Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 047

Thursday, May 18 2006

• Re:Opposition to Lag BaOmer pilgrimage by Gdolim-sources
• Re: Rambam on variation in length of month of Elul
• RE: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• RE: Al Naharos Bavel: Authorship and Ibn Ezra's shitta
• RE: Malachim (was Spilling drops of wine at the Seder)
• RE: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Shevuos - Matan Torah
• Re: Shevuos - Matan Torah
• Re: Al Naharos Bavel: Authorship and Ibn Ezra's shitta
• Re: Al Naharos Bavel: Authorship and Ibn Ezra's shitta
• RE: Rambam on variation in length of month of Elul
• Re: Rambam on variation in length of month of Elul
• Re: Rambam on variation in length of month of Elul
• Re: Lecha Dodi niggen during Sefira
• Re: Shavuos and Matan Torah
• Shavuos - Dairy
• [none]

R S Y Zevin ZTL in HaMoadim BHalacha mentions many Gdolei Acharonim
aside and long before the Gdolim mentioned by RSBA who were opposed to
this practice for a variety of reasons.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com> wrote:
> Does BD have the authority to refuse witnesses?

Yup. Rosh Hashana 20a

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On May 16, 2006, at 20:01:04 -0400GMT, R' Simcha Coffer wrote:
> the qualitative
> difference between a Yid and a goy at length in the beginning of Nefesh
> haChaim regarding why we are davka referred to as tzelem *Elokim* (as
> opposed to other sheimos of Hashem)

How does this fit with the fact that the Torah says _tzelem Eloqim_
by the entirety of the human race, _Eloqim_ being the dominant sheim by
the narrative of Creation in general?

> and it is a recurring theme in all
> of Tanach. "Hein la'Shem Elokecha haShamayim u'shimey haShamayim...rak
> (rak is a miyut) ba'avosecha chashak Hashem l'ahava osam..." Only in
> your forefathers did Hashem express his desire and loved them. Only! No
> desire was expressed for the Spaniards, no desire for the Poles or the
> Swedes. Just the Jews.

Of course, because what is the purpose of this love (Devarim 10:15)?

See the preceding and following context:

Pesuqim 10:12-13
"Ve`ata Yisra'eil, ma H' eloqekha sho'eil mei`imakh, ki im leyir'a et
H' eloqekha, *lalekhet bekhol derakhav ule'ahava oto, vela`avod et H'
eloqekha bekhol levavkha uvekhol nafshekha -- lishmor et mitzvot H'
ve'et hhuqotav, asher anokhi metzavekha hayom* letov lakh".

Pasuq 11:1
"Ve'ahavta et H' eloqekha, *veshamarta mishmarto, vehhuqotav umishpatav
umitzvotav,* kol hayamim."

Also see Pirqey Avot 3:18 (your numbering may vary) for an example
of God's love for all humanity -- "hhaviv adam shenivra' betzelem;
hhiba yeteira noda`at lo shenivra' betzelem, shene'emar [prooftext from
Creation]". God's special *additional* love for Yisra'eil, as expressed
in giving us Torah, etc., is only then listed after the basic level of
God's love for Beney Adam has already been proven.

> So, the Jews who heard this statement from Moshe could have said "well,
> maybe this just means our forefathers but what about us"? So the pasuk
> adds "bachem". Perhaps future generations of Jews will say, "well, maybe
> Hashem just loved the generation of the midbar; future generations...who
> knows...perhaps we're merely on par with the goyim? Maybe G-d has lots
> of love to go around? Why do we have to be so presumptuous and hog all
> the love for ourselves"? Thus, the pasuk concludes, "kayom hazaeh"
> which means, anytime you take a Chumash and read this pasuk, it is
> telling you that Hashem is interested solely in you, not the goyim.

As R' Menachem Leibtag has said (anyone know any 'more authoritative'
sources preceding him? my knowledge base isn't as wide as the rest
of yall), the concept of Qedusha is that of *separating out one part
in order to elevate the whole*. Shabbos is separated from the rest of
the week in order to hallow the week; Rosh Hhodesh is separated out to
hallow the entire month, etc. `Am Yisra'eil is separated out from the
rest of humanity and given a special role in order to elevate the whole;
the _umot ha`olam_ are not spectators in the story of God, Torah and
Israel -- they are the clients for whom our 'service' provides.

