Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 042

Monday, May 15 2006

• Re: Rambam on variation in length of month of Elul
• RE: Rambam on variation in length of month of Elul
• translation of term
• tranlation of a term
• Re: Shevuos- Matan Torah
• Re: Shavuos - Matan Torah?
• RE: Avodah V17 #41
• Lecha Dodi niggen during Sefira
• Re: Another one for the historians
• Re: Shevuos- Matan Torah
• lag baomer and Rshbi
• bar kochvah
• RE: Malachim (was Spilling drops of wine at the Seder)
• RE: Malachim (was Spilling drops of wine at the Seder)
• Re: Challah on the table during kiddush
• Re: Challah on the Table
• lavud according to RYBS
• Al Naharos Bavel: Authorship and Ibn Ezra's shitta (Was: Spilling drops of wine at the Seder)
• Spilling drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: hallel on 16 Nisan

Hi again,

I should also note that since Elul is always constrained (by the ibur)
to occur in late summer/early fall and thus always occurs in a roughly
similar portion of the earth's orbit around the sun that this somehow
relates to the relationship of when the (actual) new moon is at or near
pericenter? I doubt that this is true, but if it is, can anyone explain
why this would be so? Also if this were true, then why would Elul only
be 29 days "al pi harov" and not all the time?

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

Chaim Manaster wrote:
> ... The Rambam states that "Elul al harov esrim vetisha yom..." that
> mostly, Elul has 29 days (when the shluchin went out, not in our
> current calendar).
...
> Can anyone explain the Rambam's assertion and the underlying astronomy?

I can't explain the astronomy, but the Rambam didn't make this up himself,
it is an explicit Gemara in Beitzah(6a). The gemara in
Beitzah(6a) states:
"Miyemos Ezra va'elech lo matzinu Elul meubar", that from the time of
Ezra, Elul was never 30 days.

It probably stands for a'yil - came in - in aramaic.based on Sanhedrin
84 Eizehu ben olam haba anvetan shefal berech shjayaf a'ail shayaf nafik
(see aruch erech shaf). See rashi.

David Guttmann

If you agree that Believing is Knowing, join me in the search for Knowledge
at http://yediah.blogspot.com/ 
Ve'izen vechiker (Kohelet 12:9) subscribe to Hakirah at www.hakirah.org 

I came across a term (for details, contact me privately) and I'm hoping
that someone here recognizes it:
    "Shif ***** Shif Nafik".

It's written in Hebrew letters (on a Matzeiva). The missing (****)
word possibly starts with an Ayin (but I'm not sure).

  Sanhedrin 88b

  Who is ben haolam habo? Shaif ail v shaif nafik (One who enters humbly
  and leaves humbly?)

I would like to hear about the crcumstances if possible, privately.

  M. Levin

> The Torah makes no mention of Shavuos as the time of giving the Torah -
> but rather it is connected to the harvest.
> The Magen Avraham( #494) asks the question why we assert that Shavuos
> is the time of Matan Torah?

What about the Gemara in Shabbos (86:2) which deals with the argument
between Chachomim and Rav Yossi whether Matan Torah was on 6-7 Sivan?

  Velvel

R' Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> I just came across Rivash (#96) which states that there was no
> link between Shavuos and Matan Torah until the calendar was
> fixed. Until that time there was no necessity that Shavuos
> would happen on the sixth of Sivan.

It seems to me that even when Shavuos falls on the 5th or 7th of Sivan,
there still IS a link between it and Matan Torah, by virtue of the fifty
days between Pesach and Shavuos.

Would we say that there's no link between Zos Chanukah and the Beis
HaMikdash merely because Zos Chanuka does not have a fixed date under
the current calendar?

(Disclosure: I did not see the Rivash inside. I'll try to find it
tomorrow.)

Akiva Miller

Zman Matan Torah -
The point of the Rivash that you cited is no chidush, the Tosefta (Erichun
1:9) already pointed that out, the chidush of the Rivash is that Shavuot
is independent from Matan Torah which need not have been the 50th day
after leaving Egypt. In my Sefer "Emanations" I have a chapter on this --
if you wish I can send you the sources.

Ari Kahn

Were is there a reference to the Minhag of singing a special Sefira
melody for Lecha Dodi, and where can I hear that melody (cassette,
online or musical notes)?

Y. Stein

[R Gershon Dubin:]
> I just saw Rav Shimshon Pincus's sefer where he says explicitly that
> NONE of the 24,000 were left. Such is also mashma in the Gemara that
> says "vehaya ha'olam shameim at shebah R"A etzel raboseinu shebadarom",
> meaning it was not a continuation of the previous talmidim.

