Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 055

Wednesday, August 20 2003

• Re: TIDE
• Re: minhag ashkenaz
• Taking out the Torah
• Re: Taking out the Torah
• The Great Blackout and Kabbolas Shabbos
• She'asani Kirtzono
• Did Rashi know the Pythagoras Theorem
• Re: The Great Blackout and Kabbolas Shabbos
• Kabbolas Kinyan of the Edei Kesuba
• Re: mussar vs psak
• Re: Woman as
• Rashi and Pythagoras
• pi, Pythagorus, and chazal
• Re: Taking out the Torah
• Women and kadish
• Re: The Culture Wars: Jews Among the Nations

In a message dated 8/7/2003 5:48:15 PM EDT, Mlevinmd@aol.com writes:
> I will share a story from the biography of R. Meir Shapira: A blaze in
> the darkening gloom (p.70), Y. Baumol, Feldheim .

> It says there that he greatly displeased R. S. Bruer who asked him; So,
> what do you think of my Ortodox yidden?" He answered (earning R. Bruer's
> displeasure for many years) "by comparing them to an ice cream "They
> are koshe Jews, of course, but they exude such a ...coldness. They don't
> have a fiery, warm heart of a Jew in Galicia".
> <snip>

This reminds me of the old song
My rebbe is better than your rebbe
except that this implies:
My derech is better than your derech!

As the Chofetz Chaim noted, each derech has its plusses
Maybe for Galicians it is "...a fiery, warm heart...:

For LItvaks it might be a "...cool level head..."

For Yekkes it might be "... precise execution of mitzvos..."

I really wonder how anyone with a high level perspective can miss this?
Did HKBH create us all as identical twins? Yet didn't He create us all
in His image?

Just a histocial footnote. At a Soviet Jewry rally in West Hartford,
circa 1970 something, all the local civic leaders got up and said that
we are all alike and that therefore if one of us is not free then NONE
of us are free

Then the very Waspy blue-blooded, Mayflower-descended Mayor of West
Hartford g ot up and said the opposite. He pointed out that we are all
DIFFERENT. And that is why we must stand up for each other DESPITE these
differences... etc.

Mussar heskel: Anyone can empathise with a mirror image. The koontz is
to have empathy and apprecation for those that are so unalike ourselves...

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
<RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 8/7/2003 5:47:07 PM EDT, turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:
> So I would presume to say that Dr. Agus v'sayyasom were/are probably
> happy that Tosafos preserved oral and mimetic traditions but probably
> squirmed when he did so using Pilpulistic methods instead of stating
> more clearly what he was doing. IOW, it would be neater if Tosafos were
> more upfront in what he was doing. There are several cases BTW that he
> is more upfront on this matter, but again they are not that common

> From when I was in Agus's class (admitly a long time ago) he felt
> that ashkenazi Jewry was well aware of their connections to EY through
> Italy and were very conscious in defending their customs even when it
> disagreed with the rulings of the Gaonim who presumably were the experts
> in talmud Bavli.

I'm not sure what Prof. Agus himself thought. There is NO question
that Tosafos was extremely strong when it came to defending the Minhag.
{Rabbi Kanarfogel once used the term TAKIF}

I am very dubious as to Tosaffo's precise knowledge of history. EG,
one of Agu's proofs involves the Kalir connection. IE since Kalir's
nusach was prserved in Ashkenaz ha rayo that ashkenaz was connected to
minhag eretzy yisrael as opposed to Spharad and Minhag Bavel, etc. etc.

However, Tosfaos himself thinks that Kallir might be the Tanna R. Elzar
ber. Shimon. This tips me off that Tosafos did not really know Kallir
ofr this connection very clearly.

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

postscript:

FWIW, Kallir deserves his own thread and let me state that we have some
evidence that he lived 580 CE based upon his kinna citing a thousand
years have passed since the churban. Presuming a Seder Olam dating,
then 420 BCE is the Churban bayyis rishon and that would put this kina
at circa 580 CE. Furthermore, it seems likely that Kalir was in the
pre-Moslem era, {circa 622-632} so 580 fits in nicely. Those who put
him in the Saadya Gaon era need to explain the lack of references to
the rise of Islam etc.

