Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 018

Tuesday, May 27 2003

• Re: Persian Era
• persian era
• Rabbi Schab's article onf Jewish Chronology
• Re: eilu v'eilu
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re:Birshus ba'alas habayis, nivarech...
• birshus list
• RE: Rabbi Schab's article onf Jewish Chronology
• Persian Era
• Re: Persian Era
• Shavers
• Re: Shavers
• keverim -Rambam
• Re: RW: An interesting question
• Rav Zev Leff on the neshomo - 'cheilek Elokah mimaal' - correct vs. incorrect
• (no subject)
• What happens to dead birds?
• Re: What happens to dead birds?
• Re: B'rshus - was Vernacular (was: ketuvah)
• Re: birshus list
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece

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

The traditional answer is cogently expressed by Rabbi Schwab in his
article on chronology

"9. Before we go any further, let us state our opinion emphatically that
the saintly Baal HaMeor neither could nor ever would have "rejected"
any statement by a Mishnaic authority and certainly not one by Rabbi
Yossi ben Chafta who is the author of Seder Olam. A special significance
was attached to the pronouncements of R. Josi..(Eruv. 51a, Gittin 67a,
Avoth de R. Nathan 18)cf. Jerus. Talmud end of Gittin VI.
10. In our case there were also Midrashic authorities who disagreed
with R. Josi i.e., Pirkei De R. Eliezer (49). However our traditional
chronology is based on Seder Olam because of the authority of its
author. It is therefore quite inconceivable that any post-Talmudic teacher
could possibly "reject" those chronological calculations which have been
made the subject of many a Talmudic discussion.."

Because of this attitude to R' Yossi, Rav Schwab found it impossible to
accept that he had simply erred or lacked adequate data. He viewed the
truth of Seder Olam part and parcel with the acceptance of the validity
of Chazal.

RYGB writes
<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?! >

Because Herodotus and other Greek writers were contemperanous with the
Persian era while Chazal lived some 500 years later. Moreover there is
much archaeological eveidence from Persia and other places showing a
lengthy Persian era. Josephus though noy identical with Herodotus has
much more than 54 years. No one is claiming that Herodotus was 100%
accurate. But he made up an awful lot of non-existent kings and many
Persian-Greek wars for Chazal to be right.
As I have said before simple pshat in Ezra/Nechemia is also closer to
the Greek version than to Chazal

Finally the question was phrased specifically to a frum professor
specializing in the Persian era. In other parts of his remarks he
cautioned against blindly accepting ancient records. Given his remarks
and background I find he hard to believe that all of a sudden he puts
all his trust in Herodotus against Chazal

--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 05/25/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

I thought it would be helpful that those debating the merit of Rav
Schwab's essay should have access to it and not rely on childhood memories
or hearsay. What follows is the major part of that essay. There are also
30 pages of Hebrew proofs which did not appear in the original but which
the family has preserved. A formal retraction of his "coverup theory"
appeared in his volumes of "Selected Writings" - but he insisted that
even though the explanation was not tenable the problem remained.


Excerpts from

Comparative Jewish Chronology (pp177-197)
in Jubilee Volume for Rav Yosef Breuer
by Rabbi Simon Schwab
[deleted his presentation of the traditional Jewish chronology pp177-180]

