Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 057

Monday, August 25 2003

• Hodu origins - Ta-Shma
• mathematics, chazal, and error
• RE: soferet
• Re: Freedom of choice vis-a-vis other people
• Freedom of choice vis-a-vis other people
• Re: Freedom of choice vis-a-vis other people
• Re: Freedom of choice vis-a-vis other people
• RE: Jews Among the Nations
• Re: Jews Among the nations
• RE: Women and kadish
• Psak
• Re: jews and the nations
• Burial site at WTC.
• To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group
• re: The Great Blackout and Kabbolas Shabbos
• Re: Women and Kadish
• Re: Was: Jews Among the Nations, Now: Pshat in Ben Azzai
• RE: Jews Among the Nations
• RE: Psak
• minyan in women's section
• Halachic issue re Chazaras HaShatz
• Re: Halachic issue re Chazaras HaShatz
• Chzarat HaShatz
• Re: Freedom of choice vis-a-vis other people

I was preparing for my shiur in tefillah (1 hour before mincha at Yavneh
Minyan in Flatbush, for the next 3 weeks, and then IY"H resuming next
summer), when I read a fascinating chapter in Israel Moshe Ta-Shma's
latest book, "Tefillah Ashkenazit Hakedumah" (2003) on the origins of
Hodu in Psukei deZimrah.

(note to RRW - now we know his middle name, and it isn't Meir).

As is known, the beginning of Hodu comes from I Chron 16:8-36, and
consists of two psalms by King David mandated to the kohanim to be said
with the morning and evening tamid offerings, once the Aron and Mizbeiach
had been set up on Har Habayit, even befor the Beit Hamiqdash were built.
They parallel Ps. 105:1-15, and Ps. 96. So how did it come to be part
of the daily Psukei Dezimra?

Ta-Shma holds that Hodu is part of ancient Ashkenazic tradition tracing
down from the Beit Hamiqdash. It fits nicely into the paradigm that he &
Agus hold (and which is widely accepted among Jewish Studies types) for
the origins of minhag Ashkenaz, of Israel to Italy to France (Tinker to
Evers to Chance?).

(Pardon the sketchy nature, it's from my notes for the shiur)

Tr. Sofrim 18:1 (considered to be early Palestinian in origin, like all
minor tractates, if redacted mid 700s - (Jewish Encyclopedia) -jjb) -
say Hodu, Shiru after Yehi Cvod.

Kalir based a piyut on the psukim of Hodu, hinting that it was a regular
part of the liturgy.

Does not show up in Geonic lit - Sidur R' Amram, R' Saadia, Rambam sidur,
sidur in Ra'ah on the Rif Berachot ch. 5, or in Persian sidurim.

Machzor Vitri has it in our place after Baruch Sheamar. Early French
Sidur from late 1100s has it (ms. Oxford). R' Yehuda b. Yakar, Provencal
teacher of Ramban and Ri, says it's said in France, Germany, England
(iyei hayam). Raavan similarly mentions how to say it in Germany.
Ancient Sefardim don't know it at all, ancient Ashkenazim have it as
integral part of daily shachris. Italians say it before Baruch She'amar,
similarly Romanians, like Tr. Sofrim in that it's not in the same
place as we do. Thus, not related to our recital of korbonos at all,
but rather independent part of Psukei deZimrah, like Tr. Sofrim has at
*end* of Psukei deZimrah.

Link to antiquity: Moshe haDarshan's girsa at end of Tamid ch. 4 has
kohanim saying shma & 10 Cmdmts & barchu at beginning of day in Lishkat
Hagazit. Didn't know source of this girsa. Then found similar text in
Yalk.Shim. 667: includes Hodu. Believes the Darshan's text to be para-
phrase of older text which is included fully in Yalkut - therefore, it's
an early description of saying Hodu in Beit Hamiqdash, thru which it
passed down in EY to time of Sofrim, and so on down the line to Italy,
France.