Given that Kallir lived circa 580, it is also likely that he never saw
a fully redacted Bavli. This fits in with my general hypothesis that
Minhag Ashkenaz was grandfathered in before the Bavli became Universally
Canonized, or IOW even though the Bavli was accepted in Ashkenaz it was
only mikan ulehabbo vis a vis minhaggim and not lemafrei'a.

If Kallir were a Tanna, he would not be helpful to present a case for
perpeutating minhaggim since both Bavli and Yerushalmi could have passed
judmgent on his shitos.

OTOH, if Kallir was indeed inth saboraic era, IE the redaction era then
of course, he would be cognizanat of Yersushalmi and largely ignorant
of the final editions of Bavli. This implies a PARALLEL authority.

Of course Kallir is only ONE figure in the post Yerushalmi pre-Bavli
canonization but at least we can demonstrate a definite time and a set of
"gdolim" th at would have provided the fodder for a Minhag that often
deviates from the Bavli without rejecting the Bavli outright - right?

So IMHO, Tosafos was probably not aware of the details of the heritage,
but he realized that the various minhagei ma'ara were generated in a
parallel time frame as the so-called chasimas HaTalmud.

Some caveats and notes.

1) I don't think Rashi agree that the Bavli could be set aside by Minhag
Ashkenaz. He probably felt that the Bavli was binding lemafrei'a also
or he was unaware of some of the old mesoros etc.

2) There are other ways to explain this. A simple alternative is that
Tosafos simply felt that the Bavli had layers

A) there was Halachah - IE universally binding
B) there was Aggedita, not binding at all, but important for Hashkafa
C) there was Minhag, and that depended upon locale. So if Tosafos
determined a particular imperative statement was local to Bavel AND
there was a Minhag in Western Europe that contradicted it, he felt free
to ignore Minhag Bavel.

This last piece is similar to later poskim ignoring Saboraic sugyos in
the Bavli as not binding.

[Email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 8/11/2003 5:04:23 PM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> I think the position is that Tosafos didn't actually set out to do this.
> Rather, if you believe that sha"s is the ultimate repository of TSBP,
> and that minhag Ashkenaz is part of TSBP, then mima nafshach you're
> going to end up assuming that peshat in the gemara is consistant with
> minhag Ashkenaz. They weren't using pilpul to be meyasheiv the two as
> much as using pilpul to make sense of the gemara, and their belief in
> minhag Ashkenaz coloring their assumptions of what the gemara must mean.

> Which is why they don't try to deny the obvious that most of Tosafos is
> their attempts to be meyasheiv the gemara before us with other gemaros.

This is certainly true up to a point.
You still must ask the obvious question - why didn't Tosafos ever dismiss
Minhag X as a Taus?

Also see IM Orach Chaim 2 Shut 100 re: Dancing on Shabbos and YT (sugya
in Beitza 40a iirc)

Bepashtus there is another machlokes re: Bavli Bishlama everyone agrees
that the Bavli is pimary

The question is: Is the Bavli EXHAUSTIVE?

The closer to Bavel you go there more likely you get a yes and the
further from Bavel you go the more likely you get a no.

See the Sugya on women and krias megillah in Arachin 3b and Tosafos sham.

The Bavli - as per R. Yehoshua ben Levi - paskens that women are equally
obligated. And apparently the Rambam follows suit - as does the first
voice in the SA.

OTOH, Tosafos cites the Halachos Gdolos who modifies this stright read
from the Bavli based upon a Tosefta and comes up with a modifed chiyyuv
of lishmo'a and NOT likro.

This is classic example of Ashkenaz vs. Pure Bavli.

Rambam and others {apparently} read the Halachah as straight Bavli here

Behag and Tosafos see Bavli as part of the mix with the Tosefta and
create a synthesis.

I am not aware of any Minhag Ashkenaz per se that made a women's chiyyuv
different. Rather, AISI, there is a fundamental approach to TSBP that
is different. And that is the Bavli is NOT EXHAUSTIVE and that TSBP
includes other sources.