 -Stephen (Steg) Belsky
   "the main purpose of the pyramid is to say
    'my unique pyramid is sky high and made of white marble.
     i do not share it with anyone'."
       ~ andrew nowicki

On May 17, 2006, Lisa Liel wrote:
> R' Simcha Coffer  wrote:
>>The obvious issue this thread is addressing is how Dovid was able to
>>compose a mizmor which portrayed events which had not yet occurred.
>>I accept (and am grateful for the clarification of) RZL's
>>explanation but I have a kasha. How can Dovid, or anyone for that
>>matter, describe events which occur in the future when said events
>>are ostensibly taluy on bechira?

> I'm not sure that's relevant to this case. We have prophecies that refer
> to a conflict with Edom in the future. What does that mean, exactly?
> After it happens, we'll probably have a better idea.

I already mentioned to RTK that general type nevuos do not contradict
a specific person's bechira as the Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva (Perek 6)
learns. OTOH, Dovid's mizmor seemed a bit too specific for me although I
suppose I would be willing to accept the answer of the Rambam in Dovid's
case too.

R' Avigdor Miller has a fascinating approach to resolve apparent
contradictions between bechira and nevua. The upshot of it is that a nevua
is only one possible scenario however there are many scenarios that can
be read into the nevua and in the end a person's bechira is kovea the
ultimate interpretation of the nevua. He illustrates this at length and
goes much deeper into it than I have just portrayed v'ein kan mikomo.

> King David wrote of exiles in Babylon. Who knew when that might happen?
> Whether it was a metaphor?

Chazal say it was a specific reference to the Levi'im who mutilated
their thumbs and said "eich nashir es shir Hashem etc"

>    And in fact, who says there weren't captives
> in Babylon during David's own time.

??? Are we referring to the same kapitil Tehilim? Sham Yashavnu, gam
bachinu b'zachreinu es tziyon...This did not apply during Dovid or
Shlomo's time. These two kings successfully vanquished all of their
enemies, built the Beis haMikdash and ruled during the golden age of
monarchy in klal Yisrael. Your interpretation is simply untenable.

> On Tue, 16 May 2006 10:58:55 EDT, T613K@aol.com wrote:
>>Consider also that they kept the Torah before it was given... 

> That's medrash, though. And not to be taken as literally true.

What gives you licence to say such a thing? The Medrash is very specific
regarding the limud haTorah of the Avos and in fact, the Rambam refers to
this very Medrash in Hilchos AZ when he provides us with a fascinating
historical depiction of Avraham Avinu (ben mem ches hee'keer es Bor'o
etc.) The Medrash says for instance that Avraham Avinu even knew the laws
of eiruvei tavshilin. This is a specific statement not some allegorical
teaching. Yaakov was convinced that Yoseph was alive because the brothers
informed him that the last sugya he was learning with Yoseph was 'egla
arufa'. There are many other statements in Chazal which express the idea
that the Avos learned Torah and they are often brought down by Rashi,
one the greatest pashtanim amongst the Rishonim. The fact that the Avos
knew Torah before it was given is incontestable.

> In this
> case, it's demonstrably false, as witness Yaakov's marriage to two
> sisters and Amram's marriage to his aunt.

Apparently you are not familiar with the famous shita of the Ramban here.
The Ramban (Bereishis 26:5) deals with your question - ayin sham. In
addition, he claims (Bereishis 48:7) that Yaakov did not bring Rachel
to the Mi'aras haMachpela because he was embarrassed to bury shtey
achyos in front of his father[s] so apparently Yaakov was aware that he
was doing something wrong. And although it seems the Ramban was saying
the latter mee'sivaras nafsho, actually he is michaven to a Medrash in
Yalkut Reuveni parshas va'yechi. Furthermore, the Ramban (Vayikra 18:25)
says that the reason Rachel died when she did was so that Yaakov would
not have to be over the prohibition of shtey achyos in Eretz Yisrael
which fits with the Ramban's shita in Bereishis 26:5.

As far as why Yaakov was not machmir on himself to keep the prohibition
of shtey achyos in chutza la'aretz, something that it would seem a
great tzadik like Yaakov should have done, Ramban explains this too
(Bereishis 48:7).