Note: passage in Chr introduced w/cmd of David to Asaf to sing "Bayom
hahu, az natan David barosh, lehodot la-Shem, beyad Asaf v'echav" This
comes up in Nehemia where they set up the tefillos (11:17) "u-Matanya
ben Micha ben Zavdi ben Asaf rosh, hat'chilah yehodeh lat'fillah", adding
Hodu (yehodeh), thanks, before tefillah - Assaf's descendents continued
Davidic command in constructing tefillah in time of 2nd Temple and Anshe
Knesset Hagedolah. All links up:

- David to
- Assaf to
- Assaf's kohanic descendents in time of Anshe Knesses Hagedolah to
- Kohanim in late 2nd Temple to
- Lay Israelites in Tannaitic period to
- Redaction of Sofrim in Geonic period to
- Medieval French siddurim to
- Later Ashkenazic siddurim. 

Sephardim eventually adopted it from us. 

Even if this goes against common wisdom that Hodu was a medieval
interpolation, and that Hodu was only said by the kohanim until the Beit
Hamiqdash was built, it's still interesting.

My conclusion: Hodu, far from being just a late insertion of lesser
importance, is the oldest, continuously said, humanly composed component
of daily tefillah. It has been in use, according to this paper trail,
for 3000 years by kohanim and lay Palestinians and Ashkenazim as part
of the shevach which prepares us for avodas Hashem.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

Recent discussions in Avodah and Areivim have involved questions about
the mathematical knowledge of Chazal and Rishonim with regard to the
value of the circumference of a circle to its diameter (pi), and the
ratio of the diagonal of a square to the side (sqrt. of 2). Throughout
talmud, to my knowledge, pi is given as 3 (e.g. Mishne in T.B. Eruvin
13b) while all explicit statements about the diagonal of a square give
it as 1 and 2/5 (1.4) x the side (e.g. Eruvin 57a in the name of "Mar").

That these values are only approximately correct is noted in Tosafot
Eruvin 14a (pi is not exactly 3 according to mathematicians) and 57a
(demonstration that the diagonal of a square is somewhat greater than 1.4
x side). However, even Tosafot does not appear to deal with the diagonal
of a rectangle in a quantitative manner, and one of the Tosafists, R'
Shamshon of Sens, has been cited (anyone have a precise reference?) as
disbelieving the Pythagorean theorem that finds the square of the diagonal
exactly equal to the sum of the square of the sides of the rectangle. The
recent posting of a discussion by Rav Kornfeld of different attempts to
understand the statement of the judges/sages of Caesarea that a square is
1/4 more than the circle inscribed in it, while a square inscribed in a
circle is 1/2 (T.B. Eruvin 76b, Succah 8a,b).is a valuable contribution
to the discussions.

The statement is a reasonable one to make for the outer square, while the
statement about the inner square is problematic - as noted by the Stama
diGemara in Succah 8b, which simply rejects it. However, the Gemara in
Eruvin 76b does not reject the statement, and even uses it to account
for the opinion of Rabbe Yochanan that a circular opening of 24 tefachim
in a wall between yards is needed to contain within it a square opening
of 4 x 4 tefachim and allow the possibility of making a joint eruv.

Using elementary geometry, algebra, and the Pythagorean theorem,
one can show that the perimeters of an outer square, an inscribed
circle, and an inner, inscribed square are 8r, 2 pi x r, 4 sqrt 2 x
r, respectively. Using the approximations of chazal, these ratios are
8/6/5.6, respectively - or 4/3/2.8. The perimeter of the outer square
is thus 1/4 more (based on the outer square) than the circle, whereas
the circle is only somewhat greater in perimeter than the inner square -
not half again as much. Considering areas, however, we find that they are
4r^2, pi r^2, and 2 r^2, respectively. Again using Chazal's aproximation,
the ratios become 4/3/2. The ratio of the areas of a square relative to
its inscribed circle are exactly the same as the ratio of their perimeters
(4/pi), while the ratio of the areas of the circle to the outer square
is now half again as much as the inner square (or the inner square is
half the area of the outer square, as per Tosfot) - consistent with the
statement by the Rabbis of Caesarea. Unfortunately, both the Gemaras in
Eruvin 76b and Succah 8a,b take the statements by the Rabbis of Caesarea
and Rabbe Yochanan as refering to perimeter measurements.