Where Micha is probably correct is that Tosafos pilpulistically thinks
that every source within the Bavli - and many without - needs to be
reconciled some how.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
<RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

Someone asked me where the minhag of having a separate individual take
the Torah out of the aron and give it to the Shatz stems from - wouldn't
it be more proper and kavodic for the shatz to take it himself (both from
the shatz showing chavivut and not having the torah "passed around"). I
guessed that a source might be the kohen gadol on yom kippur receiving
the sefer from the sgan etc. althought there it seems it's kvodo of the
kohein gadol that makes it allowable. Any thoughts?

KT
Joel Rich

On 17 Aug 2003 at 10:15, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> Someone asked me where the minhag of having a separate individual take
> the Torah out of the aron and give it to the Shatz stems from -
> wouldn't it be more proper and kavodic for the shatz to take it
> himself (both from the shatz showing chavivut and not having the torah
> "passed around")....

Aderaba. Passing it around shows more chavivus. See, for example, the
description in Yoma of how the Torah got to the Kohain Gadol in the
Beis HaMikdash on Yom Kippur. IIRC Rashi says there explicitly that the
reason for the Torah being passed from (IIRC) the Nasi to the Sgan to
the Kohain Gadol is to show chavivus.

-- 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.

As I reported on Areivim, a friend of mine was davening from the amud at a
"plag" minyan when, right after starting Lecha Dodi, the power went on.
He left shul to go home and make sure his lights, timers, etc. were set
properly. I think the rav of his shul was there and approved the action.

According to the books, this was all proper. The Mechaber (OC 261:5)
writes that one accepts Shabbos with Mizmor Shir. The Mishnah Berurah
writes that it is with the last paragraph of Lecha Dodi (bo'i kallah...).
Since my friend had not gotten that far, he had not yet accepted Shabbos.

But, as the acharonim point out, it all depends on what the minhag is
in accepting Shabbos. It seems to me that everyone accepts Shabbos with
the *beginning* of what we call Kabbolas Shabbos. My impression is that
people today consider that to be the beginning of Shabbos. If so, one
should not do melachah after starting Lechu Neraninah. But I haven't
seen or heard anyone suggest this.

Gil Student

I have heard that while "Shelo Asani Ishah" is originally recorded in the
Gemara, the bracha of "She'asani Kirtzono" is of much later origin. If I
am mistaken on this, please let me know, and ignore the rest of this post.

But if it is accurate, then I'm wondering if anyone can offer any insights
into the way this bracha came to be. For example, who was it that felt
the need to invent a new bracha just for the women? And was there any
opposition to it, perhaps along the lines of "Men say 3 brachos. Women
say the first two. What's the big deal? Why can't they just stick to
the established feminine forms of tefila?"

Akiva Miller

From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
> <snip>
> To me it seems obvious that indeed Rashi did not know the Pythagoras
> theorem and/or could not calculate square roots. 

i've been following this thread with great facination..and i don't recall
seeing anybody mention the following Rashis which shows outright that
Rashi did not understand the concept of the Pythagoras theorem (at least
according to my understanding of Rashi).

In Eiruvin 78:1 in the 3 Rashis starting with the words 'sulom ahrbaha
osor' (the 5th line where it becomes wide)
Rashi seems to indicate that if you have a ladder leaning against a wall,
and you move the foot of the ladder away from the wall, the top of the
ladder will be lowered with exactly the same amount that the foot is
distanced from the wall.

this is blatantly erroneous.

Toisfos takes Rashi to task for saying something like this...ayem shom
in the Toisfas starting with the words 'tzarich sulom'


Simcha G

On 18 Aug 2003 at 11:31, Gil Student wrote:
> But, as the acharonim point out, it all depends on what the minhag is
> in accepting Shabbos. It seems to me that everyone accepts Shabbos
> with the *beginning* of what we call Kabbolas Shabbos. My impression
> is that people today consider that to be the beginning of Shabbos. If
> so, one should not do melachah after starting Lechu Neraninah. But I
> haven't seen or heard anyone suggest this.

R. Asher Weiss discussed this in a shiur several months ago. IIRC, he 
said that because we are m'kabel Shabbos by Mizmor Shir and because 
Mizmor Shir is often not said until after shkiya and because we 
pasken that some tosefes Shabbos is required, one who is davening in 
a minyan that will not reach Mizmor Shir until after shkiya should 
make an explicit Kabbolas Shabbos (best b'peh) before shkiya. 

That would imply that one who is saying L'cha Dodi before shkiya has 
not necessarily been m'kabel Shabbos. 