4. The Torah-true historian is now confronted with a truly vexing problem.
Ancient history of the Babylonian and Persian Empires presents us with
completely different data. These figures can hardly be doubted for
they appear to be the result of painstaking research by hundreds of
scholars and are borne out by profound erudition and by ever increasing
authoritative evidence. Sometimes small discrepancies of a year or tow
at the most have yet to be accounted for, but complete agreement seems
to be almost within reach at the present time…. Since according to Ezra
(6:15) the Second Temple was completed in the sixth year of Darius I,
the date following the secular chronology must have been 517 BCE; i.e.,
exactly 70 years after the date (again, established by secular historians)
for the destruction of the First Temple (587 BCE). Consequently the first
year of the era of the Second Temple was 517 BCE and not 351 BCE. As
long as we cannot doubt the date given for the destruction of the Second
Temple (70 CE) we are compelled to admit that the Bayis Sheini must
have existed for no less than 586 years instead of the 420 years given
by tradition. This amounts to a discrepancy of over 165 years compared
with our Jewish way of reckoning!
5. Furthermore there are at least nine Persian kings beginning with Cyrus
(seven of these reigned subsequent to the consecration of the Temple)
until the beginning of the Greek Era, during a period of well over 200
years. Compare with these figures the statements of Seder Olam and of
Talmudic-Rabbinic literature (Seder Olam 30, Rosh Hashanah 3b) which know
of only four Median-Persians kings ruling over a period of not more than
52 years, of which only 34 years belong to the period subsequent to the
building of the Second Temple.
6. The gravity of this intellectual dilemma posed by such enormous
discrepancies must not be underestimated. The unsuspecting students
-- including the pupils of our Yeshivoth and Beth Jacob High Schools -- 
are faced with a puzzle that appears insoluble. How could it have been
that our forebears had no knowledge of a period in history, otherwise
widely known and amply documented, which lasted over a span of 165 years
and which was less than 600 years removed in time from the days of the
Sages who recorded our traditional chronology in Seder Olam? Is it really
possible to assume that some form of historical amnesia had been allowed
to take possession of the collective memory of an entire people? This
should be quite like assuming that some group of recognized historians
of today would publish a textbook on medieval history, ignoring all the
records of, say, the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries of the Common
Era. Would this not seem inconceivable even for those who, unfortunately,
do not possess the necessary emunas chachomim to accept the world of
our Sages?
7. This enormous discrepancy between sacred tradition and secular data
would appear at first glance to frustrate any and all hope that it might
be possible to compile a comparative chronology acceptable to Orthodox
Jewry and secular historians alike. To faithful believers in the veracity
of our most sacred literature, both Biblical and Rabbinic, there seems
to be left only the following two alternatives between which to choose:
One: Faithfully to put our trust in the superior wisdom of our
inspired teachers of Torah who have arrived at the absolute Truth and,
consequently, to reject categorically and absolutely the right of any
secular scientist, even the most objective in his field to contradict our
convictions. In this case, it would mean that we would have to declare
that these 165 years which our Tradition has ignored are, in fact,
non-existent, and have been conjectured by secular historians out of the
clear blue sky. According to this method of reasoning, it would follow
that all the historical developments reported in connection with the
timetable of ancient history referring to that period are not history
but fiction and based on misinterpretation and misleading evidence.
Or Two: We might accept the unanimous opinion of secular historians
as coming as close to the objective truth as that is possible, but
make an ingenious attempt to interpret the Biblical data and to treat
the traditional Rabbinic chronology as mere Aggadic homily which may
lend itself to symbolic or allegorical evaluation.

This dilemma is most unfortunate. For it would appear that the only course
to take would be either to "correct" secular ancient history by 165 years
which we would then have to call "fictitious" or else to declare that
our traditional calendar is based not on historical calculations but on
Aggadic pronouncements. Even centuries ago, in his "Me'or Eynayim" (35),
Azariah de Rossi, a controversial figure in the annals of our people,
criticized the puzzling texts of Seder Olam and of the Talmud, much to
the righteous indication of contemporary and later Rabbinic scholars
(cf. R. David Gans in Tzemach David (#3448) and R. Jacob Emden to Seder
Olam 30).
....
9. Before we go any further, let us state our opinion emphatically that
the saintly Baal HaMeor neither could nor ever would have "rejected" any
statement by a Mishnaic authority and certainly not one by Rabbi Yossi
ben Chafta who is the author of Seder Olam... A special significance
was attached to the pronouncements of R. Josi..(Eruv. 51a, Gittin 67a,
Avoth de R. Nathan 18)cf. Jerus. Talmud end of Gittin VI...
10. In our case there were also Midrashic authorities who disagreed
with R. Josi i.e., Pirkei De R. Eliezer (49)... However our traditional
chronology is based on Seder Olam because of the authority of its
author. It is therefore quite inconceivable that any post-Talmudic teacher
could possibly "reject" those chronological calculations which have been
made the subject of many a Talmudic discussion....
......
B.
1. There seems to be left, as yet unexplored, only one avenue of
approach to the vexing problem confronting us. It should have been
possible that our Sages -- for some unknown reason -- had "covered up"
a certain historic period and purposely eliminated and suppressed all
records and other material pertaining thereto. If so what might have
been their compelling reason for so unusual a procedure? Nothing short
of a Divine command could have prompted our Chazal, those saintly "men
of truth" to leave out completely from our annals a period of 165 years
and to correct all data and historic tables in such a fashion that the
subsequent chronological gap could escape being noticed by countless
generations, known to a few initiates only who were duty-bound to keep
the secret themselves.
2. In the course of our inquiry, we do indeed find a Divine command
conveyed by an angel to Daniel to "seal the words and close the book"
at the end of a long prophesy which begins in Chapter 11:1 and ends at
Chapter 12:4 in the Book of Daniel....

