Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 024

Friday, April 28 2006

• Re: mishum eivah
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Aruch Hashulchan vs. Mishna Berura
• Re: Aruch Hashulchan vs. Mishna Berura
• Re: Drifting of the Hebrew calendar

On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 08:24:54AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
:                    The case is a mashuah milhama who is not permitted
: to fulfill the mitzvath aseh of working in the beith hamikdash (partly)
: mishum eivah. It's not such a stretch to compare failing to fulfill an
: aseh d'orayysa with violating an issur d'rabbanan.

But it's not muchrach, either.

Every derabbanan, underneath it all, is backed by a lav de'oraisa --
lo sasur.

We tend to think of derabbanans as more lenient, because safeiq derabbanan
lequlah. However, the Sha'arei Yosher's (1:7) sevara is that that SDL
is because in a case of safeiq, not following their "yagidu lekha"
doesn't qualify as being soseir them. IOW, there is no implication of
anything inherently more lenient about the details of "lo sasur" than
of issurim Hashem spells out the dinim of Himself.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 14th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Gevurah: How does judgment reveal
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            G-d?

R' Josh Backon wrote:
> I then bring the real reason as brought by the Darchei
> Moishe on TUR Orach Chayim 473 that this was a zecher
> of "etzba eloKim" and mention that the alleged Abarbanel
> which quotes the "sorrow" hypothesis doesn't exist.

First, I'll concede that I too have been unable to find that apocryphal
Abarbanel. But I read the rest of the evidence differently than how R'
Backon reads it.

For example, the Darche Moshe 473:18 (quoted by Magen Avraham 473:29)
does say that the reason for using our finger to spill the wine is as a
zecher of "etzba Elokim" (which he spells with a heh, by the way). But
this is only the reason for using our finger -- it is not given as the
reason for spilling the wine!

That Darche Moshe also mentions that this appears to be a remez to a
certain mal'ach who was appointed over nekamah, which might have made
Dr. Backon's argument even stronger. But as I read it, it is not the
procedure of spilling which alludes to that mal'ach, but it is the number
of spillings which alludes to it.

We are left with no explicit reason to do the spilling to begin with,
at least none that I have found. So let me add two more data points:

One is the Shaar Hatziyun 473:81, who writes that some hold the
lechatchila procedure to be pouring directly from the cup, and therefore
an istenis (who will not drink wine which someone touched) should pour
directly, and not use his finger. It is clear to me that (according to
the Shar Hatziyun) there *is* some sort of significance to this act,
even when no fingers are involved (though the nature of that significance
is open to discussion). (Kaf Hachayim 473:163 also discusses pouring
directly from the cup.)

Another point is ... (uhhh, well, I was going to write about the
significance of saying the bracha of geulah on this cup, which is *not*
a kos malay but is missing sixteen drops. But I now see the Kaf Hachayim
473:165, who writes about refilling it.) ... Well, as I see it, we
still don't know the true reason behind this minhag. Given the Yalkut
about Chatzi Hallel, I'm quite satisfied to stay with "binfol oyvecha
al tismach", regardless of who came up with it.

Akiva Miller

On Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:00:15 -0400, Micha Berger 
<micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>A medrash, which can be found in the Yalqut Shim'oni and Pesiqta 
>deRav Kahanah (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a, found by RnLL), 
>explains CH on the 7th day of Pesach with the story about the 
>mal'achim drowning.

Full disclosure: I have not seen these sources inside.  They were 
given in the notes section at the bottom of my edition of the Tur, 
and I passed on that information when I gave the reference.

>Thus, having compassion on the Mitzriyim is a Jewish value. Not, as 
>R"D JB is portraying it, some non-O assimilation of American values.

None of these sources say that *we* are to have compassion on the
Egyptians. Only that Hashem did.

>The Perishah, as Lisa finally showed me, points you back to the 
>gemara. For all I know, his problem is that if the death of 
>Mitzriyim was cause for halving Hallel, what about Chanukah?

A valid question, in my opinion. And one which casts much doubt on
the idea that we do a partial Hallel to limit our joy due to the death
of people who were coming to kill us. After all, we didn't kill the
Egyptians. We actually killed our enemies on Hanukkah, and yet we refrain
from showing the kind of inappropriate compassion that R' Micha would like
to present as a Jewish value, and we finish Hallel all 8 days of Hanukkah.