-- 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. 

I videotaped a wedding last night that was very Charedi. The Mesader
Kiddushin, a RY with a well known Litvishe sirname, did something that
seemed quite inappropriate. During the Kesuba portion of the Kabbolas
Pannim, he had the Eidim make a Kinyan on the Sudar (in this case, a
Yarmuke belonging to one of the Eidim) before giving it to the Chasan for
his Kabbalas Kinyan. I've seen certain rabbis doing it and had always
attributed it to Am Haratzus. After the Eidim signed on the Kesuba,
I asked this RY, "Exactly what were the Edei Kesuba making a Kinyan
on?" He then smiled and said that there is an Inyan for the Kallah to
own the Sudar of the Kinyan, so instead of taking it to the Kallah,
he simply gave it to the Eidim for them to be Koneh it for her ala
"Zacin L'Adam SheLo Befanav.

Is there such an Inyan of the Kallah owning the Sudar? Does anyone know
where it can be found in the Gemmarah... or Rishonim... or Achronim? And
why both Eidim? Wouldn't it have been enough for one to make the Kinyan?

After all the Kinyanim were made, the Yarmulke was returned to the Eid
who palced back under his hat. I then asked why the Yarmulkee didn't now
belong to the Kallah and he laughed and said he didn't think she really
wanted it.

Sounds really fishy to me. I wonder if the Eidim even knew that they
were being Mekabel Kinyan on the Sudar itself on behalf of the Kalla?

Another thing. The Kallah wore a Deck Tichal under the Chupah. This
means that the Eidei Kiddushin did not see the Kalla's face. Are they not
required to do so as Edim? In the past I have seen various RYs tell the
Kallah to lift her veil so the Eidim could identify that it was indeed
the Kallah hiding under there. Not this time.

Is this not at least questionable Eidus?

HM

On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 09:22:47PM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: RMB brought a gemara where Rava *paskened* that Rabah is *required*
: to do things which other people wouldn't have to do, but that Rabah was
: *required* to go *lifnim mishuras hadin*. RMB referred to this as <<<
: a basic paradox about lifnim mishuras hadin. There exists a chiyuv in
: din to go beyond the exact letter of the din. >>>

: I agree. It sounds very much like something I thing we discussed here
: many years ago: Is there an area of "reshus", or is everything truly
: issur or chiyuv?

It's similar, but different in a very significant way.

I was merely suggesting that SOME things that are not issur veheter
for all people in all situations may effectively be chiyuvim or issurim
because of the duty of going LMH (lifnim mishuras hadin).

You're referring to a discussion of whether ALL things have this
effective chiyuv effect.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:41:34PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: But the question here is not over that balance - ie how ought the
: relations between the sexes be regulated so as to have fairness and
: justice for all in an unfair and unjust world. The question was, does
: woman by her very nature (or actually, as a consequence of the curse if
: you are reading closely) act as a temptation (ie a yetzer hora) for man.
: That was the analogy drawn by RTK, against her will, from the pasuk's
: structural similarity with that relating to Kayin.

And later continues:
: Does that not, if anything emphasize the point. She had the right to sing,
: but merely by singing, she was drawing R Chaim etc into averah, and he
: had to exercise his will to overcome the situation. The yetzer hora also
: presumably has the right to be what it is. But being what it is forces
: man into action otherwise he will be inexorably led along a certain path.

It looks like you're asking something that is a simple question of
metzi'us. Yes, women do often tempt men.

I think the real question is whether you're considering this a property
of the woman, thereby giving her "temptress" status, or of the man-woman
relationship, or of the man's own flaws.

The middle one, while it sounds nice, has a major pragmatic
flaw. By placing blame at the feet of a relationship, neither side needs
to assume responsibility.