As far as how Yaakov was able to avoid the spiritually damaging effects
of such a union, see Rav Dessler's fascinating three part ma'amar in
MME 5 entitled Shochad LaSatan (end of the second part)

Simcha Coffer

On May 17, 2006, Jacob Farkas wrote:
> R' Simcha Coffer wrote:
>> fact, there are halachic kulos on Yom Tov sheini shel galuyos (shvus
>> d'shvus etc.) which indicates that the kedushas haYom of a Yom Tov
>> d'Rabbanon is inferior to that of a Yom Tov mi'de'oraysa.

> Just because there are Qulos on the second day does not make it "less"
> of of Yom Tov than the first day. 

Yes it does. The level of Kedusha regarding Shabbos u'Moadim is directly
linked to the idea of "Kaddosh bi'Asiyas Melachah". In fact, this is the
defining quality of the concept Kedusha as it pertains to holy days. Just
the very fact that one who is mikayem/michalel the first day of Yom Tov is
upholding/profaning a d'Oraysa as opposed to the second day Yom Tov which
is a d'rabbonan is a clear indication of its inferiority. I'm not saying
that there aren't ta'amim peni'mi'yim to Chazal's inactions (see for
instance Zohar Pinchas 231:) but this doesn't mean that you can compare
the level of a d'Oraysa to the level of a d'rabbonan. Even in d'Oraysas
themselves there are some Mitzvos that are greater than others. Rabbeinu
Yonah in Sha'arei Teshuva explains this at length (3:9 and on).

Simcha Coffer

On May 17, 2006, Steg Belsky wrote:
> On May 16, 2006, at 20:01:04 -0400GMT, R' Simcha Coffer wrote:
>> the qualitative
>> difference between a Yid and a goy at length in the beginning of Nefesh
>> haChaim regarding why we are davka referred to as tzelem *Elokim* (as
>> opposed to other sheimos of Hashem)

> How does this fit with the fact that the Torah says _tzelem Eloqim_
> by the entirety of the human race, _Eloqim_ being the dominant sheim by
> the narrative of Creation in general?

Adam haRishon was born b'Tzelem but subsequently his progeny lost much of
what the concept of Tzelem included at the time. Part of the concept of
Tzelem includes the phenomenon of a Neshama, a segulla that currently only
resides with klal Yisroel and is only actively connected to a frum Jew
as opposed to a non-practicing Jew who commits aveiros that are chayvey
krisus or higher thus losing his connection to his neshama (See Derush
Or haChaim of the Tiferes Yisrael printed in Yachin u'Boaz at the back
of seder Nezikin - skip the part about fossils - and see Tanya L'A 24)

Simcha Coffer

>: Your assumption is that Yom and Z'man are totally different. While
>: linguistically they are, and would have different meanings, in the
>: context of VaTittein Lanu...Es Yom...Z'man... it may not matter. As
>: the Z'man in the description is describing the Yom that God gave us,
>: the only explanation of Z'man is "this context" would be the "very day."

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Why? "Zeman" could mean period, which includes the very day, when it comes
> to Pesach and Sukkos, but not Shavu'os.
> Personally, I do not believe that's the difference between zeman and yom,
> but I do not see how you have proven your point.

My point was, that the tefilloh is about VaTitein lanu... es yom...,
thanking God for giving us "This Day" with "Z'man" describing what
"this day" is about. Zman in this context is describing the purpose of
this day. This could be an issue if the Torah were not given on this day.

Jacob Farkas

> Thus Moshe, perceiving this new situation, "hosif yom echad midaato"
> added another day, so that 50 complete days would be counted in the
> proper way, night followed by day.

Very interesting.
So what would "Hiskim HQBH al yodo" mean? Was HQBH initially inclined
to follow the Goyishe count of the Yiden, and then He agreed to follow
the count of Moshe? That would be a very interesting idea.

> Thus we are to understand the braita "Tanu Rabbanan, b'shishi b'chodesh
> nitnu aseret hadibrot l'Yisrael. Rabbi Yossi omer, b'shiva bo". Rabbi
> Yossi does not say "b'shiva b'chodesh" but b'shiva "bo", referring to the
> "shishi" of the chachamim. The seventh of Sivan (that year) fell on the
> sixth of every year. Shvii shehu shishi.