I heard the following from R' David Bar Hayim. It says in Mishlei
24:17 "binfol oyivcha al tismach". Oyivcha, and not oyvecha, as R'
Micha mistakenly quoted. In the singular. And it says in Mishlei 11:10,
"ba'avod resha'im rinah". There is joy in the destruction of the wicked.
And in Tehillim 58:11, it says "Yismach tzaddik ki chazah nakam; paamav
yirchatz b'dam ha-rasha." And in Psikta d'Rav Kahane, it gives two
reasons why we do not say full Hallel during Pesach. The second of
these is that the Egyptians drowned.

Given a problem like this, we don't assume a machloket, and we don't
assume diametrically opposed views, because diametrically opposed views
are always addressed as such. Our mesorah does not simply say two
contradictory things and let them sit without comment.

R' Bar Hayim notes that Seder Eliyahu Rabbah at the end of chapter 18
actually refers to the conflict between Mishlei 24:17 and Mishlei 11:10.
Seder Eliyahu Rabbah says on this, "Keitzad yitkaymu shnei ketuvim
halalu?" How can these two psukim coexist? And it answers by saying
that "binfol oyivcha al tismach" refers specifically to a fellow Jew.
Which, R' Bar Hayim points out, fits the fact that the singular is used
in Mishlei 24:17. It doesn't refer to our enemies, but rather to a
personal enemy, or opponent, and one who is a fellow Jew, to boot.

He notes, parenthetically, that Seder Eliyahu Rabbah is mentioned in
Ketubot 17 as having been given over by Eliyahu HaNavi, so it has a
great deal of authority.

R' Bar Hayim further brings the Gemara in Megillah 16a:

[When Haman had to lead Mordechai around on King Ahasuerus's horse,]
he said: "Get up and ride."

[Mordechai] said, "I can't, because I'm weak from days of fasting."

[Haman] bent over [so that Mordechai could use him as a stepstool], and
[Mordechai] climbed up. As he climbed up, he kicked [Haman].

[Haman] said, "Doesn't it say by you: 'Do not rejoice at the downfall
of your enemy' (Proverbs 24:17)?"

[Mordechai] said to him, "Those words refer to a Jew [who is an enemy].
With regards to your like, it says: 'And you shall tread upon their high
places' (Deuteronomy 33:29)."

So the Gemara itself says what Seder Eliyahu Rabbah says. And lest you
argue that this applies only to Amalekites, the Gemara specifically says
that the verse applies only to Jews.

He also notes the way in which Shirat HaYam is a full blown celebration
of, among other things, the death of the Egyptians. "Tzallelu k'oferet
ba-mayim adirim".

>The idea of deminishing Hallel because of the death of the Mitzriyim 
>thus has a long history, from the Yalqut Shim'oni -- or even 
>earlier, from the medrashim from which he takes his liqut -- to R' 
>Aharon Kotler. "Not Jewish"? "Naarishkeit"?

I will simply say that it is impossible, given all of the sources that
specifically say otherwise, to learn what the Yalkut is saying the way R'
Micha is learning it. What is the alternative? The Gemara in Sanhedrin
39b says:

"What is the meaning of 'and they did not draw near one to the other
all the night' (Exodus 14:20)? At that time, the ministring angels
wanted to sing praises before the Holy One, Blessed be He. The Holy One,
Blessed be He, said to them: 'The work of My hands is drowning in the sea,
and you're singing praises before Me?'"

R' Elazar said: "He doesn't rejoice, but He causes others to rejoice.
We see this clearly when it says 'He will cause you to rejoice'
(Deuteronomy 28:63), rather than 'He will rejoice'. We see it from that."

The Gemara here states, explicitly that *only* Hashem's joy is diminished.
Why? Because the Egyptians are the work of His hands. They are not
the work of *our* hands. And the angels are merely aspects of Hashem
Himself, as we know. The verse "binfol oyivcha al tismach" applies to the
Egyptians here *only* for Hashem Himself. In the same way that we should
not rejoice over the downfall of a fellow Jew, so too does Hashem restrain
Himself (kavayachol) from rejoicing over the downfall of His creations.

I do not call the Yalkut Shimoni "naarischkeit". But I can understand
using that term for an idiosyncratic reading of the Yalkut that disregards
the entirety of the Tanach and Gemara.

>So I stand by my insistance that by saying such compassion is 
>unJewish, one is misrepresenting Judaism as being overly skewed 
>toward din over rachamim. Judaism recognized the "dialectic tension" 
>and requires us to both rejoice at the expression of Midas haDin, 
>and feel the pain of the fact that tzalmei E-lokim had to die to accomplish it.