I wonder what is the big simcha of the magefa ending if it only ended
because all his students were dead?

 -Toby  Katz
=============

velvel gurkow wrote:
>> The Torah makes no mention of Shavuos as the time of giving the Torah -
>> but rather it is connected to the harvest.
>> The Magen Avraham( #494) asks the question why we assert that Shavuos
>> is the time of Matan Torah?

> What about the Gemara in Shabbos (86:2) which deals with the argument
> between Chachomim and Rav Yossi whether Matan Torah was on 6-7 Sivan?

Rosh HaShanna(6b): R. Shemaiah learnt: Pentecost is sometimes on the
fifth of the [third] month, sometimes on the sixth, and sometimes on
the seventh. For instance, if both of them13 are full,14 it is on the
fifth;15 if both of them are defective.,16 it is on the seventh; if one
is full and the other defective, it is on the sixth.17

We see clearly from this gemora that the date of Shavuos was not always
the time of Matan Torah - 6th of Sivan. It was not until the calendar
became fixed that the dates always coincided. Thus there is no inherent
connection between the two events.

[Email #2. -mi]

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> R' Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>> I just came across Rivash (#96) which states that there was no
>> link between Shavuos and Matan Torah until the calendar was
>> fixed. Until that time there was no necessity that Shavuos
>> would happen on the sixth of Sivan.

> It seems to me that even when Shavuos falls on the 5th or 7th of Sivan,
> there still IS a link between it and Matan Torah, by virtue of the fifty
> days between Pesach and Shavuos.

If you accept Matan Torah as being the 6th of Sivan than when Shavuos
is the 5th or 7th they are not on the same day.

Daniel Eidensohn

One of the local papers had an article claiming that the notion that
Rashbi died on Lag Baomer is a mistake. He said that the origin is a
statement of R. Chaim Vital in the name of the Ari. However, much was
copied from R. Vital without permission.

The author found an original copy in a museum and it says that Lag
Baomer was "yom simchato shel Rashbi" not "yom mitato" and the copier
made a mistake.

That explains wht there is a celebration on a day that a tzaddik died.
The author assumed "yom simchato" reffered to the day he left the cave

 --
Eli Turkel

Fri, 12 May 2006 From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>:
>Heard a shiur on ...how R. Akivah could think that Bar Kochbah was Moshiach....
>His answer was that R. Akivah declared him to be Moshiach ben Yosef...

Y'yasher kochacha! Apparently, when the Rambam states (Hilchos Melachim
11:3) that the Chachamim saw they were mistaken about Bar Koziva being
Moshiach when they saw that he was killed in/through wrondoings ("neherag
b'avonos"), the operative word is "avonos," since the Rambam does accept
that Moshiach ben Yosef will be killed.

Another reason that it was Moshiach ben Yosef that they thought Bar Kochva
to be, and not Moshiach ben Dovid: If Bar Kochva was Moshiach ben Dovid,
who had been his predessesor Moshiach ben Yosef?!

Zvi Lampel

Thu, 11 May 2006, I wrote (Subject: Re: Spilling drops of wine at
the Seder):
> So, unless one introduces another idea, that the conduct expected
> of Melachim somehow relates only/even to the way it should be later on
> (being that Melachim exist outside the barriers of time, perhaps?--are
> you listening,Rabbi Berger? <g>) ...

"S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> (Thu, 11 May 2006) wrote:
>> being that Melachim exist outside the barriers of time
> How do you know?

I don't. That's why I said "perhaps." Perhaps I misplaced the "perhaps,"
which, in any case, I wrote tongue-in-cheek. Fact is, the Sefer HaIkarrim
(II:19) clearly states that only Hashem is not subject to time. Everything
else, including the Melachim, is subject to time.

Sorry if I caused your blood pressure to rise, Rabbi Coffer.

Zvi Lampel

On May 14, 2006, Zvi Lampel wrote:
> I don't. That's why I said "perhaps." Perhaps I misplaced the "perhaps,"
> which, in any case, I wrote tongue-in-cheek. Fact is, the Sefer HaIkarrim
> (II:19) clearly states that only Hashem is not subject to time. Everything
> else, including the Melachim, is subject to time.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here (I'm not calling you a devil
R' Zvi). If malachim exist in spiritual realms, than why does time,
a phenomenon which ostensibly relates to corporeality, limit malachim?
Va'afilu im timza lomar that since they have a connection to our world,
they must by necessity be governed, at least somewhat, by the imperatives
of the olam ha'Asiah, why do these restrictions apply to them even in
their own domain (or do they)? Does time somehow have the ability to
exist beyond the limitations of physicality? Does time exist for us
in Olam haBa? If so, what is the nature of this 'time'? What is its
purpose? (Rav Dessler seems to imply that it does - I'm not telling
you where - but I'd love to hear the unprejudiced opinion of the "olam"
before discussing Rav Dessler's conclusions...for some reason I seem to
be experiencing images of RMB with a big grin on his face).