I thought we established, though, that none of this has to do with the pasuq.
The original discussion was an attempt to draw a parallel between Kayin
being told to conqure chataso, and Chava being told she will be ruled by
her husband. The structures don't parallel, so there is really
no basis to assume /m-sh-l/, a single word in common has a common usage
in both. IOW, I was surprised RYZ's post didn't put this thread to rest
already.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

I Pasted in an interestign discussions form Daf Insights to Eiruvin 76 by R. 
M. Kornfeld

<http://www.dafyomi.co.il/eruvin/insites/ev-dt-077.htm>
M. Levin

THE MATHEMATICAL FORMULAE OF THE RABBIS OF CAESAREA

QUESTION: The Mishnah says that a window in the wall between two
 Chatzeros must be at least four by four Tefachim in size, and must be
 within the first ten Tefachim of the height of the window, in order to
 be considered a Pesach (opening) and allow the Chatzeros the choice of
 joining together with one Eruv.What do the dimensions of the window have
 to be if the window is *round*? Rebbi Yochanan made a statement that if
 the window is round, it "must be 24 Tefachim in its circumference, and
 two Tefachim (plus 4 Tefachim) and a bit of the window must be under ten
 Tefachim in the wall, so that if a square was inscribed in the circle a
 part of it would be within ten Tefachim of the ground." That is, Rebbi
 Yochanan is asserting that a circle drawn around a square with sides of
 4 Tefachim (which has a perimeter of 16 Tefachim) has a circumference
 of 24 Tefachim.

 The Gemara concludes that Rebbi Yochanan's mathematical calculations
 were based on the theorem of the Rabbis of Kesari. They said that
 the circumference of an circle inscribed inside of a square is 25%
 less than the square's perimeter, and the circumference of a circle
 circumscribed around the outside of a square is 50% more than the
 square's perimeter. Accordingly, the circumference of the circle drawn
 around the 16-Tefach perimeter of a square is 50% larger, or 24 (that
 is, take 50% of 16 and add it to 16).

 As the Gemara in Sukah (8a) points out, this theorem is clearly
 incorrect, as can be seen with a cursory glance. The actual relationship
 of the perimeter of an inscribed square to the circle around it,
 according to Chazal, is 3 * (1.4 * s), when 3 is used for pi (Eruvin 13a)
 and s = the length of a side of the square. (The relationship between
 the side of a square and its diagonal -- which is also the diameter
 of the circumscribed circle -- is 1:1.4, according to Chazal). If so,
 the circumference of a circle circumscribed around a square with sides
 of 4 Tefachim is 3(1.4 * 4), or 16.8 -- and not 24!

 How did the Rabbis of Kesari make such a mistake, and why did Rebbi
 Yochanan follow them?

 ANSWERS:

 (a) TOSFOS (DH v'Rebbi Yochanan) answers that the Rabbis of Kesari were
 not giving the relationship of the *perimeter* of the inner square
 to the *circle* around it. Rather, they were giving the relationship
 of the *area* of the inner square to the *outer square* that is drawn
 around the circle which encloses the inner square. This is what they
 meant by saying that "when a circle is drawn around the outside of a
 square, the outer one's (i.e., the outer *square's*) perimeter is 50%
 larger than the inner one's." (See the picture printed in Tosfos in
 our Gemaras, which is slightly misleading; in the picture that appears
 in the TOSFOS HA'ROSH, reproduced in our Graphics section, the inner
 square is shifted so that its sides are at a diagonal to the sides of
 the outer square. This is more demonstrative of Tosfos' point). The
 area of the inner square is exactly half of the area of the outer square.

 According to Tosfos, Rebbi Yochanan misunderstood the Rabbis of Kesari
 and made his Halachic statement regarding the relationship of the
 circumference of a circle to the perimeter of a square based on his
 misunderstanding.

 (b) The RITVA explains that the Rabbis of Kesari and Rebbi Yochanan are
 correct. When he mentioned a "round" window, Rebbi Yochanan did not mean
 a circular window with an imaginary square inscribed within it. Rather,
 he was referring to a window made in the shape of a four-leaf clover;
 that is, a square with four semi-circles protruding from each side
 (see Graphic section). In such a case, the perimeter of the window
 (i.e. the arcs of the four semi-circles) indeed add up to 50% more than
 the perimeter of the square around which they are drawn. In order to make
 sure that the square inside the clover-shaped window reaches to within
 a height of ten Tefachim from the ground, at least 2 Tefachim and a bit
 of the *radius* of the bottom semi-circle must be within ten Tefachim
 (since the radius of each semi-circle is 2, or half of one side of the
 square, which is four). Alternatively, 2 and a bit Tefachim plus four
 Tefachim of the perimeter of the semi-circle must be under 10 Tefachim
 from the ground (as Rashi explains on bottom of 76a), since the total
 perimeter of each semicircle is 6 Tefachim.