With all due respect to R' Micha, I think this may be one of the 
reasons why R' Josh compared this way of thinking to the thinking 
common in the Conservative movement.  Judaism does not deal in 
"dialectic tension".  When opposing views exist, we drag them out 
into the open and resolve them.  It is not an exaggeration, I don't 
think, to say that resolving opposing views is the single most 
essential characteristic of Torah literature.  Far from sitting 
happily with "dialectic tension", authentic Judaism is a constant 
battle against any such thing.

A religion that's all about the "dialectic tension" would see a 
machloket between Abbaye and Rabba and say, "Well, maybe both of them 
are right."  The entirety of Shas could be contained in a single 
volume if that's what Judaism was about.

Furthermore, I don't believe that Judaism is skewed either overly 
towards din *or* overly towards rachamim.  Not a single verse in the 
Tanach suggests that *we* should worry ourselves about the downfall 
of our enemies.  Not a single Gemara says it either.  On the 
contrary, there are many verses and several Gemaras which say exactly 
the opposite.  In the face of this, I cannot see how anyone could 
seriously suggest that later sources were essentially disputing the 
Gemara and Tanach.  They *must* be read differently.

Lisa  

On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 10:41:31PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
:>A medrash, which can be found in the Yalqut Shim'oni and Pesiqta 
:>deRav Kahanah (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a, found by RnLL), 
...

: Full disclosure: I have not seen these sources inside.  They were 
: given in the notes section at the bottom of my edition of the Tur, 
: and I passed on that information when I gave the reference.

:>Thus, having compassion on the Mitzriyim is a Jewish value. Not, as 
:>R"D JB is portraying it, some non-O assimilation of American values.

: None of these sources say that *we* are to have compassion on the 
: Egyptians.  Only that Hashem did.

Actually, the medrash begins with the question of why we say Chatzi
Hallel on the 7th day, and gives the story as a motivation.

And this position, as I wrote, has a lengthy and pretty consistent
history of support from the days of the Yalqut Shim'oni's sources
until R' Aharon Kotler and today. I can see discussing the merits of
the explanation, that's what RAZZ's JA column does. Unconvincingly,
IMHO. He uses his standard "Misconception: .... Fact:..." format, but
then cites many sources that support the idea. It may not be THE reason,
merely "halachic hermenutics" as RYBS would have put it, lessons to be
drawn after the fact. But "Misconception is an overstatement.

I do not see how one can debate the Jewishness of the basic moral
statement, though. Too many primary sources accept the idea, even if it
evades your comprehension and startles you that they do.

About Chanukah:
: A valid question, in my opinion. And one which casts much doubt on
: the idea that we do a partial Hallel to limit our joy due to the death
: of people who were coming to kill us. After all, we didn't kill the
: Egyptians. We actually killed our enemies on Hanukkah, and yet we refrain
: from showing the kind of inappropriate compassion that R' Micha would like
: to present as a Jewish value, and we finish Hallel all 8 days of Hanukkah.

Perhaps our doing it rather than Hashem doing it when we started out at
"halalu ovdei AZ vehalalu ovdei AZ" is the difference. But based on what
you write below about Megillah 16a, you should agree this is a question
WRT Hallel and the death of the Misyavnim either way.

: I heard the following from R' David Bar Hayim...

Nice derashah, but I don't see how a contemporary derashah undoes nearly
2 millenia of history of discussing an ideal you wish to present as
entirely unJewish.

: R' Bar Hayim further brings the Gemara in Megillah 16a:
...
: So the Gemara itself says what Seder Eliyahu Rabbah says. And lest you
: argue that this applies only to Amalekites, the Gemara specifically says
: that the verse applies only to Jews.

And therefore, to Misyavnim? In which case, whole Hallel on Chanukah is
/still/ a problem. Rather, I would say this disproves answers to the BY's
question ("What neis was there on the first day of Chanukah, the oil
would have burned that day anyway -- so why isn't Chanukah a week?) that
are based on the war. We're simply celebrating Chanukas haBayis, not
war, not even on days when the associated battle was fought.

But more to our point: "Binfol oyvekha", if taken literally, would
prohibit making the day a celebration altogether, not simply whittling
off parts of Hallel. One could smooth away the disagreement between
this gemara and the medrash by saying that WRT nachriim, the joy
exists albeit in coexistence with something else.