We have reached an impasse in this discussion.

I have asserted as self evident that Rashi(Kesubos 57a) is making a
dichotomy between that which is given to multiple legitimate points of
view in the realm of halacha versus only one position is right in the
realm of historical fact.

RSG is insisting that Rashi was simply asserting that the only area of
debate of chazal where one side could be wrong was concerning assertions
as to what a tanna or amora had actually said. RSG's dismissal of my
understanding is based on a larger consideration that " Presumably Rashi
cannot say that half of all machlokes in Chazal is sheker."

I have asked a number of right wing talmidei chachomim and they had no
problem with what I said nor did they understand why RSG's limitation
was necessary. Thus it seems a fundamental perception as which view is
preferable and that is not amenable to further discussion as per Ramban.

The Maharal that says that only Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai were eilu
v'eilu is found in the Baer HaGolah #1

[R' Lampel's translation in Dynamics of Dispute page 219]: "Sometimes the
disparate aspects are absolutely equal and then their G-d given halachic
statuses are equally valid, and tehre is no deciding factor. And this is
the nature of the disputes between Beis Shammai and Beis Hille, concerning
which a Bas Kol declared, "These and those..." And therefore the Gemora
asks, "Why then is the halacha solely according to Beis Hillel?" and it
answers, "Because its members were pleasant and patient..."

                                            Daniel Eidensohn

R' Carl Sherer wrote <<< it's impossible for me to make sure that everyone
else doesn't have a hefsek. But with respect to myself, I can make sure
that I don't have a hefsek. >>>

I admit that it is impossible for the leader to prevent the others from
talking or making any other hefsek. But if he takes the time to put a
piece in his mouth, he is *forcing* them into the sort of extra delay
which he himself wants to avoid.

That's why I cut for everyone, and then everyone takes at the same time.

Akiva Miller

R' Gershon Dubin wrote <<< Bireshus X does not mean X asked you to
bentsch, but that the preference for X, either as kohen or other mechubad,
is deferred in your favor. >>>

Where does this come from? Is there a source who says this in writing?
The words simply mean "With the permission of X", right?

I am interpreting "With the permission of X" to mean "With the permission
of whoever has the right to object..." Why do some feel that only a
person who could possibly serve as the m'zamen might have this right?

I asked this before, and got no responses, so I'll ask again:

Suppose the baal habayis is unable to lead the zimun because he did not
eat bread for some reason. Is there ANYone who feels that "baal habayis"
should be omitted from the "birshus" list?

Akiva Miller

From: "Joseph Kaplan" <jkaplan@tenzerlunin.com>
<<1. Rn' Toby asked, probably rhetorically, whether the wife of a poster
to whom she was responding ever leads the benching. Had she asked me,
the father of four daughters (all over the age of bat mitzvah) that
question, my answer would be "yes, lots and lots of times.">>

Surely not in the same zimun as the men?

