and person B, without any prompting from person A, unilaterally
forgives person A.  I would like to question this assumption.

Yoma 87a notes that Rav Zeirah, when he knew that someone had wronged him,
would make sure to walk near the person so that the person would notice him
and ask him (Rav Zeirah) for mechilah.  Similarly, the gemera tells the
story that Rav, who had been wronged by a butcher, went to the butcher on
Erev Yom Kippur so that the butcher would ask him for mechilah.  Rav Huna
met him on the way and warned him that (presumably because the butcher was
ill-tempered), Rav's visit to the butcher would result in the butcher's
death.  And in fact, this occurred--the butcher, seeing Rav, said, "I don't
want to have anything to do with you," whereupon the butcher was killed in a
freak accident.

Rav Yitzchak Mirsky, in "Hegyonei Halcha" quotes two latter-day achronim
explaining this gemara.  Rav YM Charlap understood from this gemara that
there is a requirement for A to mollify B and that unilateral mechilah by B
is insufficient.  Rav Yitzchak Arieli, in Yerach Eisanim, believes that Rav
Zeirah and Rav cannot serve as an example for ordinary individuals because
they were talmidei chachamim and kavod hatorah is at stake -- a talmid
chacham cannot be mochel on kavod hatorah.  

I find R. Charlap's explanation more compelling based on pashtus hagemara.
The gemara is, at this point, illustrating the concept of mechilah--a couple
of lines before, the gemara talks about sending 10 people to the grave of
one who has died to ask for mechilah.  The concept that kavod hatorah is
different, if mentioned at all in this gemara, is referred to according to
the girsas haRif (and psak of the Rambam) on the next amud (87b), where our
gemara says "Rav sha'ani" and the Rif is gores "rabo sha'ani."

I would also like to be m'dayek in the Rambam, Hil. Tshuva 2:9.  The Rambam
(1) first talks about A who has wronged B by stealing from him; the Rambam
says that A will not receive kaparah until he has returned the money and
mollified (be m'ratzeh) B, and even after he has returned the money he must
mollify him and ask him until he forgives him.  The Rambam then (2) says
that even if A merely hurt B through words, A must mollify him until B
forgives him.

The juxtaposition of (1) with (2) implies some similarity.  Surely A does
not achieve kaparah in case (1) merely because B has forgiven him if A never
returns the money.  I would like to argue (though I admit that it's
arguable), that this is true of case (2) as well--A must mollify B, not
merely rely upon B's unilateral decision to forgive.

In fact, if all that is required is that B forgive, shouldn't the Rambam
have written something like, "A will not achieve kaparah until B has
forgiven him."  Why talk about mollification (ritzui) if mollification is a
means rather than an end?

I believe that mollification is an end.  There is a Brisker torah (which I
heard from Rav Azarya Berzon) about the Rambam on "Lo sisna es achicha
b'lvavecha; hoche'ach to'cheach es amisecha"--a person shouldn't hold in his
anger at someone but should speak to him and thereby release the anger.  If
B unilaterally forgives A without A mollifying B, B (unless he is a real
tzaddik) probably harbors some resentment towards A.  When A asks B for
mechilah for the particular incident (rather than a quick "are you mochel me
for anything I might have done to you" asked in shul), B is truly mollified
(mispayes/ mfuyas).

Based on this, I agree with those who argued in
http://www.thejewishweek.com/jwcurr.exe?0009292 that mechila-asking is
best done personally, rather than by e-mail (unless the original wronging
was done via e-mail). Halachically, mechilah via email is efficacious,
but I would think that there are degrees of mechilah (just as there are
degrees of tshuvah).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Davening mussaf this R"H, I noticed an apparent ambiguity. When mentioing
the karbanos brought, we say:

"U-minchasam ve-niskeyhem k'm'dubar... U-shnei temidim ke-hilchasam"

I.e. we mention the temidim.
Immediately afterward, we say:

"Milvad olas ha-chodesh... ve-olas ha-tamid u-minchasah."

