Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 015

Thursday, May 22 2003

• Re: Persian Era
• astrology; avoda zara
• Re: eilu v'eilu
• Naming a Child
• Re: Naming a Child
• Re: Naming a Child
• Re: Naming a Child
• shavuot greenery
• Re: Persian Era
• Re: Bar Ilan Torah U mada lectures
• PErsian period
• Reshus for benching
• Re: astrology; avoda zara
• RE: re: vernacular
• Birshus ba'alas habayis, nivarech...
• (Fwd) Re: Avodah Zarah 069: Drinking and promiscuity
• Fw: eilu v'eilu
• Molad and Time Zones
• Re: Molad and Time Zones

RYGB wrote:
 >Such flippancy from a frum fellow (I assume the speaker was frum) is
 >unfortunate, to put it mildy.

Why is there such theological importance to the acceptance of Seder Olam
Rabbah as being historically accurate?

It seems that R' Yosei bar Chalafta did a very good job trying to
reconstruct the chronology using Tanakh as his only source. Nowadays,
though, we have access to other sources, so we know that there were
other kings not mentioned in Tanakh, and that some kings reigned past
the last year in which they are mentioned in Tanakh.

We have no problem saying that Chazal recorded some medical and scientific
knowlege that was accepted in their time, but is considered faulty today.
This in no way diminishes our belief that Chazal were the transmitters
of the authentic halakhic tradition. I don't see what the problem is in
suggesting that history, much like science, is an area in which Chazal
could be speaking outside of their roles as ba'alei hamesorah.

--D.C.

RYGB
> We recently had in Avodah Zara a sugya about the "validity" of the
> kochos to which idolators direct their worship. I think (ans in personal
> conversation R' David Riceman was inclined to concur) that this sugya is
> linked to the issue of the "validity" of magic that we discussed here
> not too long ago - and the preponderance of the opinion in the Gemara
> is that it has no validity - like the Rambam. QED :-) .

A priori, there would seem to be a distinction between believing in
the power of avoda zara and that of magic and astrology) - at least
many rishonim (eg rashba) seemed to hold. What is the basis for your
belief that the two are linked? Does any rishon pre rambam (or even post
rambam..) make this connection?

Meir Shinnar

On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 01:28:46AM +0300, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Rashi is presenting a conceptual distinction between the dispute over
: fact as to what was actually said (historical information) and halachic
: disputes where the sevora can be true (eilu v'eilu) but not applicable
: in this case. He is saying that contradictory historical facts can not
: both be true. In contrast conflicts over the halachic analysis can be
: true even though they might not be applicable in this particular case.

Quibble: In the case of Hasach, it's not halachic analysis of two
different cases (each claiming to be historical). Rather it's a lesson
learned from each version of the story. In any case, both lessons could
coexist without asserting that conflicting histories did.

Similarly, RMMS learns a lesson from three opinions about the sequencing
of Moshe's first 40 days on Har Sinai, the eigel, the tzivui of building
the mishkan and the actual mishkan. The lesson assigns a meaning to
each, and an archetype for whom that lesson applies (tzaddiq, rasha,
ba'al teshuvah).

But this is a lesson learned from the conflicting shitos, and need not
be an assertion that all three /acutally/ happened. Rather, that Chazal
saw merit in all three; all three /ought/ to have happened.

The Maharal's notion of neis requires that conflicting histories exist.
There is a world in which the water was water, another in which it
was dam.

This is a very different context. But it is a maqor for suspending the
Aristotilian law of contradiction (you can't have any) when it comes to
historical questions.

Which is slightly different than but not in contradiction to what was
posted besheim R' Hutner:
: Rav Hutner says - concerning what was actually done in the Mishkan - one
: side corresponds to what happened historically and the other doesn't. His
: chidush is not that both sides of a mutually exclusive dispute are
: historically accurate but that they both can be emes only because it
: was G-d's will that the facts be concealed. It is Emes only because it
: was G-d's will that both positions be presented by Chazal. Rav Hutner
: limits eilu v'eilu for historical facts only to "chochmei hamesorah"
: and for information that was concealed from all.

: Rashi does not define eilu v'eilu as Rav Hutner i.e., that emes is a view
: that Gd wants expressed. Rashi's defintion of the word Emes is whether
: it corresponds to reality ie did it happen historically? Rashi is saying
: that eilu v'eilu does not apply to historic reality since only one side
: actually happened.