How would this fit with the posuk's reference to Shevee and Shishi
("Vayecashehu heunun sheshes yomim vayikra el Moshe bayom hashvee"
[Shemos 24:16]) according to the Chachomim who say that this is talking
about before matan Torah. (I guess according to Rav Yossi haglili who
says that this refers to after matan Torah, my question would stand about
Shlishi Revee and so on). Is the Posuk also only counting according to
this Goyishe count? or does rav Yossi talk about a different Shishi and
Shevee then the Posuk talks about? How does that work out?

Velvel

Wed, 17 May 2006 From: ""Lisa Liel"" <lisa@starways.net>
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 10:58:55 EDT, T613K@aol.com wrote:
>> Consider also that they kept the Torah before it was given and set 
>> aside the Tribe of Levi to be priests already in Egypt but Levi only 
>> became the shevet of kohanim when the first-borns sinned at the chet 
>> ha'egel.

> That's medrash, though. And not to be taken as literally true. In this
> case, it's demonstrably false, as witness Yaakov's marriage to two
> sisters and Amram's marriage to his aunt.

Rav Avigdor Miller zt"l explained that the avos did literally keep the
mitzvos; but since, unlike us, they were not metsuvah, they had the option
of weighing matters: in a conflict between marrying the right person to
raise a holy nation or even a holy family (or the kindness of feeding
others dairy with meat) vs. keeping the mitzvos d'oraissa and d'rabanan
and chumros, they in their great wisdom could (and were expected to)
choose the former.

Zvi Lampel

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> The question I had was the line between RhQ and nevu'ah.

I heard amany times from RHS in the name of R' Chaim that the difference
between Neviim and kesuvim is that Nevua was give to the Navi to be said,
and only could be written down if ti was relevant l'doros, while Kesuvim
was given over from the start to be written.

There is a nafka mina l'halacha does a sefer neviim have more kedusha
then a sefer kesuvim, can you place a sefer kesuvim on top of a sefer
neviim. According to R' Chaim they are equal.

 From the responses it seems some assume a non astronomical reason while
others assume an astronomical reason for the rov concerning the length
of Elul. Both options require hesber. If we assume a non astronomical
reason, then we need to understand what happened some time after Ezra
that required this change by BD wrt to their procedure with the kidush
of Elul. (I do not think that event could have been the kilkul of
the Cusim that necessitated the shluchim as that happened (I believe)
sometime DURING the bayis sheni after Ezra.) If OTOH the underlying
reason is astronomical then I would appreciate an understanding of the
astronomical details.

RMB wrote:
> Given the rush to get the word out for Rosh Chodesh Tishrei, Elul was
> made chaseir.

I am not clear on why the "rush to get the word out" would make BD make
Elul chaseir rather than malei and how that would help anyone. Consistency
by BD either way would avoid any doubts, but the "rush ..." and starting
Tishrei a day sooner, would not eliminate any doubts which was the
central problem. could you clarify what you meant.

RMB also wrote:
> This eliminates the need for sheluchim for Tishrei, who lema'aaseh
> couldn't succeed anyway.

But as the mishna clearly states, the sheluchim went out in Tishrei
nonetheless for Yom Kippur and Succos etc.

RMB further wrote:
> The Rambam, unlike the gemara's "Miymos Ezrah", seems to allow for
> exceptions to prevent AD"U Rosh

Tosafos in "Ve'al Yiskalkelu..." (RH 19:) however seems to learn that
the gemara is not referring to AD"U while Rashi seems to agree with RMB.

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

PS: Does anyone know if the actual time from new moon to new moon
(as opposed to the constant mean length of the synodic month) caused
by the 3-body problem and other minor perturbations varies in a gradual
(if not readily predictable) manner from month to month or is it erratic
and all over the place from one month to the next (within the limits of
29.53 days + or - 7 hours).

Jacob Farkas asked:
> Does BD have the authority to refuse witnesses?

Yes. The gemara darshens, "atem" afilu mezidin, that the Beis Din can
ignore the witnesses.