Now, how could the afformentioned be "Not including the Olas ha-tamid," if
the Olas ha-tamid is indeed mentioned???

I asked a few friends, and B"H one of them the following day came up with a
Cheshek Shlomo (back of your maseches R"H - I believe somewhere around daf
29) who quotes Nodah Be-Yehudah who makes precisely this point.
He ammends the tefilah by taking out of the second verse "ve-olas ha-tamid
u-minchasah".
Cheshek Shlomo says that we should actually delete the words "U-shnei
temidim ke-hilchasam," as they are just liturgy, whereas the second are a
direct quote of the pasuk in Pinchas.

Any comments??
EYH

:          If I become aware of the shittas a Gr"a, explaining the Diyuk of
: the language of the Rambam formulating ChHaSh"tz as Tefillas Hatzibur
: as requiring standing for the repetition as well, a chumra adopted by
: the Brisker world, and I find that logic compelling, am I not choosing
: to observe what might be characterized as a chumroh based on the
: attractiveness of the S'varah?

Attractiveness or emes? If it is a question of intellectual aesthetics,
then it is a chumrah. If it is emes, then it is the halacha.
(Interestingly, the Hebrew lashon "hiddur" also implies aesthetic
attractiveness.)

GChT,
Shlomo Godick

During aseres y'mei tshuvah, we ask mechilah from fellow Orthodox Jews.

Questions:
1.  Why don't we ask mechilah from non-frum Jews?  
2.  Is there a requirement to ask mechilah from non-Jews (e.g., co-workers)?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

RM Feldman wrote:

> During aseres y'mei tshuvah, we ask mechilah from fellow Orthodox Jews.
     
> Questions:
> 1.  Why don't we ask mechilah from non-frum Jews?  
> 2.  Is there a requirement to ask mechilah from non-Jews (e.g., co-workers)?
     
The question is what issurim to aply to non-frum Jews and gentiles.  Lashon 
hara?  Ona'as devarim?  Gezel?

Here's are some more related questions:

If you violate an issur derabbanan, such as saying avak lashon hara about 
someone, do you have to ask for mechilah or not?  Did you violate a bein adam 
lechaveiro or bein adam laMakom?  Is this tied to the gavra/cheftza chakirah 
about issurim derabbanan?

Gil Student

>> Do you allow fish on Rosh Hashana or forbid it?
> Who forbids and why?

I have heard that the reason some don't eat fish on Rosh Hashanah is that the 
word 'dagah' sounds a bit like 'da'agah.'

Over Yom Tov, I read for the first time the following d'var torah
explaining the mahloket between R. Yosi and the Rabbanan in Rosh Hashanah
26a abour kot ha-shofarot k'sheirot in terms of a Midrash Tanhuma on the
Akeida. The d'var torah is taken from the volume Sh'vivei Eish published
by the talmidim of the Dor Revi'i in 1904 in honor of the 25th anniversary
of his becoming the Rov of Klausenburg. I hope to post this and other
d'vrei torah on parashat ha'shavua in a new website that my brother and I
are launching and is now under construction. Further details to follow.
Since this is a time of tzarah for k'lal Yisrael, the words of the Dor
Revi'i are especially relevant. May his z'khut and those of all avoteinu
ha-k'doshim be recalled in our behalf by ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu.


In Rosh Hashanah 26a, the Mishnah says that all horns (shofarot)
except that of a cow (parah) may be used to fulfill the commandment to
sound the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, because the horn of a cow is called
"keren." R. Yosi disagrees because every shofar is called "keren" as
it is written bim'shokh keren ha-yoveil. In the Gemara it is written,
"Did not R. Yosi speak correctly? But the Rabbanan hold that every
shofar is called both keren and shofar, but the horn of a cow is called
only keren, but not shofar."