 (c) RASHI does not explain how to justify the formula of the Rabbis
 of Kesari and how to understand Rebbi Yochanan. He seems not to have
 any difficulty with them. Perhaps Rashi held that the Rabbis of Kesari
 were proposing a Halachic stringency: when determining a value (such
 as the circumference of a circle) by using the diagonal of a square,
 we Halachically consider the diagonal to be equal to the sum of the
 two sides of the square or rectangle between the ends of the diagonal
 (since the lines of those two sides go from one end of the diagonal to
 the other). The reason for this is to prevent people from confusing the
 diagonal and the sum of two sides. (Thus, if the sides of inscribed
 square are each 4 Tefachim, then the diagonal is viewed to be *8*
 Tefachim. The circular window around that square, then, must have a
 diameter of 8 Tefachim, which means that its circumference must be *24*
 Tefachim, and not 16.8 which is what it would be based on the *actual*
 diameter of the square.)

 If this is why Rashi is not bothered by the formula of the Rabbis
 of Kesari, then it could be that Rashi is consistent with his opinion
 elsewhere (Shabbos 85a, Eruvin 5a, 78a, 94b), where Rashi seems to count
 the diagonal of a rectangle as the sum of the two sides between the
 two ends of the diagonal. TOSFOS in *all* of those places argues with
 Rashi, but Rashi may hold that such a Halachic definition is applied,
 and may be relied upon entirely, both as a leniency and a stringency,
 with regard to Rabbinic rulings.

 (d) Perhaps it is possible to propose an entirely new explanation. The
 Rabbis of Kesari and Rebbi Yochanan are perfectly correct.

 Perhaps Rebbi Yochanan's statement that there "must be 24 Tefachim in
 its circumference," does not mean that the *circumference* must be 24
 Tefachim, but that there must be 24 Tefachim *inside* the circumference
 -- in other words, the *area* of the circle must be 24 Tefachim!

 The area of a circle that is drawn around a square which is 4 by 4
 is calculated by multiplying pi by the radius squared. The radius of
 the circle around a square which is 4 by 4 is half of the diagonal
 (5.6), which is 2.8. Let use the Halachic estimate of pi=3. Then: 3 *
 (2.8)(2.8) = 23.52, or ~24.

 This is what Rebbi Yochanan meant when he said that the circle must have
 within its circumference an area of 24 (he rounded up to 24 as a Chumra)!

 What did Rebbi Yochanan mean that there must be 2 and a bit within a
 height of ten? 24 Tefachim is the area of the circle. Within that area
 is an inscribed square of 4 by 4, which has an area of 16 Tefachim. What
 is the area of the four arcs that are outside of the square? Since they
 are the difference between the area of circle and the square, altogether
 they add up to 24-16=8, and thus each one has an area of 2 Tefachim. That
 is exactly what Rebbi Yochanan meant when he said that in order to get
 the inscribed square of 4 by 4 Tefachim below a height of ten Tefachim,
 at least 2 Tefachim and a bit of the *area* of the circular window must
 be below ten Tefachim! (According to this approach, it is no longer
 necessary to say, as Rashi (76a) suggests, that when it says "two and
 a bit" it means two and a bit in addition to *four*) (M. Kornfeld)