Well, WRT tact (eg who did Sarah call old?) we already saw argument that
"emes" need not coincide with "truth".

[General discussion of eilu va'eilu deleted. I haven't had anything new
on the subject since our discussion of halachic pluralism in vol 1.]

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 34th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            4 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Yesod sheb'Hod: How does submission result in
Fax: (413) 403-9905                      and maintain a stable relationship?

This is from an article on Aish.com
(http://www.aish.com/literacy/lifecycle/Naming_Your_Child.asp):

"Further, the Talmud tells us that parents receive one-sixtieth of
prophecy when picking a name. An angel comes to the parents and whispers
the Jewish name that the new baby will embody."

Does anyone know where in the Talmud this can be found? Also, I have
three children and have never heard an angel whisper to me. Has anyone
here heard the whisper?

Gil Student

On 21 May 2003 at 14:23, Gil Student wrote:
> This is from an article on Aish.com
> (http://www.aish.com/literacy/lifecycle/Naming_Your_Child.asp):
> 
> "Further, the Talmud tells us that parents receive one-sixtieth of
> prophecy when picking a name. An angel comes to the parents and
> whispers the Jewish name that the new baby will embody."
> 
> Does anyone know where in the Talmud this can be found? 

The Artscroll Bris Mila has a lengthy piece in the introduction on giving
names. They bring the Gemara in Yoma 83b (the innkeeper named Kidor),
Tanchuma Ha'azinu 7, and Breishis Rabba 37:7. My quick skim did not
bring the ma'amar cited above.

> Also, I have
> three children and have never heard an angel whisper to me. Has anyone
> here heard the whisper?

I don't know if I'd quite describe it that way, but I think we did,
if you modify the concept of the whisper.

The Breishis Rabba cited above brings a meimra of R. Shimon Ben Gamliel
that says that the rishonim who had ruach ha'kodesh gave original names,
but we who don't name after our forefathers.

By the time Meir Simcha was born 16 months ago, we had used some part
of all our grandparents' z"l names. (Avigayil, the eldest, is the only
other child who is not named after one of our grandparents. She got her
first name because we liked the name, and her middle name because we
picked Sara - another of the women that the Gemara lists as the most
beautiful in the world - and perhaps that's another whisper of ruach
ha'kodesh, but I think the connection is clearer in Meir Simcha's case,
because Avigayil might have gotten a different middle name had we known
the real name of one of Adina's grandmothers who was still alive at the
time). Adina REALLY wanted to name him Meir, and I wasn't that crazy about
it but was willing to go along. Since ALL of our kids have two names,
we really wanted to give him a second name. But what to do? We talked
about another middle name (we know someone who has a son named Meir
xxx), but we decided against it. Then I said "it's almost Purim - what
would go with Purim?" And at the same time we both said "Ora v'Simcha -
Meir Simcha." And that's how he got his name. And then I said, "wait -
I think that's the Ohr Sameyach's name," and I took my Ohr Sameyach al
ha'Rambam off the shelf, and sure enough.... BE"H he should grow up to be
a talmid chacham like his namesake.... (Our eldest son, Avraham Yaakov
(no, I'm not a Sadigurer - he's named for my father's father z"l),
took our copy of Reb Scroll's biography of the Ohr Sameyach for kids
and photocopied a couple of pictures of R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk zt"l
and hung them over Meir Simcha's crib next to the Malach Raziel:-).

I think that if you have to come up with a name yourself and don't have
someone for whom to name a child, perhaps you feel the whisper of the
ruach ha'kodesh more. BE"H you should have the opportunity many times.

-- 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 Sherer wrote:
>>Does anyone know where in the Talmud this can be found?
>My quick skim did not bring the ma'amar cited above.

In other words, no.  I have the same book that you do.

>The Breishis Rabba cited above brings a meimra of R.
>Shimon Ben Gamliel that says that the rishonim who had
>ruach ha'kodesh gave original names, but we who don't
>name after our forefathers...

>I think that if you have to come up with a name yourself
>and don't have someone for whom to name a child,
>perhaps you feel the whisper of the ruach ha'kodesh
>more. BE"H you should have the opportunity many times.

Read the midrash above one more time.