<<So I reject the charge that my use of "birshus" or "lichvod ba'alat
habayit" is political correctness; it's merely politeness and a
recognition of those through whose efforts the meal that I have just
eaten came about. >>

Then why are you asking their reshus/thanking them as part of zimun? Why
not just thank them? I thank my host/hostess whenever I'm a guest
(and my wife when I'm not) but what does that have to do with zimun?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

If 165 years were "hidden", doesn't that mean that the year is actually
5928?

Akiva

The previous posts ahve demonstrated that reconciling the two chronologies
is nigh impossible. We then must ask, not as academicians, but as
bbeleiving Jews, which one shall we accept and affirm. It seems to me
that these murky waters will be best navigated with the lantern of emuna
and commitment. As such, conventional chronolgy must be rejected because
it leads to the following three conclusions:

1. Daniel 11:2 is not correct as he speaks of only 4 Persian kings. It
also makes interpreting Ezra6:14 more difficult. How can we accept
such a conclusion. Granted the generations of Kohanim Gedolim in
Nehemia12:10-11 work out easier according to conventional chronology;
yet it is possible to expalin these verses sufficiently satisfactorily
according to Seder Olan.

2. Our count m'brias haolam for the past two thousands yers is incorrect
and would have to be amended. Intellectual honesty would require that. Can
you imagine doing that and changing dating of all shtoros?

3. The chain of the msora from Avos 1,1 snaps between Men of Knesses
Hagdolah and Shimon Hatsadik, who was, as we know, form the remnants
of knesses hagdola (unless you say that it was a supreme body that was
constantly repopulated over 160 years)

So we need to consign this question to the bin of kushios that we all
keep half filled but uphold the Chazal's chronology in practice.

Can somepne who understands the argument for conventional chronology
from Ptolomy's astronomy explain it to me? Also. what are the cuineform
inscriptions that are quoted as another proof for it. I would appreciate
if someone can share it with us.

M. Levin

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 02:21:30PM -0400, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: 2. Our count m'brias haolam for the past two thousands yers is incorrect
: and would have to be amended....

I took RAA to ask the same question. A kesuvah reads "leminyan she'anu
monim kan". One could argue (and I have) that we are intentionally
covering the possibility that the count is wrong. As a dating system,
it would still date contracts in a valid manner.

: 3. The chain of the msora from Avos 1,1 snaps between Men of Knesses
: Hagdolah and Shimon Hatsadik, who was, as we know, form the remnants
: of knesses hagdola (unless you say that it was a supreme body that was
: constantly repopulated over 160 years)

That's exactly what R' Schwalb's theory said.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (413) 403-9905                              reliable person?

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but it's also a topic that
needs updating with market changes. (How's that for an excuse not to
search the archives?) :-)

My son is old enough to start shaving - so he thinks - and I haven't
owned a shaver since mine was lost/stolen over 10 years ago.

I have in mind that it's better to use a shaver with a screen - as opposed
to one with revolving blades. Is that my imagination? Is that still true?

Thanks
- Danny

Please daven for a refua shleimah for Chaya bas Naomi Zehava amongst other 
cholie Yisroel. Thanks.

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:06:11PM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: I have in mind that it's better to use a shaver with a screen - as opposed
: to one with revolving blades. Is that my imagination? Is that still true?

With the exception of Norelco/Phillips "rototract" blades, a rotary
poses fewer problems. Such rotaty shavers are scissors by all criteria:
they cut using two blades, and the level at which they cut is one blade
width away from the face.

A straight shaver with a screen cuts the hair one screen width away from the
face, but does not operate like a scissor. The screen isn't a 2nd cutting
surface, it's protection for the face.

A Norelco rototract shaver cuts using the same mechanics as a scissors,
but cuts the hair at or below skin level.

Which of the latter two is permissable depends on why the gemara
allows cutting one's hair with a scissors.

And RYGB once suggested on list that a shaver ought to be okay qua
chisel, not scissor!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (413) 403-9905                              reliable person?