:>The idea of deminishing Hallel because of the death of the Mitzriyim 
:>thus has a long history, from the Yalqut Shim'oni -- or even 
:>earlier, from the medrashim from which he takes his liqut -- to R' 
:>Aharon Kotler. "Not Jewish"? "Naarishkeit"?

: I will simply say that it is impossible, given all of the sources that
: specifically say otherwise, to learn what the Yalkut is saying the way R'
: Micha is learning it...

So then perhaps it's time to open RAZZ's sources FOR the idea, and see
how they (not just me) do learn it! It is not "impossible" if the ShL,
the BY and the Taz do it.

...
: R' Elazar said: "He doesn't rejoice, but He causes others to rejoice.
: We see this clearly when it says 'He will cause you to rejoice'
: (Deuteronomy 28:63), rather than 'He will rejoice'. We see it from that."

: The Gemara here states, explicitly that *only* Hashem's joy is diminished.

No. We see that only Hashem doesn't rejoice at all.

: I do not call the Yalkut Shimoni "naarischkeit". But I can understand
: using that term for an idiosyncratic reading of the Yalkut that disregards
: the entirety of the Tanach and Gemara.

Again, how many baalei mesorah must say it before it's not "idiosyncratic"?

:>So I stand by my insistance that by saying such compassion is 
:>unJewish, one is misrepresenting Judaism as being overly skewed 
:>toward din over rachamim. Judaism recognized the "dialectic tension" 
:>and requires us to both rejoice at the expression of Midas haDin, 
:>and feel the pain of the fact that tzalmei E-lokim had to die to
:>accomplish it.

: With all due respect to R' Micha, I think this may be one of the 
: reasons why R' Josh compared this way of thinking to the thinking 
: common in the Conservative movement.  Judaism does not deal in 
: "dialectic tension"...

Actually, dialectic tension is the *cornerstone* of RYBS's philsophy. From
Adam I vs Adam II (Lonely Man of Faith), to religious man vs cognitive
man (Ish haHalakhah), to community of fate vs community of destiny,
to man serving community vs community serving man, etc....

RMMS also wrote that R' Nachman required it. He was asked how one can
say both "Mitzvah gedolah lihyos besimchah tamid" and yet require aveilus
during the 3 weeks. His answer: one can feel both.

But more telling was his maqor (one used by RYBS on multiple occasions
as well): When someone gets a large yerushah, he is mevareikh al hara
AND al hatov.

:                       When opposing views exist, we drag them out 
: into the open and resolve them...
: A religion that's all about the "dialectic tension" would see a 
: machloket between Abbaye and Rabba and say, "Well, maybe both of them 
: are right."  The entirety of Shas could be contained in a single 
: volume if that's what Judaism was about.

You mean, the religion would say "Eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim"? <g>
The reason for dragging it out in the open is to (1) know all the "eilu"s,
as they're Torah, (2) to get to "vehalakhah ke-", since we could only
do one thing, not two contradictory ones. We may be able to feel two
contradictory things, but we can't both do and not do something.

Second, even had Judaism not embraced plurality, it would have been
possible that dialectic tension did not necessitate plurality. IOW, that
dealing with the fact that people internally are not consistent didn't
mean that the Torah itself was open to multiple valid but contradictory
models. The Torah does include plurality, but even if it hadn't, that
wouldn't prove that it doesn't view man as living within a dialectic
tension.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 15th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            harmony?

From: rabbirichwolpoe@aol.com
>A Dear freind, RAbbi meyer Zywica OBM passed awy recently. He was a
>Talmid at the Mir and hailed from pre-war Lita. My impression was that
>the Aruch hashulchan was considered to be THE poseik in Lita. He did
>not make an AhS vs. MB comparison but I would say anyone with a high
>level of learning can see from the AhS style a master of all 4 Turim
>with Rishonim, etc. The MB is less analytical and investigative and
>more about reporting shitos in the way the BA'eir heitiv did before him.

It took the CC more then TWO decades to write his peirush on JUST OC.
"Less analytical and investigative"? I think not. L'heipuch, but he
was a master of not only the "all 4 Turim with Rishonim" but a master
in being simple as well, in all things. If one didn't know who he was
it was impossible to recognize that he was the CC from his actions, he
acted simple in all ways. If you read his hagdamah to sefer CC you will
see that he basically says that you can be m'dayek in each word. As far
as I know that is not true of the SA (where the nosie keilim say at times
'lo dok'). IMVHO, this is analogous to a Rishon whose words appear simple
but open a R' Chaim, a R' Shimon Shkop and see the diyukim they make.