FWIW, we named my youngest Shmuel Ya'akov after two relatives and, we
later realized, he was born a little after R' Shmuel Ya'akov Weinberg
has passed away. Perhaps that was ruach ha-kodesh. On the other hand,
I had chosen the name long before the rosh yeshiva had passed away.
Do you think HKBH killed this famous rosh yeshiva so that my son, whom
I was going to name Shmuel Ya'akov, would be named after him? I don't
think so, but who am I to question coinc... I mean hashgachah peratis.

Gil Student

Gil Student wrote:
>  Also, I have
> three children and have never heard an angel whisper to me. Has anyone
> here heard the whisper?

See Kether Shem Tov, ed. Kehot, #146 (p.36).

David Riceman

The mishna brura(O"C 294:10) states that the Vilna Gaon sought to
do away with this minhag because the nations of the world do this on
their holidays. Does anyone know if this is brought down in the works
of the Gaon or his students? I was surprised because aiui the Gaon held
by chukat hagoyim that as long as Jews could've derived custom with
reason on their own it's not chukat(see biur hagra 188:7)

KT
Joel Rich

At 08:16 PM 5/21/03 -0400, Michael Frankel wrote:
>1. Velikofsky never condensed the Persian period at all. He agrees it's
>just as long as all the real historians claim it is....

>2. R. Schwaab's position is hardly "unsubstantiated" as it reflects the
>universal consensus of every scholarly historical assessment ever assayed
>on the topic and is substantiated by the archeological and textual record.
>seder olom rabboh is the unsubstantiated source, in the plain meaning of
>the term. Unsubstantiated of course does not logically equate with
>incorrect...

The first assertion may be inaccurate, but not incorrect. The second
assertion is correct and appropriate.

1. Velikovsky condensed history. He compacted events on the Egyptian side.
Others have followed his lead (Micha cited the Aronson references)
and building on V's research compacted the Persian history.

R' Schwab's approach is unsubstantiated from Chazal and any ancillary
literature to Chazal that we possess. It is sheer speculation, and
speculation of the kind that cannot stand in a scientific sense to
be proven - viz., if you cannot find evidence of a "cover-up" that is
no evidence against the cover-up, because it just shows you how well
the cover-up succeeded! That it is substantiated by extrinsic (i.e.,
non-Talmudic and non-Jewish) sources is not substantiation of the cover-up
theory, but rather the data that the the theory is meant to explain away.

[Email #2. -mi]

At 11:06 AM 5/21/03 -0400, [RDC] wrote:
>>Such flippancy from a frum fellow (I assume the speaker was frum) is
>>unfortunate, to put it mildy.

>Why is there such theological importance to the acceptance of Seder Olam
>Rabbah as being historically accurate?
...

I did not say the lecturer was being heretical - I said flippant and I
meant flippant. I do not see why Chazal are any less to be trusted than
Herodotus. Why not see Chazal as a question looming up upon Herodotus,
and assume his knowledge was faulty, rather than the other way around?!

KT,
YGB 

At 02:52 AM 5/16/03 +0300, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> I had a discussion concerning R' Schwab's original assertion that the
> Persian kings lasted much longer than 54 years [he later retracted due
> to the strong attacks against him] with one of the leading talmidei
> chachomim in Baltimore several years ago. He said it is pashut that R'
> Schwab's original assertion was correct. He said there is simply no way
> you can read Rashi and other Rishonim on Tanach and maintain that there
> was only 54 years.....

FYI, RSS visited Basel a number of years ago (20+?) and stayed with a
distant relative of his who is TC. I have personal connections with the
TC and he told be he asked RSS about the retraction. RSS told him that
the retraction was only to ward off the attackers on his right, but that
it was clear that the gmara in AZ 9 is not to be interpreted literally.

Arie

[RDC:]
> We have no problem saying that Chazal recorded some medical and scientific
> knowlege that was accepted in their time, but is considered faulty today.
> This in no way diminishes our belief that Chazal were the transmitters
> of the authentic halakhic tradition. I don't see what the problem is in
> suggesting that history, much like science, is an area in which Chazal
> could be speaking outside of their roles as ba'alei hamesorah.

There is a very detrimental outcome to acceptance of Gentile chronology -
the chain of mesorah recorded in Avos no linger works and there appear
large gaps in Torah transmission that we can't account for. This should
be enough of a reason to reject it.