[In general, R. Ovadyah's account is as interesting regarding what he
didn't see and hear as it is for what he did. For instance, he records all
of the q 'vorim that he saw, yet he did not see the qever of the Rambam,
even though he was in Tz'fat, and even though he regarded the Rambam as
the first and foremost among all of his predecessors. One is forced to
conclude that the qever was not there at his time; and indeed that is
the case. The place of the Rambam's actual qever is unknown; what is
currently called his qever was "revealed" by miraculous means by the Ari.]

I assume you mean Teveryah and not tzfat. From memory a descendant of the
Rambam (great-grandson?) is also buried there so I assume the location
was considered that of Rambam before the Ari. How Rambam's body would
have come from Egypt to Teveryah is a mystery.

I would be interested in hearing from Seth what gravesites are mentioned
by R. Ovadyah. There are many in the galil that I find hard to believe,
like abaye and rava. Why would even Hillel and Shammai be buried in the
galil and not near Jerusalem. I have heard that many of these sites were
"discovered" by the ARI but never have seen any serious discussions of
which sites are more reliable and which are pure speculation or worse.

--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 05/26/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

Akiva asked re: issur on shabbat of making saline solution (whether 2/3
salt or as RSZA indicated 36%). My guess is that the issur is making a
super-saturated solution (66% salt, 33% water). I'll leave it to Aishdas
chemists like Reb Gershon Dubin or R. Yitzchak Zlochover to explain
the difference.

Josh

A while ago, we discussed here the inyan of nature of the neshomo and re
the expression 'cheilek Elokah mimaal'. I think it would be of interest
to people to hear how Rav Ze'ev Leff shlit"a, from Eretz Yisroel recently
responded to a query on the subject (as follows - audio can be heard at
the site).

 From among the recent queries at 
<http://www.rabbileff.net/shiurim/ask/index.htm>

209. Q. There are some Jews (including Rabbis) going around and saying
that every (Jewish only?) soul ('neshomo') is a 'cheilek Elokah mimaal'
- which they claim means literally 'a piece of G-d from above'.

May one believe such a thing ? It seems like Christianity or some other
non-Jewish way to believe that. From what I know, according to Judaism,
a man cannot be G-d and G-d is one (echad yochid umeyuchad), with no
'pieces'. Rather, the neshomo is something created by Hashem (as we say
in 'Elokai Neshomo...' - ata viroso - You Hashem created it) - chatzuva
mitachas kisei hakovod perhaps - from a lofty place - but not a 'piece
of Hashem' (chas vesholom). They also claim that the Zohar says that
'man dinofach, midilei nafach'- but I think that doesn't support them,
because someone who blows (think of a glass or balloon blower) blows
just air from within his lungs - and not his actual body / essence.

How is such a dangerous idea allowed to pass without any opposition -
especially from Rabbanim?

Anonymous,
U.S.A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Rabbi Leff shlit"a's response (transcribed from the audio response by
your's truly, who also submitted the query) -

If you look in the Nefesh HaChayim, you will see that this concept is,
as you said, not an idea that G-d himself exists within the neshomo of
every Jew, but the neshomo is a creation, the highest creation above
all the angels, closest to G-d himself - as if G-d himself blew that
neshomo into the body and it has a connection to him.

The idea of 'cheilek Elokah mimaal', the idea of 'man dinofach midilei
nofach', means that when the world emanated from G-d, G-d gave the
possibility for something else to exist, that emanated from him, the
closest thing to him, and the first emanation, was that high level,
the highest link of the soul to a person - but that a person is, has
G-d within him mamash, the essence of G-d, that is not true.

Mordechai

R.Dubin wrote: <I I found the musar vort in the Daf Yomi a few days
ago interesting. The Gemara asks about the difference between kahanos
teme'os, and yayin mutar. The Gemara's answer is that liv'ol yesh penai,
lenasech ein penai. Rashi explains that since the invaders WANT liv'ol,
there's time, while they don't want lenasech as much, so there's no time.

I think that one can understand the Rashi(71a) much simpler. Since the
yetser horah for Avodah Zarah is only minhag avoseihem biyadehem, there
is no yetser horah lnasech but for b'ilah there is yetser hora.