R' Marty Bluke wrote:
> Jacob Farkas asked:
>> Does BD have the authority to refuse witnesses?

> Yes. The gemara darshens, "atem" afilu mezidin, that the Beis Din can
> ignore the witnesses.

Mezidim doesn't imply refusal of testimony, rather it implies that BD
has the power to be Qovei'a the month even if in actuality the Molad
did not occur, and they are aware of the fact [by way of heshbon, for
instance]. Should witnesses come and testify to the contrary, BD would
have a problem. This is why the Gemara [that R' Gershon Dubin mentioned]
in Rosh Hashanah 20a states that BD intimidates the Eidim so that they
should remain silent and refuse to testify.

Should the witnesses come forward and be stubborn and testify even after
intimidation, perhaps BD has no choice but to accept their testimony.
Otherwise, the Gemara that mentions that Qilq'lu haL'viim Bashir WRT to
Rosh haShanah when Eidim came late would be difficult. Why wouldn't BD
just refuse them outright rather than cause problems, if it was within
the realm of their authority?

The point I was trying to make was in support of the idea that BD sought
to keep Elul Haseir for practical reasons [so the statement about
Elul never being Malei was a function of BD rather than astronomical
anamoly]. The fact that Rosh haShanah has 2 days was an institution based
on a scenario that could occur, should Eidim be stubborn and insist that
they testify.

Jacob Farkas

 From: "Y. Stein" <yidste@hotmail.com>
> Where 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)?

Here's url for tune:
<http://www.piyut.org.il/tradition/346.html?currPerformance=395>

The Lubavitcher Rebbe paskens this way in one of his sichos. I believe
that R' Tzvi Pesach Frank in Mikraei Kodesh has a long discussion about
this as well.

A well known reason for eating dairy on Shavuos is quoted by the Mishna
B'rura. I quote below from an article on the YU website:
> Perhaps the most famous reason for eating dairy products is the reason
> given by Mishna Berurah 494:12. Mishna Berurah suggests that at the time
> of Matan Torah, the receiving of the Torah, the Jewish people became
> obligated in all of the mitzvot of the Torah. As such, in order to eat
> meat, they would have had to follow the complex procedure involved in
> producing kosher meat. Because this procedure required time in order
> to properly prepare the meat, the only food items available immediately
> after Matan Torah were dairy products.

In fact, the Mishna B'rura also mentions related issues arising in the
Bnei Yisrael's Keilim. How would dairy products solve this?

More generally, did the Bnei Yisrael not eat Man, rather than meat or
milk while they were in the Midbar?

I imagine, as with many of my questions, that this either is a "Klutz
Kashya" or has been raised before. Nevertheless, I would appreciate it
if anybody can shed some light on this.

I would particularly appreciate any references.

SW

RSC:
> How can Dovid, or anyone for that matter, describe events which occur in
> the future when said events are ostensibly taluy on bechira? ... Rambam's
> approach (Hilchos Teshuva) to resolve the contradiction between yedia
> and bechira does not work for human beings.

AIUI, with human beings there is no yediah-bechira problem to start
with because, in contrast to Hashem's yediah, the yediah is not
by definition complete in all details. As long as the knowledge of
future events is nebulous, and does not include the specific act of
the baal bechira who chooses to act as he does, Rambam's solution
(that despite the gezeyra that the bnei Yisroel will be persecuted
by Egyptians, each individual Egyptian retained the ability to choose
against being one of the one persecuters) works all the more easily:
In Al Naharos Bavel Dovid does not name or even refer to Nebuchadnezzar
or any other specific Babylonians. There will be some people of Bavel
who will take Jews capture, and some who will tell the Leviim to sing
their songs, but it was not known to Dovid who specifically they were,
and each individual Babylonian had the bechira to be the one to act so
or otherwise. The Malbim even proposes that Dovid's "Al Naharos Bavel"
was not revealed to the ! world until the event took place.

This holds true for all the prophecies of war made by the neviim. The
only prophecy I'm aware of that actually mentions the name of a future
individual is that of Yeshyahu naming Coresh (Yeshaya 45:1-3).

The above was written before seeing the posts by others along the same
lines, and RLL's astute observation that there was more than one Coresh,
or Cyrus.

Zvi Lampel

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


[ 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         ]