M. Levin

"Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@fandz.com> wrote [on Areivim -mi]:
> As I said, I do say bireshus for bentsching. Why if you don't do it
> for Motzi?

Because the Gemara says tavo me'era lemi shebanav uvenei veiso mevarchim
bishevilo. That refers to hamotzi, which is always the prerogative and
obligation (kedei sheyivtza be'ayin tova)of the ba'al habayis. B"Hm is
not, it really "belongs" to the guests, but in any event not necessarily
to the ba'al habayis.

This is all sevara and, as I said, I may be wrong. There's also no issue
of hefsek where there may be before hamotzi.

> And how do you refer to your sons? Maranan v'rabanan v'rabosay?

As R' Akiva said, if it's in the siddur it must be a tefila <g>. OTOH
the only time we have mezuman (not THAT kind <g>!)is Shabbos (I rarely
wash during the week, and only one boy is home then) and then my FIL is
there, so it can refer to him.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

At 09:05 PM 5/21/03 -0400, [R' Meir Shinnar] wrote:
>> We recently had in Avodah Zara a sugya about the "validity" of the
>> kochos to which idolators direct their worship. I think (ans in personal
>> conversation R' David Riceman was inclined to concur) that this sugya is
>> linked to the issue of the "validity" of magic that we discussed here
>> not too long ago - and the preponderance of the opinion in the Gemara
>> is that it has no validity - like the Rambam. QED:-) .

>A priori, there would seem to be a distinction between believing in
>the power of avoda zara and that of magic and astrology) - at least
>many rishonim (eg rashba) seemed to hold. What is the basis for your
>belief that the two are linked? Does any rishon pre rambam (or even post
>rambam..) make this connection?

I did not look. I think there is a connection and therefore proffered it.

KT,
YGB 

From: remt@juno.com <remt@juno.com> on Areivim
>     "Birshus" comes from OC 167:14, in the RM"A: 
> "V'ham'vareich yomar t'chilah 'birshus morai v'rabosai.'"

The MB ad. loc. says that the reason for saying "birshus..." is that
it is a trait of humility for the "gadol" or owner of the house to ask
permission from others--as if they are greater than him. The context
of this in the Shulchan Arukh is that there are many people at the table.

Question: if the only people present are members of the family, is it
proper to say "birshus?" After all, parents don't ask permission from
children, and I would think that doing so would detract from kibbud
av v'em.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From Shoshana L. Boublil (on Areivim):
>> What about wife, mother, MIL?
>> In our house mother and father get equal mention.

From: Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> on Areivim
> Men and women are not counted jointly in a mezuman. You can (in theory, 
> under the proper circumstances which we won't go into here because it's a 
> digression:-) make a mezuman of 3 men, OR of 3 women, but NOT of 2+1 
> men&women. So when you invite or ask permission of your 
> fellow diners to start bentching, you are technically only 
> inviting/askingpermission of the 
> ones with whom you are making a mezuman, who might take priority over 
> you in leading the mezuman. So, for example, a men's mezuman doesn't 
> have to ask permission of the lady of the house to lead bentsching. 

Let's say that a widow has invited three male guests. Isn't she the
one who has the right--as the ba'alas ha'bayis--to designate which of
the three will lead the mezuman? In that case, wouldn't it be proper
for the one leading the mezmuman to say "birshus ba'alas habayis?"

Now, where the husband and wife are both there and they designate one
of their male guests to lead, in my house, it's often a joint decision
(at least where it's not clear who choose, I consult my wife as to who
to honor). Certainly, legally we are joint owners of our house (unlike
the situation bizman chazal)--and that is certainly true in a community
property state. So we are both the ba'alei habayis and I think that it's
appropriate for the mezamen to ask both of us permission.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Thought this one would interest the chevra.