It appears that the substance of this Mishnah can be explained agadically
according to the Midrash Tanhuma on parashat vayeira. "Avraham said
to G-d after the akeida, I had the following response in my heart with
which I could have answered You: Yesterday You told me, 'ki b-yitzhak
yikarei l'kha zora' and now You say to me 'offer him up as a sacrifice'?
But I overcame my evil inclination and I did not answer You. So, when the
children of Yitzhak will sin and enter into difficulty, may the akeidah
be remembered for their sake, and may it be considered before You as if
his ashes were collected on top of the altar, and may You forgive them
and save them from their trouble.'

"Ha-kadosh barukh hu answered him: 'You said your piece. Now I will
say mine: The children of Yitzhak will sin before me in the future,
and I will judge them on the day of Rosh Hashanah. But if they ask
me to find some merit on their behalf, and that I should remember the
akeidah of Yitzhak, let them sound before me the shofar of this.

Avraham said, "And what is a shofar?"

"Look behind you."

Immediately Avraham lifted up his eyes and he saw and behold a ram was
caught in a thistle by his horns."

And our master explained this discussion by first considering the verse
"And he saw and behold a ram." For it is a great wonder that since
the whole purpose of offering a sacrifice is that the one offering a
sacrifice, by offering the life of the sacrifice in place of his own,
is thereby inspired to repent, there was no visible purpose in offering
the ram after the akeidah. Avraham our father and his son had been
ready and willing with all their souls to go through with the akeidah,
so that each had in the fullest measure achieved this holy feeling that
can be attained only by offering a sacrifice. And, when we reflect,
it would seem that Avraham our father, through the akeidah purified
and perfected his character and ingrained in his descendants till the
end of time to the degree that it became their inborn nature that they
would stand like a pillar of iron against those who would push them away
from the belief in G-d, so that even when their knowledge was lacking,
our people have never ceased to be willing to give over their lives
and to be thrown in the fire. Even women and children stretched out
their necks for the sanctification of G-d˘s name rather than renounce
their faith. And the aptitude for this holy feeling has been passed down
from generation to generation and its source is the akeidah. However,
the essential test of the akeidah was not the act of the akeidah itself,
because Avraham our father had already been thrown into a fiery furnace,
and the Torah does not even bother to tell of the greatness of his
holiness in this incident. Rather, the wonder of his holiness and
righteousness is evident in his not questioning the traits of the
Blessed One even though he had a basis for questioning, and, indeed,
for raising a powerful and unanswerable contradiction. And this is an
amazing level of trust that cannot be implanted in the soul of a person
except by the effort of performing very many good deeds and by staying
free of any stain and blemish, as indeed, Avraham our father truly was.
However, each and every child of Israel is obligated not to doubt whether
he would withstand the test of sacrificing his life in a time of need,
but the main effort must be to sanctify himself all the days of his life
in his service of G-d.

Now the discussion between Avraham and ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu can be
properly understood. For Avraham wanted ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu to forgive
the coming generations because of the trait that stems from the act
of the Akeidah: their willingness to sacrifice their lives. And so
Hashem Yitbarakh answered him, "if they want me to find a merit in
their behalf let them sound the shofar of this before me." And Avraham
our father was astonished. "What is the shofar?" I.e., what is more
lofty, and what merit is there that could be greater than the trait of
willingness to sacrifice one˘s own life? [In other words, Avraham is
asking, what is the significance of this puny ram˘s horn in comparison
with the willingness I just demonstrated to sacrifice Yitzhak on your
command? - DG] Hakadosh Barukh Hu answered him. "Look behind you."
By which He meant, "look at your constant good deeds from your infancy
until today, by which you perfected yourself to become exactly like
a sacrifice." And then he saw and behold a ram, just like a sacrifice,
free from any blemish in the category of "hakriveihu, na l˘pithatekha."
It is only such a creature that is fit to be brought to the altar.