M. Levin

I have often read or heard the question - that despite the fact that
we see hundreds of birds in the sky - rarely do we see any dead ones
lying around.

So what happens to them when they die?

Last night I saw a sefer which quotes a Pirkei D'Rebbe Eliezer [21],
that birds bury their own dead!

Any ornithologists here - who an confirm that?

(I suppose, b'shaas hadchach, our cockroach expert may know...)

SBA

On Mon, 26 May 2003, SBA wrote:
> I have often read or heard the question - that despite the fact that we see
> hundreds of birds in the sky - rarely do we see any dead ones lying around.
> So what happens to them when they die?
> 
> Last night I saw a sefer which quotes a Pirkei D'Rebbe Eliezer [21],
>  that birds bury their own dead!

sorry.
no burying.
you also see very few dead animals.
that is because all dead creatures are quickly consummed by the scavengers 
God put in the world for that purposes.
Within minutes the first bugs are at the scene and they start a process 
that over just a few days can reduce a carcass to nothing.

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
>> Regarding saying 'b'rshus' to your children etc - see the MB 167:75 -
>> that even the baal habayis or the gadol  says it '...mishum midas
>> anovo tzorich litol reshus ke'ilu heim gedolim mimeno - ulohem no'eh
>> levorech...'

> Ain hachi nami. But that ought to apply to other guests and not to my 
> children who are chayav in kibud v'mora. It seems to me that asking 
> their r'shus would conflict with that obligation. 

The MB makes no difference.

>> Also see the Shaar HaTzion.

> Where?

Oifen platz.

SBA

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 02:06:05PM -0400, Joseph Kaplan wrote:
: 2.  R' Micha asks why he should ask his mother permission to lead a mezuman
: in which she can't participate....
:                                would you say that you don't need her
: permission?

We already cited the MB (RMF provided the mar'eh maqom OC 167:14)
that the "birshus" is a statement of anivus, acknowledging that others
may be more qualified and yet deferred to the mevareikh. As I assume.

OTOH, RCS quotes Biur Halacha 201:1 s"v v'im that it is acknowledging
the reshus given by the one who has the authority to choose. As you
assume.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (413) 403-9905                              reliable person?

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 03:49:58PM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
:>: I'm not sure I understand the second question. Why would you have a
:>: hava amina that the bracha for food does not have to be oveir
:> l'asiyasan?...

:> Why would I? Where is the maqor?

: 1. Gemara in Brachos - Assur l'henos min ha'olam ha'zeh l'lo bracha.
: 2. Gemara in Psachim - All birchos ha'mitzva are oveir l'asiyasan ...

And from the gemara in Berakhos one is to conclude that all birkhos
hana'ah are bikhos hamitzvah?

The whole chaqirah over "asher qidshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" is
moot?

: (and eating the challah is a mitzva or we wouldn't l'chatchila have 
: one person be motzi everyone). 

But the berakhah is not a birkhas hamitzvah. You might ask why there
is no birkhas hamitzvah, as we do at the seder. It would be a good
question, but a totally different one.

:> I thought the problem with food is hefseq, not immediacy.

: True. But how are you defining hefsek? As I understand hefsek, it 
: means anything that is not required for fulfilling the mitzva...

If it were a birkhas hamitzvah. I'm still tryig to see why the rules
for birkhas hanehenin ought to be similar, and would require anything
more than hesekh hada's.

:            .... But it's impossible for me to make sure that everyone 
: else doesn't have a hefsek. But with respect to myself, I can make 
: sure that I don't have a hefsek. 

You need to balance everyone's hefsek, not just the mevareikh's.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (413) 403-9905                              reliable person?

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> I agree that cutting for everyone else is NOT part of the inyan of my
> making the bracha and eating.

> However, it IS part of the inyan of THEM being yotzay in the bracha and
> eating. Isn't that just as important?

But it's something about which I cannot do anything. Mima nafshach -
they are going to have an interlude where they are not eating after the
bracha. I don't have to have one.

-- Carl

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


[ 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         ]