-- Carl

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent:      	Thu, 22 May 2003 19:27:12 +0200
From:           	Mordecai Kornfeld <kornfeld@netvision.co.il>
Subject:        	Re: Avodah Zarah 069: Drinking and promiscuity
To:             	Lloyd Gould <lgould@TRINITYWALLSTREET.ORG>, mikeyk5@juno.com

(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________

                 THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
      brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
             Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
                     daf@dafyomi.co.il

 [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________

RE: Avodah Zarah 069: Drinking and promiscuity

Michael Kaner <mikeyk5@juno.com> had asked:
>>The Kollel wrote in the Insights to Avodah Zarah 69: "In addition, 
>>today the opposite situation exists -- more "observant" Jews are
>>suspected of drinking wine of Nochrim than of having immoral
>>relations" Is this statement from today or from the time of the
>>REMA?<<

The Kollel replied:
>>This is certainly true even today. If a person acquires a Kosher
>>wine and lets a Nochris touch it, the Hechsher on the wine will not
>>help (unless the wine is Mevushal, which the good ones are not). The
>>wine will become "Stam Yayin."<<

Lloyd Gould <lgould@trinitywallstreet.org> comments:

Dear Rabbi Kornfeld,

In our everyday business society here in NYC you don't even have to come
to promiscuity to concern ourselves with stam yainom. One may host a
business meeting and bring bottles of kosher wine and there is a concern
that one of the gentile's at the table would simply pour a glass for
himself before you have a chance to pour it form him. It happens more
often than one might think in offices on Wall Street. This gets to the
heart of the problem of how much of this particular halacha deals with
"separation from gentiles" and the effect this has on our contemporary
American reality that a good deal of business and social relationships
we share with gentile Americans brings us into some tension with various
halachot that are aimed at "separation." I would appreciate your comments
on this.

-------
The Kollel replies:

It certainly does seem as though this is the situation which the Chachamim
had in mind when they instituted these laws! The "inconvenience" has a
clear religious goal.

M. Kornfeld

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
majordomo@shemayisrael.com with this text in the body of the message:
unsubscribe daf-discuss

------- End of forwarded message -------

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.

RDE> Rashi is presenting a conceptual distinction between the dispute over fact
>> as to what was actually said (historical information) and halachic disputes
>> where the sevora can be true (eilu v'eilu) but not applicable in this case.

I disagree with this extrapolation. I think machlokes over "historical
facts" is also eilu v'eilu. In halachic disputes we normally have one
conclusion (lmaaseh) in spite of both sides being divrei Elokim chayim.
Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai argue over how many strings there are in
tzitzis, clearly a halachic dispute and eilu v'eilu. Yet the aggada in
Bava Basra 74a suggests bringing a historical proof as to who was right.
Another example of eilu v'eilu over historical facts.

RDE>> Rav Hutner says - concerning what was actually done in the Mishkan -

He says this is only a mashal for the numerous times we have machlokes.

RDE>  His
>> chidush is it is Emes only because it was G-d's
>> will that both positions be presented by Chazal. Rav Hutner limits eilu
>> v'eilu for historical facts only to "chochmei hamesorah" and for information
>> that was concealed from all.

parallel to the above mentioned Gemara in Bava Basra.

RDE> Rashi's defintion of the word Emes is whether it
>> corresponds to reality ie did it happen historically? Rashi is saying that
>> eilu v'eilu does not apply to historic reality since only one side actually
>> happened.

Not Rashi. Only your extrapolation. If you would be right, how would
Rashi answer Rav Hutner's question? Presumably Rashi cannot say that
half of all machlokes in Chazal is sheker.

RDE>> The Yam Shel Shlomo (Introduction to Bava Kama also Ritva Eiruvin 13b)
> also
>> addresses the question of historical facts and eilu v'eilu.  His answer is
> that 49 different ways were presented to
>> Moshe and the dispute in later generations is which is most applicable.  In
>> other words, the mere fact that there is a dispute in chazal does not make
>> it eilu v'eilu unless it were true that Moshe actually received the
>> contradictory alternatives. He obviously does not agree with Rav Hutner
>> since he could have said that G-d made the baalei mesora forget what was
>> given to Moshe and thus since it was ratzon HaShem that there be this
>> dispute it is still eilu v'eilu. Instead he says that they were all given
> at
>> the same time.

It could be that both answers are true. Rav Hutner never said that
there are not 49 panim l'Torah.


RDE>> Rav Moshe in the introduction to Igros Moshe says that even though one
> side
>> in a dispute is wrong corresponding to the objective nature of Torah - eilu
>> v'eilu is applicable since it only means that both have the value of the
>> mitzva of Torah study. Eilu v'eilu can apply to views that are not true.
>> This also seems to be in disagreement with the plain meaning of Rashi.