And according to this, one can say that the word "keren" refers to the
being itself and the power it has to perform action. And it appears
that this power ("keren") is the power that is ingrained in the heart of
every child of Israel to sacrifice his life to sanctify the name of G-d.
However, the word "shofar" refers to the constant good deeds, as it is
written "beautify your deeds" (shifru ma˘asseikhem). And according to
what has been said, a child of Israel must seek to achieve both. And that
is why the Rabbanan say in the Mishnah with which we started (in accord
with whom the halakha is decided) that we need both, keren and shofar.
And in this merit, may the transgressions of Israel be forgiven.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

	I was thinking about the explanation of Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky's
psak which I posted here a few days ago (in rotten transliteration):

	If one takes the position that accent does not define the meaning, so
that the "posuk stands on its own" to paraphrase RYK, why is that
different from nikud? Both do not appear in the sefer yet are part
of mesorah. I only recall one example from the Gemara of "correctibles"
and that is yehudim/yehudiim, which is correctible in the Torah but not
in the Megila.

	Any other examples which could shed light on the difference between
nikud and accent, or any observations on the difference?

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:30:21 -0400 Eliyohu Hoffmann said:
>"U-minchasam ve-niskeyhem k'm'dubar... U-shnei temidim ke-hilchasam"
>I.e. we mention the temidim.
>Immediately afterward, we say:
>"Milvad olas ha-chodesh... ve-olas ha-tamid u-minchasah."
>Now, how could the afformentioned be "Not including the Olas ha-tamid," if
>the Olas ha-tamid is indeed mentioned???
...
>Cheshek Shlomo says that we should actually delete the words "U-shnei
>temidim ke-hilchasam," as they are just liturgy, whereas the second are a
>direct quote of the pasuk in Pinchas.

Here are some quick sources that MIGHT address this. See the Baer Siddur
p. 397 where he offers three sources for an alternative FFDM Girsa:
Rokeach
Maharil
Yosif Omeitz 971

If you have time to research these, please let us know what you find.

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 02:58:12PM +0200, Shlomo Godick wrote:
: Attractiveness or emes? If it is a question of intellectual aesthetics,
: then it is a chumrah. If it is emes, then it is the halacha.

Mah beinaihu?

Isn't intellectual aesthetics only meaningful because it tends to be
an indication of emesdikeit?

In science, this is called Occam's Razor.

I would also argue that pesak halachah is more about which emes one ought
to follow than whether or not the idea is emes.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

It's pretty well known that there is a chiyuv to ask for mchila 3 times and 
then " einu zakuk lo"(s"a o"c 606:1).  

Question: Does this mean that somehow HKB"H is mochel for you anyway or that 
you have no chiyuv to request mchilla after that point but you would still be 
punished?

GCT,
Joel RIch

Shlomo asked for an explanation of the short paragraph in the amidah for
the Yomim Nora'im which ends with Hamelech Hakodosh.  In what way, he
wonders does the verse that is cited demonstrate the proposition that
Hashem is kodosh and norah.  The verse is found in Yeshaya (Is. 5: 16)
and is stated in the context of the severe punishment that will be meted
out to the arrogant.  Since Hashem is kodosh, He can not forever
tolerate the injustice done by those who consider themselves mighty and
above any moral law.  When the day of reckoning comes and the high and
mighty are laid low in a particularly fitting manner, then G-D's power
is made manifest (as in the drowning of the Egyptian army in the Yam
Suf), and He gains the reputation of awesomeness (Sh'mo norah).  This
feeling of universal awe becomes particularly evident when the same
event which causes the destruction of the arrogant is used to save and
elevate the downtrodden.  Then the Master of nature and world events is
seen also as the source of all morality and goodness.  Thus the nature
of G-D is recognized as elevated, holy, and unique.   The final
liberation of the Jews from their Egyptian oppressors together with the
drowning of the latter is a good illustration of this phenomenon - as is
Yisro's reaction upon hearing of the event from his son-in-law.  The
same sentiment can be found near the end of the Ha'azinu song.
Referring to Hashem's great day of reckoning when the non-believing
oppressor nations will be laid low and Israel will be saved, it says:
"See now! that I, I am He (who Is)! and there is no god (together) with
Me.  I slay and bring to life, I have smashed and I will heal, and there
is no escaping My power" (Deut. 32: 39).