Eli Turkel suggests that chazal were unfamiliar with the Pythagorean
theorem and one of the major ba'alei Tosafot, R' Shamshon of Sens,
thought that this basic theorem in trigonometry was incorrect. I
can believe the former statement unless someone can give an example
in talmud where the length of a diagonal of a rectangle is discussed.
Not uncommonally, chazal cite the diagonal of a square as being 1.4 times
the side. The opinion attributed to R' Shamshon is, however, surprising
given that the Tosafot give evidence of a more sophisticated knowledge of
matters mathematical - even to the point of critiquing the arguments and
conclusions of Amora'im. For example, I had previously cited the Tosafot
in T.B. Eruvin 14a which expresses puzzlement that the approximation ,
pi = 3, is taken as accurate when this is contradicted by mathematical
knowledge. In Eruvin 57a and T.B. Succah 8a Tosafot demonstrates that the
value of the diagonal of a square can not be accurately given as 1.4 x the
side, but is somewhat more. The demonstration involves dividing a square
into 10x10 units and further into 4 quadrants of 5x5. Diagonals of the
quadrants are then drawn and joined to form an inner square. The area of
the inner square is seen to be 4x1/2x25 = 50. If, however, the length of
such diagonals is accurately given by 1.4 x 5 = 7. Then the area of the
square would be 49, rather than 50. An analogous construction involving
dividing the sides of a square into unequal segments (a,b;a,b;a,b;a,b)
and then connecting the segment points by straight lines (c) defines a
large square with sides a+b, an inner square with sides, c, and 4 right
angle triangles with sides, a,b,c. The total area of the triangles is
4x1/2 ab, while the inner square is c^2. The area of the outer square is
(a+b)^2 which is a^2 +b^2+2ab and is = to the sum of its constituent areas
(2ab+c^2). Subtracting 2ab from both sides gives a^2+b^2 = c^2, QED.
This relatively simple proof of the Pythagorean theorem could have been
invoked by Tosafot. Certainly the theorem was known since the 6th century
BCE by the Greeks and over a millenium before that by the Babylonians.

Yitzchok Zlochower

In a message dated 08/18/2003 9:47:13 AM EDT, cmsherer@fandz.com writes:
>> Someone asked me where the minhag of having a separate individual take
>> the Torah out of the aron and give it to the Shatz stems from -
>> wouldn't it be more proper and kavodic for the shatz to take it
>> himself (both from the shatz showing chavivut and not having the torah
>> "passed around"). I guessed that a source might be the kohen gadol on
>> yom kippur receiving the sefer from the sgan etc. althought there it
>> seems it's kvodo of the kohein gadol that makes it allowable....
 
> Aderaba. Passing it around shows more chavivus. See, for example, the 
> description in Yoma of how the Torah got to the Kohain Gadol in the 
> Beis HaMikdash on Yom Kippur. IIRC Rashi says there explicitly that 
> the reason for the Torah being passed from (IIRC) the Nasi to the 
> Sgan to the Kohain Gadol is to show chavivus. 
 
The reason there is because of monotonically increasing chashivut of
each individual in the chain, I don't think that applies each Shabbat.

KT
Joel

[Bounced from Areivim. -mi]

I remember from my Columbia days (1970-1974) there was a woman student who
was saying kaddish. It's been a long time, and the details are somewhat
fuzzy, but I remember that she had a letter from Rav Moshe Feinstein
saying that it was permissible for her to say kaddish (the language may
have been stronger). Before she went to a new shul, she would try to meet
with the rav and show him rav moshe's letter, so that there wouldn't be
a problem, as that was quite radical back then. (i have lost contact
with her (last heard of, she was living in bet hadassa in hevron), as I
would love to get a copy of that letter if she still had it (back then,
I didn't realize its importance)

With regard to the issue of mimeticism and which war [before which it
was common for women to say qaddish -mi] Rav Moshe mentions that it was
a common practice in Lita for some women to say kaddish (this is also
mentioned by RYE Henkin - that he saw it in Lita, and people have cited
in the name of RYBS that in Vilna he saw women saying kaddish. Whether
it was the common or merely the practice of a few can be debated, but as
a practice it was done without public protest (but after all, in Vilna
they didn't cover their hair, so they couldn't have been Orthodox..... :)

Meir Shinnar

>> I know of Kol Yisroel Areivim zeh lozeh, but where is our responsibility
>> to non Jew from?

T613K@aol.com:
>Imitatio Dei. Ma Hu rachum, af atah rachum. Looking at all of the
>references to the goyim in Torah and concluding that we have no
>responsibility towards them is--impossible.

I don't hate goyim. I don't hurt them, cause them pain and certainly
don't torture them. No different from any of the other inhabitants with
whom we share this planet. I may even offer a bit of helpful advice
occasionally. I am after all a nice, compassionate guy. However I am
not obligated towards them. I am not responsible for them.

I am responsible for fellow Jews. Kol Yisroel Areivim zeh bozeh means
just that. Jews and nobody else.

And I have yet to see a posuk that says otherwise.

Akiva B.

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


[ 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         ]