It is interesting that Rav Moshe extensively mentions Rashi in this piece
while ignoring the Rashi which you say disagrees with him. Of course
the way I learn Rashi there is no such difficulty on Rav Moshe.

>> Maharal also seems to reject the idea of eilu v'eilu applying to historical
>> disputes as well as most halachic disputes. He limits the term to the
>> dispute of Hillel and Shammai.

If accepted on face value, the Maharal would have to answer Rav Hutner's
question is half of all machlokes wrong and Rav Moshe's question is half
of all machlokes devoid of the mitzva of Torah study. See Maharal Derech
Chaim Perek 5 Mishna 17 where he says all other machlokes in Chazal as
almost at the level of Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai and both sides of
all such machlokes is "divrei Hashem yisborach"

Where is your Maharal?

RDE> Ran#3

Who is this?

RDE> [translation from R. Lampel]: "Since the words of those who declare
>> something unfit and and those who declare it fit are intrinsically
>> contradictory, it is impossible for both to be conforming to the
>> truth...Clearly one of the two opinions is the true one, and the other is
>> the opposite."

>>> Do you think the Pachad Yitzchak is arguing with Rashi?

RDE>> yes.

Doesn't he need a rishon to do this? Shouldn't he mention that he is only
like some/none Rishonim to his questionner? I think it is possible to
learn Rashi, Ritva, Rashal, Maharal, Rav Moshe and Rav Hutner as agreeing.

Shlomo Goldstein

On Areivim, we had a discussion on what language is used for announcing
the molad in shul. This led to a discussion of whether that announcement
should also clarify which time system is used in that announcement.

R' Ira Jacobson wrote <<< It's not exactly Jerusalem time, but rather
Cairo time and about 21 minutes ahead of Jerusalem time.>>>

I've seen this before but I do not understand it.

If you take the time which will be announced in shul next week, and
work backwards one month (29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 1 chelek)
at at time all the way back to Bereshis, you will find that Molad Tishre
of that year was at exactly 8:00 AM on Erev Shabbos -- the first Rosh
Hashana. (Trust me. I've done the math. Email me offlist if you want to
see it.)

That means that when HaShem wound up the universe and set it going, on
that very first day, the moon was directly between the sun and earth at
the moment which was 2 hours (2/12) into the day, as the Medrash says.

But I must ask: At that moment, part of the earth was moving into the
light, and part was moving into the evening. Which part of the earth was
it, where two hours of light lay to the east, and ten remaining hours were
still to the west? R' Ira Jacobson's sources would say that it was Cairo.

Why would this be? I would understand if it were Yerushalayim, or Gan
Eden (where Adam Harishon was about to be created), but *Cario*? Of what
significance is *Cairo*?

Akiva Miller

At 01:49 PM 22-05-03 -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com stated the following:
>On Areivim, we had a discussion on what language is used for announcing
>the molad in shul. This  led to a discussion of whether that announcement
>should also clarify which time system is used in that announcement.
>
>R' Ira Jacobson wrote <<< It's not exactly Jerusalem time, but rather
>Cairo time and about 21 minutes ahead of Jerusalem time.>>>
>
>I've seen this before but I do not understand it.

21 minutes is the difference between the time in Jerusalem and the
regional time (ofek Qahir).

An excellent exposition of this subject, which I am far from having
mastered completely, is given in Lu'ah Davar B`ito, 5755, "`Al Hakhrazat
hamolad beveit hakenesset," pp. 149-176.

Harav Genut explains in this year's Lu'ah, p. 1292, that the time that
has always appeared in lu'ahs, siddur, humashes and so forth, is the
average time in Jerusalem, while the time that appears in almanacs is
the regional time (in Israel GMT+0200), which is used throughout the time
zone, from somewhere in Egypt to somewhere in Iraq. He states that the
regional time is precise only at the longitude at the western border of
the time zone, and about 21 minutes will pass between the time that the
earth rotates between the Jerusalem longitude and the time zone border
at the same point above.

Adding the 21 minutes makes it possible to compare the true and average
molads.

The Lu'ah has explanations and tables galore, which would certainly be
of interest to the advanced student.

-----------------------
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:laser@ieee.org

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


[ 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         ]