The gemara in Succah is able to rationalize Rabbe Yochanan's requirement
of 24 amot for a circular succah so that it may enclose a space of 4
x 4 amot, but rejects the second statement of the Caesarean rabbis.
The gemara in Eruvin ties the view of Rabbe Yochanan about a circular
opening in a wall to the Caesarean rabbis without further comment.
Tosafot in Succah 8a dismisses the discussion in the gemara as a
forced interpretation, based on the gemara in Eruvin 76b. In Eruvin
76b, it further treats the opinion of Rabbe Yochanan as an erroneous
interpretation of the statements by the Rabbis of Caesarea in terms of
perimeter. So, Tosfot has justified the views of the rabbis of Caesarea,
while rejecting the view of a leading early Amora and the entire
discussion in Succah 8 (which occurs largely in the Bet Midrash of the
leading late Amora, Rav Ashi). These Tosafot have clear implications
relative to earlier discussions about the possibility of error in Chazal
and Rishonim. Nor is there even the possibility in these mathematical
based questions of such considerations as the alleged change in nature
since talmudic or "Rishonic" times.

The discussion by Rav Kornfeld of Eruvin 76a,b is illuminating. He finds
that Rashi is not concerned with the implausibility of interpreting R'
Yochanan's 24 tefachim as a perimeter measurement since R' Yochanan
would, according to R' Kornfeld, consider the diagonal halachically
equal to the sum of the sides of the square, i.e. twice its length.
Thus, the diagonal of a 4 x 4 square opening would be considered to
be 8, and the circumference of the minimum circular opening enclosing
such a square opening would be 3 x 8 or 24. He finds that Rashi has
adopted such a position in a number of places in Eruvin and elsewhere.
While I have not yet seen such an explicit general statement in Rashi,
it appears to be the only way of understanding Rashi (if not also the
Gemara) in 78a. The gemara there debates the length of a ladder leaning
against a 10 tefach wall between yards needed to allow a common eruv.
Different values are given; 14, 13+, 11+, and 7+, where "+" designates
a small increment. Rashi explains that this refers to a ladder whose
foot is 4 tefachim from the wall. If it must reach to the top, then
14 tefachim are considered necessary; if within a tefach of the top,
then 13+ is sufficient; if within 3 tefachim of the top, then 11+
is adequate; and if the ladder can lean vertically against the wall,
then 7+ is adequate. Rashi is thus treating the diagonal of a right
triangle as being the sum of the other sides (also noted by Simcha).
Tosfot objects and, instead, attempts to explain the gemara in terms
of ladders that rest on the ground at a distance always equal to the
required height (although that works out only for the 14 tefach ladder).
It is as if Tosfot knew the length of the diagonal of a square, but did
not know how to calculate the diameter of a general right triangle (or
rectangle). The possibility that the diagonal is sometimes treated as
the sum of the other sides can not be simply dismissed, it seems to me.
The oft cited statement about the diagonal of a square being 1 and 2/5
the side is never attributed to a Tanna, to my knowledge, nor derived
from Tanach. It is simply part of the general body of knowledge. I don't
know if there are any other instances where this general knowledge about
squares may be rejected by an Amora, but it does seem to be the case
with rectangles. This position leads to anomalies, where the broken
line distance is no greater than the straight line distance, and the
inner square in the original discussion is equal to the outer square
in dimension. It may be a practical position taken by some, however,
since it was not generally known how to calculate the diagonal.

R' Kornfeld's suggestion of using areas to explain both R' Yochanan and
the Rabbis of Caesarea is interesting, but is not the stance taken by
the gemara. Nor is the explanation of R' Yochanan's statement that the
bottom 2 + tefachim of the circular opening being within 10 tefachim of
the ground as referring to the area of the circular segment below the
imaginary 4 x 4 opening and the circular perimeter a practical suggestion.
How would they measure such a hypothetical area? Is there evidence that
the area of a circle, for example, was known prior to the demonstration
by Tosfot?

Yitzchok Zlochower

> Could you elaborate? I don't have a SA at work (only a MB and a
> KSA) - and at home I don't have time or energy for ARVM. :-)

IIRC:

A) The Taz brings the connection between "ukshartam" and "uchtavtam"
as the reason women are posul to write (i.e. since they don't put on
tefillin they can't write). My teacher explained that since women (and
katan, etc) don't have a *chiyuv* of tefillin, they can't write the
part of the parshiot talking about the chiyuv of tefillin with kavana,
thus making them posul.