>I have also heard direi Torah that quote RYBS that AhS was the Poseik
>hador of his time. It is my unscientific impression that Litvisher
>rabbanim - not necessarily Roshei Yeshiva - were partial to the AhS.

I have anecdotal evidence that Rabbonim were partial to the AhS and
Roshie Yeshiva to the MB. A friend of mine, who learns in Emek Halacha,
told me that they say over there, "MB is for a RY and the AhS is for
a Rav!" I would imagine (without any real proof) that this is a saying
of R' Tuvia zt"l.

If these preferences are true it would seem to bear out what I
wrote above. Namely, that the MB is a sefer that a RY is 'nodie' to,
"analytical' etc, while the AhS is "less" analytical (of all the shittos)
and written with psak in mind and therefore a Rav is 'nodie'.

My first real experience with the AhS was, after learning Tzaddik Beis
in YD starting from the gemoro and going to the Shach and Taz, going
into a shul and opening the AhS to see what he says and deciding within
a couple of minutes that this will be my next big seforim purchase. It
felt as if it was so simple and straightforward, how is it possible to
argue with his conclusion?

>The MB on the other hand is a much better TEXT for teaching basic Halacha
>at around the high school level. Any Rav who is paskening a serious
>sheilah with the MB withou the AhS is imho not doing a thorough job.
>For "quick and dirty" sheilos, I'm sure MB is just fine. and also ipcha,
>if you pasken ONLY from AhS w/o MB you have not done your homework either.

Ah, but since they just came out with a new print AhS that has piskei MB
appended it should be easy to do both. Which do you think will win out?
Will it be used to pasken ONLY from the AhS with a way to see if the MB
argues as a backup, or will it be that even people who might have paskened
like the AhS will now, noticing on the bottom that the MB argues, switch
in practice of psak (even as they still learn the other sefer) to the MB?

KT,
MSS 

> AhS is more for RAbbanim MB is more for Roshei Yeshiva and
> Melamdim. Corollary, AhS is better for paskening and MB better for
> learning.

But you wrote above that AhS is more analytical than the MB. So wouldn't
the former appeal more to the Roshei Yeshiva and Melamdim? While I am
neither a Rosh Yeshiva nor a melamed, it appears me that there is is
more lomdus is the AhS than the MB. The AhS is probably more useful
as an aid in learning a sugya in Shas than the MB. On the other hand,
one of the MB's strengths over the AhS for the posek is that he deals
with more fact scenarios and details from the Acharonim than the AhS.
So I would have thought that the opposite is true.

> There are 2 kinds of LItvaks, Mussar-dik and non-mussar-dik. The
> Mussar-dik Litvaks like MB better, the non-mussar-dik like AhS better.

Why? What is the correlation between proclivity for mussar (or the
Mussar movement), and that for the AhS or MB? Does it have something
to do with the personalities of the respective authors, which to my
mind is not really relevant. (And anyway, was the CC a "Baal mussar"
ala the Alter of Kelm, etc?)

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

On 4/27/06, David E Cohen <ddcohen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know how many years a cycle would have to be to get a number of
> years, each comprised of 12 or 13 months, whose length is even closer
> to an integral number of astronomical solar years than then length of
> our 19-year cycle is to that of 19 solar years (and I'm not even sure
> that my computer can deal with numbers of chalakim that are big enough
> to write a program to find out), but I can be pretty certain that it's
> nowhere near 19.

"The Calculated Confusion of Calendars" by Wolfgang Alexander Schocken says:

"Assuming rounded-off values for the length of the tropic year = 365
days and 5 4/5 hours, and for the length of the synodic month = 29
days + 12 3/4 hours, one year contains 12 5216/14175 months. In order
to create complete agreement between the two values, a cycle of 14175
years should contain 5216 leap years. If we develop the value
5216/14175 into the continued fractions 14175 : 5216 : 3743 : 1473 :
797 : 676 : 121 : 71 : etc., we receive the approximations 1/2, 1/3,
3/8, 4/11, 7/19, 39/106, 46/125 etc."

I don't really understand the mathematics of this myself but it sounds
as if the answer to your question is that we would need a cycle of 106
years with 39 leap years.

Hodesh Tov and Shabbat Shalom

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


[ 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         ]