BTY, since Hashem maintains a connection to this world, the same question
can be asked about Him but the famous kabbalistic answer is that there are
two distinct elements which manifest themselves in any discussion relating
to Hashem; one is referred to as 'Or' (Shechina) and one is referred to
as 'Ma'or' (Atzmus). Hashem's connection with this world only relates
to the quality we understand as 'Or', or in the lashon of the Maharal,
'Hanhaga', as opposed to 'Atzmus' about which we can say nothing at all
(This is a fundamental principle of kabbala which every student must
fully internalize before proceeding with the limudim which are discussed
by the Yod'ey Chein. The Chovos haLevavos mentions in Shaar haYichud that
this is a very difficult and potentially dangerous (R' Dessler) task to
accomplish). Thus, as RZL quotes from the Ikkarim, Hashem bi'Atzmuso is
entirely removed from any limitations of time. In fact, he is even removed
from any concept of spirituality as Eliyahu says 'les machshava tifeesa
bey klal" ('Klal' refers even to the hasaga of spiritual entities).

Note: my definition of time is 'a phenomenon (i.e. creation) which allows
us to experience events in a seder of zeh achar zeh'. Seeing that I am
currently an occupant of the olam haAssiah (i.e. limited by a physical
frame of reference), I (as it seems R' Lampel was struggling with) cannot
see how someone can envision a concept of time which transcends the
limitations of olam ha'Assiah and yet refer to time as a quality of the
olam haAssiah (for those uninitiated, olam haAssisah is the kabbalistic
designation for our lovely universe). As far as time being a quality
of olam haAssiah (i.e. a phenomenon which relates to physicality) the
Rambam in the Moreh maintains this view, not to mention modern scientific
principles such as Relativity.

(I fully expect RMB to jump in to this thread with both guns blazing...)

Simcha Coffer  

Y'yasher kochachem to R. Eli Turkel, R. Gershon Dubin for straightening
me out about scoring the Shabbos challah rather than cutting through it
as on weekdays--and especially to R. Dov Kay and R. Danny Schoemann" for
quoting the sources on this subject. Count on the sharp Avodah listmembers
for being on the cutting edge! Regarding the question as to why it is
assumed that cutting the challah entails a time-hefsek, I would suggest
considering the situation with water challah, rather than egg challah. The
crust of the water challos I've encountered is quite hard and thick,
and it does take considerable effort and time to cut through it.

Zvi Lampel

A lurker writes:
> You [old TK] wrote:
>> After Wilma we didn't have power for three weeks and for the first time
>> I started to take the Gemara seriously -- about Shabbos candles being
>> needed for sholom bayis, because otherwise people bump into things and
>> quarrel. That reasoning used to sound quaint and a bit comical to me,
>> until I lived it. In the dark, people become irritable and depressed,
>> it's the plain truth....

> Question:
> Why hasn't anybody brought up the 1st Tosafot Brachot 2a where it seems
> clear that in the pre-electricity days kabbalat shabbat was after mincha
> ketana so that dinner could be eaten by the remaining sunlight.

I responded to him that never having learned Tosfos or Gemara, I did not
know that people used to eat Friday night supper in the waning light of
the sun.

I added that some shuls here make early Shabbos in the summer but my
husband doesn't do that. He then wrote to me, "Regarding early Shabbat -
at one time it was nearly universal."

Comments? Early Shabbos once nearly universal? People used to eat
Friday night meal by sunlight?

(Recently I read something, actually, which seemed to indicate the
opposite -- namely, that when people didn't have clocks and watches,
they used to light candles when it started to get dark outside -- later
than we do nowadays. I don't know whether that is true, either.)

 -Toby  Katz
=============

In regard to the opinion of RYBS concerning lavud I translate from parts
of the notes to Mesechet Succah

According to Rambam (Succah 4:34) a horizontal lavud closes and connects
the mechitzah but does not count towards completing the shiur however
a lavud in the vertical direction also completes the needed shiurim.
Therefore in the horizontal direction Rambam requires tzurat hapesach next
to the pas to complete the shiur of 7. Thus even though lavud does not
complete the shiur tzurat hapesach does complete the needed 7 tefachim
for the 3rd wall.