B) The RamBam brings the mitzvah of writing a ST as connected to limud
torah -- and the Kesset brings in his explanation that, even though
there are parts of the Torah that don't apply to everyone (i.e. a Yisroel
sofer has no chiyuv in mitzvat cohanim) all men have a chiyuv to learn all
parts of the torah. Therefore they can write those sections with kavannah,
since they apply to them. Women have no chiyuv to learn parts of the Torah
that they are not obligated in, so they again are assumed to be unable to
write those sections with kavannah, since those parts don't apply to them.

Akiva

===========================================
"We can never see past the choices we don't understand."
-- The Oracle, "Matrix Reloaded"

There is a discussion of this very point in the Netsiv, Herchev Davar to
Breishis 37, 2. He shows form the fact that Reuven was willing to throw
Yosef into the Bor full of snakes to save him from the brothers and from
the fact that Nevuchadnezzar sealed the entrance of the fiery kiln into
which he threw Daniel ( so that no hand shall have power against Daniel),
that average hashgocho that is enough to prevent natural disaster is
not sufficient to protect against human action. For that you requie a
greater zchus.

M. Levin

In a message dated 8/25/03 "Leonid Portnoy" <leonid.portnoy@verizon.net>
writes:
> Thus, he was destined to live, even if you had not rescued him. It
> seems then, that your 'saving his life' was merely a token act... Why should
> anyone be able to claim any credit for saving a life, if technically
> they had no choice in the matter whatsoever? If they had no choice in
> the matter, they shouldn't get a reward.
> 
> And now let's reverse the situation - why should one be held liable for
> killing somebody? The victim was definitely pre-destined to die anyway,
> at that exact time (otherwise he would have lived longer). Why should
> the murderer be punished?

Megalgalin zechus al yedei zakai, megalgalin chov al yedei chayav.

When Hashem decrees that Ploni will be murdered this year, He looks
around for a shaliach to do the deed--and chooses the man who volunteers
to be a murderer. Had that man somehow known of G-d's intentions
and volunteered leshem Shomayim, he would presumably not be guilty.
But because he chose to be a murderer in ignorance of G-d's intentions,
he gets whatever punishment is coming to him.

The area of bechira is actually rather circumscribed: hakol biyedei
shomayim chutz miyir'as shomayim. Thus, whether the would-be murderer
succeeds in murdering anyone or not is largely out of his hands. If he
has some zechus, or his intended victim has some zechus, Hashem will
prevent the "volunteer's" plans from materializing, and his dream of
becoming a murderer may go unrealized.

Toby Katz 

Reb Leonid Portnoy wrote:
> And now let's reverse the situation - why should one be held liable for
> killing somebody? The victim was definitely pre-destined to die anyway,
> at that exact time (otherwise he would have lived longer). Why should
> the murderer be punished?

The TB Makot addresses this issue partially, and states that megalgelim
zkhut 'al yedei zakai and 'hovah 'al yedei 'hayav. Yet, one may wonder
whether that is a universal solution; I think it only applies in certain
cases. I have to think about whether Rambam writes anything about that
in the Moreh Nevukhim.

Arie Folger

> The area of bechira is actually rather circumscribed: hakol biyedei
> shomayim chutz miyir'as shomayim. Thus, whether the would-be murderer
> succeeds in murdering anyone or not is largely out of his hands. If he
> has some zechus, or his intended victim has some zechus, Hashem will
> prevent the "volunteer's" plans from materializing, and his dream of
> becoming a murderer may go unrealized.

There is a problem with this approach :

First, let's say at the last second the murderer changes his mind and
chooses not to kill. Certainly, he has the option to do so, for otherwise
he would not have free choice in the matter. But if so, how will the
victim be killed, if that victim has indeed been decreed in shomayim to
die at a specific time?

For example, it is decreed that Ploni should die on dd/mm/yy at
12:31:37.09pm. Prior to this, a murderer happens to 'volunteer' himself
for the job. For whatever circumstances he develops a grudge against
the victim, and everything is set up such that if he chooses to do so
he will kill the victim at exactly 12:31:37.09pm.[Another question is -
how can this all be set up so precisely, with so many external factors
and choices influencing the timing of the event the?] He approaches
the victim, raises the knife, but at 12:31:36.00 suddenly changes his
mind. Now, in order to fulfill the Heavenly decree, there is just about
one second left. Of course, the victim could just drop dead on his own,
but that would be a miraculous act - statistically we just don't see
that happening often.