May it be His will that the current conflict in the Holy Land come to an
end by making it evident what is holy and who are the people destined
for holiness.

Yitzchok Zlochower

On 2 Oct 00, at 14:35, JoshHoff@aol.com wrote:

> >> Do you allow fish on Rosh Hashana or forbid it?
> > Who forbids and why?
> 
> I have heard that the reason some don't eat fish on Rosh Hashanah is that the 
> word 'dagah' sounds a bit like 'da'agah.'

FWIW, we are noheg to eat fish and say "she'nifre v'nirbe k'dagim." 

-- 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

Gmar Chasima Tova (or Gmar Chatima Tova,
depending on your preference).
May you and yours be sealed in
the books of life, health and happiness.

On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 09:26:36PM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: It's pretty well known that there is a chiyuv to ask for mchila 3 times and 
: then " einu zakuk lo"(s"a o"c 606:1).  
: Question: Does this mean that somehow HKB"H is mochel for you anyway or that 
: you have no chiyuv to request mchilla after that point but you would still be 
: punished?

Where would be the tzidduk hadin in the latter? Should A's onesh be worse
because B enjoys carrying a chip on his shoulder? I had always assumed that
kapparah requires you doing your upmost to eradicate the cheit, and not on
your hatzlachah.

FWIW, I would think that pressing on in asking mechilah when you know the
person isn't granting it could involve lifnei iveir.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

The Mateh Efraim (183:3) brings two shitos that hold that one should refrain
from eating fish on RH.

1) fish is very chaviv to people and we want to minimize fulfilling our
taivos on RH to show our "aimas hadin."

2) because fish is sometimes spelled with an alef in between the daled and
the gimel, this hints to fear.

The ME concludes, however, that it is our custom ("b'medinosainu") to try to
have fish on RH, as it is a segulah for piryah v'rivyah.  The Elef L'Magen
adds that fish don't have eyelids - their eyes are always open; and our
kavanah should be that Hashem, Whose "eyes" are always open (e.g., "Lo yanum
v'lo yishan..."), should have mercy on us.


KT and GCT

Aryeh

On 3 Oct 2000, at 8:22, Micha Berger wrote:
> FWIW, I would think that pressing on in asking mechilah when you know
> the person isn't granting it could involve lifnei iveir.

What if the person you are asking for mechila is your Rebbe, where 
you are mechuyav to ask even more than three times?

-- Carl

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.

A discussion recently raised the following question:

When we announce the date of Rosh Chodesh during Kiddush Livanah, why
isn't it al t'nai that ch"v we still don't have a centralized beis din?

And, would it make a difference whether the announced Rosh Chodesh is after
Wednesday? If Hillel haZakein's callendar makes R"Ch on Sunday, and Eliyahu
haNavi hadn't arrived yet by Shabbos, can we assume that there won't be
such a beis din in time for them to mekaddeish hachodesh?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 09:40:05AM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
:            If Hillel haZakein's callendar...

Make that "Hillel's calendar". Aside from my usual humorous spelling, I
wrote the wrong Hillel.

-mi

On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 09:40:05AM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
:            If Hillel haZakein's callendar...

Make that "Hillel's calendar". Aside from my usual humorous spelling, I
wrote the wrong Hillel.

-mi

Is there a limit in how many times to rise for a parent as there is for
a rebbi?

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> When we announce the date of Rosh Chodesh during Kiddush Livanah, why isn't
> it al t'nai that ch"v we still don't have a centralized beis din?

The simplest answer might be acc. to the Rambam who writes (I think in
Sefer HaMitzvos) that our calendar (through cheshbon) works because its
calculations were ratified by the central B"D at the time of Hillel II -
IOW, the chodesh has already been mekudash by B"D. A new kiddush by
Mashiach's B"D would be unneccesary.

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


[ 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         ]