RYBS then discusses why there should be a difference. He concludes that
lavud in the vertical direction applies throughout the Torah. He quotes Rashi
(kiddushin 26a) that for a kinyan hagbaah one needs to lift the object more
than 3 tefachim to take it out of the torah of lavud. Hence, for shabbat
and succah lavud in the vertical direction works for all halachot.
However, lavud in the horizontal direction is a halachah only in breaches
in walls and is not a general torah-wide halacha. Therefore, it does not
complete the shiur and according to Rambam one need tzurat hapesach in
addition to lavud

 -
Eli Turkel

Fri, 12 May 2006 From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com> 
>Whereas, to make your point, you had to introduce the rather controversial 
>idea that Dovid Hamelech wrote all the tehillim, even those that are 
>ascribed to people before and after his time. Metzudas Dovid holds your way, Ibn Ezra legitimizes mine; >while in his introduction he says that he leans towards those who say Dovid composed them all, ...

I'm afraid I have to disagree.

I don't think anyone holds that Dovid HaMelech originally composed the
Tehillim ascribed to those who lived before him--Adam, Malchitzedek,
Avraham ("Eisan"), Moses, Heman, Yeduson, Asaf, B'nei Korach. Bava
Basra 14b says this clearly. But nor, however, do Chazal or our rishonim
accept the notion that any Tehillim were composed after Dovid HaMelech's
time. To say otherwise would be the controversial opinion. To the Metsudos
you cited, you can add Radak ["Those which are not attributed to any
composer were composed by Dovid")] and Malbim, who refers to those who
say otherwise as "mal'iggim").

As for the Ibn Ezra, the only issue is whether Sefer Tehillim was written
b'ruach haKodesh. In his introduction the Ibn Ezra mentions unnamed
"commentators" (Karaim, perhaps?) who write that Al Naharos Bavel and
other psalms were first composed after Dovid HaMelech's time, based on
the premise that Tehillim is not a book of prophecy. However, he writes,
"daati noteh im divrei kadmonaynu z"l ki zeh hasefer kulo ne'emar b'ruach
hakodesh." Following Chazal, and showing that the evidence for the other
position is wanting, the Ibn Ezra holds that all Sefer Tehillim (including
Al Naharos Bavel) was compiled by Dovid HaMelech b'ruach hakodesh. And
since it was written b'ruach hakodesh, the Ibn Ezra maintains, he finds
no reason to deny that Dovid HaMelech wrote about events in his future.

RJB:
> ...in his comments on the beginning of Tehillim 137, he seems to take
> it at its word, as if it were written by Leviim in golus Bavel.

What he says is, "At the beginning of the sefer I mentioned the opinion
of 'the commentators' concerning this psalm. This psalm was said /al
leshone/ haLeviim she-hame haMeshor'rim b'galusam al Bavel." -- I.e.,
this mizmor was said not /by/ the Leviim of the galus, but poetically
placed in their mouths by Dovid who foresaw the ultimate conquest by
Bavel. The Ibn Ezra is not contradicting himself at all, and finds no
reason to question the simple understanding of Chazal.

Zvi Lampel

Fri, 12 May 2006 R. Jonathan Baker <jjbaker@panix.com> wrote:
> ... the text of the Seder is meant to evoke the feelings at the moment
> of Exodus - hence, ba'avur zeh, when matzot and maror are in front of
> you....The Egyptians are letting us go! Whee!

This does address why it is appropriate to say full Hallel at the Seder,
commemorating the events of the first days of the Exodus (even if the
later events would require a temperance of the joy). And you provide a
reason for such temperence at the seventh-day event of Krias Yam Suf:

RJB:
> ... And they gave us all their stuff, too! So we can't spare them a little
> sympathy for suffering all those plagues, through no fault of their own,
> just because Paroh and Hashem were having their power struggle, with no
> thought of such on the part of the masses of Egyptian society?

This is introducing a new assertion by which I guess you're explaining
why Hashem demanded of the Melachim and of us to limit our ecstasy over
the Egyptians' downfall and destruction. And whether we should limit
our joy regarding the suffering of other persecutors would depend upon
whether such concerns are applicable in each case. However, I must take
issue with your assertion about the Egyptian masses. Chazal and rishonim
clearly depict the masses of Egyptians to be willing participants in
the persecutions of the B'nei Yisroel, and personally deservant of
the plagues.

Zvi Lampel

"David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> because the omer is not associated with pesach whereas the mussaf is
>> associated with pesach.

>Why isn't the omer, even without Pesah, sufficient reason to say hallel?

The gemmora is not saying that the reason for hallel on each day of
succos is caused by the korban. Rather, the different korbobos of the
chag, caused by the chag, indicate to me the each day is an individual
day of chag. It is the chag that causes the hallel.

The omer not being a product of the chag doesn't tell me anything about
the nature of the individuality of the day.

Akiva

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


[ 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         ]