Or perhaps you will say that a decree from Heaven involves a range of
time, not an exact moment. And the precise moment is determined by the
choice of man. How does that mesh with "hakol biyedei shomayim chutz
miyir'as shomayim"?

>>>The Rambam is irrelevant because it only applies to a Ger Toshav,
someone who has voluntarily entered Jewish society by accepting the yoke
of his commandments before a beis din. To everyone else, those who have
not entered into the Jewish community, these halachos imply a lack of
obligation to clothe, feed and care for them.<<<

Mifarnisin u'michasin ani'yei goyim im aniyei yisrael mipnei darkei shalom
(rambam m' aniyim 7:5). Even the Rambam there in milachim is clear that
these obligations extend beyond ger toshav - "...afilu hagoyim (not just
ger toshav discussed before that) tzivu chachaim l'vaker choleihem,
v'likvor meiseihem im meisei yisrael, u'lifarnes aniyeihem b'chlal
aniyei yisarel..."

At the risk of a comment from a frequent Baal Plugta ( RMS), here is
my response. Perhaps, Arvus is a higher level of responsibility than
Darcei Noam, et al. The real issue is not whether we have any social
responsibility for the rest of the world. That issue is an overstatement
of the obvious-such a responsibility can be deduced from all of the
sources marshalled by RMS. The issue is whether such a responsibility
supercedes one's responsibilties vis a vis one's fellow Jews or is more
important than them.

Steve Brizel

From: "Mishpachat Freedenberg" <free@actcom.co.il>
> As a follow-up, I looked up the reference to R' Yosef Eliyahu Henkin...
> "If a woman wants to pray in the women's section and will make her acts
> proper with the holiness of Shabbos, kashrus, purity and modesty, for
> all of these are fundamental, and she also wants to say kaddish before
> the women at the same time that men are reciting kaddish in the men's
> synagogue, it is possible that there is no concern."

Reading it in the original [and indeed Rav Henkin z'l has a beautiful
essay on the whole inyan of saying Kaddish], it is obvious that he is
being 'lenient' and allowing the woman to say Kaddish - as a reward
to her - if she will follow the laws of Shabbos, TH, Kashrus and
Tzenius. Even then, he only says:"it is possible [efshar] that there
is no concern". That is very far, IMHO, from it being a lekatchila -
or even a clear hetter. [And, in any case, it is obvious that the men
should not hear her voice.]

He has, BTW, a second tshuva regarding a 'naaroh' - obviously referring
to a young girl - where he writes that even for males - if they are
not worthy of being a baal tefilah - then their kaddish is of doubtful
quality, kol shkein females. However, he continues, if not for Kaddish ,
many wouldn't teach their children how to davven, therefore - Kaddish is
said by all men and thus if a young girl wants to say it we should allow
her for the same reason. This was written in 1947 - when Yiddishkeit
standards were pretty low in NY.

Anyone trying to use these tshuvos for a hetter these days, is definitely
not being honest with themselves [except in places, where Yiddishkeit
is at similar low levels to what America sunk to at the time of writing.]

So the 2 serious 'mattirim' have been found NOT to be so...[which comes
as no surprise...]

SBA

A number of years back I heard about someone developing an "expert system"
for Psak that would use a database to select sources and weight them to
come to a conclusion. Does anyone know if this has been pursued?

KT
Joel Rich

RML wrote:
> In sefer Yonah, it seems that we should be "in tune" with Hashem's concern
> for all human beings. That is not a halachik but a hashkafic imperative.

This touches on what bothered me most about this discussion. There seems to be
an assumption that the Torah does not prescribe any moral imperative beyond
the minimum imposed by halachah.

BTW, if this were true, then there would be no cause for any derabbanan's
other than gezeiros. (Perhaps Tish'a be'Av, Purim and Chanukah too, as well as
RYBZ's takanos zecheir lemiqdash.) After all, if every moral imperative is
fully expressed in terms of chiyuv or issur, then what motivated chazal to
create new law -- other than preventing error and new historical events?

Not to mention this notion of extra-halachic values is necessary for defining
neveilus in "naval birshus haTorah", which direction is "beyond" when one is
looking to be lifnim mishuras hadin, or "qedushah" when seeking to "qadeish es
atzmekha bemah shemutar lakh".

While I would not "write out" anyone who didn't share my morality WRT
nachriim, I would certainly question their morals. However, I would question
whether a derekh which denies this greater moral imperative is actually within
eilu va'eilu altogether.

Again, the Rambam lists ikkarei emunah, fundamentals of theology. Doesn't
yahadus insist on basic fundamentals of axiology as well?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905

 From an AP story today:
>>NEW YORK (Aug. 25) - The unidentified remains of more than a thousand
people who died in the World Trade Center attacks will be interred at
a memorial at the site until science can find a way to identify them.

More than 12,000 body parts have yet to be identified and they will
be stored at the rebuilt site at the requests of many of the victims'
relatives, The New York Times reported in Monday editions.<<

I am wondering how this will affect kohanim.

Toby Katz 

RML posted a letter from RMK concerning Sukka 8a. He asks, "How did
the Rabbis of Kesari make such a mistake, and why did Rebbi Yochanan
follow them?"

It is worth noting that the Gemara in Sukka has an alternative
understanding of R' Yohanan. See Tos there in Eruvin 76b that this
alternative is the halacha! This alternative concludes "R' Yohanan lo
dak"--R' Yohanan was not exacting in his measurements. If, in fact, R'
Yohanan used a more accurate pi than the 3 of the Gemara, then he is
"dak"! Evidence that some though not all of "Chazal" had a more exact
pi than 3!

Shlomo Goldstein

RAM writes:
> My LOR, listmember Rav E.M. Teitz has a different view.... We obviously do not
> hold like that MB: Shabbos does not begin until we begin Mizmor Shir, which
> is *after* HaMakom Y'nachem.

Barukh shekivanti. I had this idea in a post of my own that was waiting for me
to run the moderation software when RAM's email came in.

One other nequdah I'd want to add: We're noheig to say 6 peraqim of tehillim
before (techinas R' Nechuniah ben Haqaneh and) Lekha Dodi. (It seems the
notion of 6 and not 5 was originally open to debate.) These peraqim are
considered keneged the 6 days of the week. Which would mean that the only
possible window, according to the original intent of our nusach, is some time
between the 6th pereq and the 7th, "Mizmor Shir".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905

Someone pointed out to me offlist that in Iggeros Moshe OC 5:12 R'
Moshe Feinstein writes that, in Europe, almanos were allowed into the
men's section to say kaddish.

Gil Student

RYGB wrote:
> ... I think that I picked up this understanding from Reb
> Yerucham years ago, but, if not, it's mine:
> R' Akiva stressed interpersonal accomplishment as the pinnacle of human
> achievement; Ben Azzai disagreed, maintaining that it is the perfection of
> Man as expressed by his life story that is at that pinnacle.

> Now that I think of it, I have a more mundane pshat, but one that is also
> karov el ho'emes, I think:
> R' Akiva argued that Ben Azzai must get married, as only with a "rei'a ahuv"
> can he fulfill the mitzvah of the "klal gadol ba'Torah." Ben Azzai, who was
> "chashkah nafsho b'Torah" disagreed, and maintained that self-perfection
> took precedence.

Are these two different peshatim? Perhaps ben Azzai undervalued marriage in
comparison to his talmud torah because bA defined man's goal in terms of his
own life story.

-mi

Chaim Brown wrote:
>Mifarnisin u'michasin ani'yei goyim im aniyei yisrael
>mipnei darkei shalom (rambam m' aniyim 7:5). Even the
>Rambam there in milachim is clear that these obligations
>extend beyond ger toshav - "...afilu hagoyim (not just
>ger toshav discussed before that) tzivu chachaim l'vaker
>choleihem, v'likvor meiseihem im meisei yisrael,
>u'lifarnes aniyeihem b'chlal aniyei yisarel..."

That is what I was referring to when I wrote:

"Those who explain "mipnei darkei shalom" as being more than just eivah,
and I am sympathetic to these explanations, are being innovative. It is
a chidush. And I do not believe that R' Aharon Lichtenstein can obligate
everyone else with his chidushim."

Gil Student

> A number of years back I heard about someone developing an "expert system"
> for Psak that would use a database to select sources and weight them to
> come to a conclusion. Does anyone know if this has been pursued?

I worked on one several years ago for basar v'chalav -- but the people
funding it stopped development when the Rabbanim they consulted *advised*
against it.

Akiva

"Rav Hershel Schachter pointed out at this year's RCA convention
(available on tape #1549 from R Milton Nordlicht) that one can only say
qaddish with a minyan and that if there is a permanent mechitza there is
no quorum present in the women's section. He cites several examples from
Vilna that women came into the men's section for the express purpose of
saying qaddish."

This would imply that women hearing davening and layning in the women's
section are not really hearing it with a minyan.
It also implies that if men are in the women's section (when there are
no women present) they are not part of the minyan.
I remember that there were places that on chol hamoed separated people
based on whether they wore tefillin between the men's and women's
section. Obviously they felt that both sides are part of the same minyan
though separated.

I am pretty sure I have seen statements that mechitzot meant only for
tzniut eg for davening are not real separations and so one can put it
up on shabbat (MB) and also do not separate for a minyan.

Eli Turkel

Assuming that the tzibur consists of 10 men , is the Baal tefillah
obligated to wait for all to conclude before starting Chazaras
HaShatz? Someone showed me that the KSA is machmir and requires all 10 to
have concluded their Tefialh BLachash. OTOH, if you look in AC 123 and
MB thereat, you will not see such a requirement lchumra at all.IIIIRC,
in yeshivas and most shuls, the minhag is to wait only until the rav
has completed his Tefilah bLachash ( as stated in the MB). Comments?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

See SA OC 124:4. The Tzitz Eliezer is meikil for 8+ the Shatz but the
MB requires 9+ the shatz. I think the Derisha is meikil also.

Gil Student

Often by the time the Rav has completed, there are already a minyan that
has. In our shul we were given the psak that bishas hadchak we can start
with 6 or more. In our small community often the 10th (and som times
the 9th) come in at Yishtabach (or later after we began continuing
in Yechicus). Some of us have to leave on time to be at work. In our
situation we were told to go with 6.

Harry Weiss

In a message dated 8/25/03, vze2vt56@verizon.net writes:
> TK:
>> The area of bechira is actually rather circumscribed: hakol biyedei shomayim 
>> chutz miyir'as shomayim.  Thus, whether the would-be murderer succeeds in 
>> murdering anyone or not is largely out of his hands. 

> There is a problem with this approach :
> First, let's say at the last second the murderer changes his mind and 
> chooses not to kill. ... But if so, how will the victim be killed,
> if that victim has indeed been decreed in shomayim to die at a
> specific time?

There is another Chazal I could have cited, in addition to "hakol biyedei
shomayim..." and that is: Bederech sheadam rotzeh lelech, molichin oso.

People's choices do not involve second-by-second decisions. They involve
habits, thoughts, plans, emotions, learning etc etc that stretch over
long periods of time, even a lifetime.

It's comparable to someone who has learned how to do CPR, let's say, or
has learned how to react to certain emergency situations. At the moment,
he has to act quickly, by trained instinct (yes, I know that "trained"
and "instinct" are an oxymoron, but I chose that term deliberately).

He didn't make the choice to save the person's life when the emergency
arose, when adrenaline kicked in and his training was put to use.
He didn't have enough time at that moment to think, or to make choices.
He chose to save that life when he took the CPR course and trained for
that moment.

> For example, it is decreed that Ploni should die on dd/mm/yy at 
> 12:31:37.09pm. Prior to this, a murderer happens to 'volunteer'
> himself for the job.
> ...He approaches the victim, raises the knife, but at 12:31:36.00 suddenly 
> changes his mind. Now, in order to fulfill the Heavenly decree, there
> is just about one second left....

There is such a concept in Chazal as "too late to do teshuva." After you
pull the trigger but before the bullet hits its mark is too late.

> [Another question is - how can this all be set up so precisely, with so many 
> external factors and choices influencing the timing of the event?]

G-d is a supercomputer far, far above our ability to fathom.  He works things 
out, don't worry.

Toby Katz 

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


[ 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         ]