Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 057

Tuesday, May 30 2006

• Haftorah
• proper attribution and respecting of rights of a mechaber (was chumros)
• Re: geirut
• Re: Chumres (was: Waiting to Daven Maariv on Shavuous)
• RE: Call me Pinhead
• Re: Call me Pinhead
• Re: measuring the mean lunar month
• Re: measuring the mean lunar month
• Re: measuring the mean lunar month
• RE: Call me Pinhead
• Re: Call me Pinhead
• RE: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• chumres (chumros)
• Re: Doctor's fees
• RE: geirut
• d'avid inish dinei l'nafshei for MESIT ??
• Making early shabbos this week
• Mekorot for Shavuot shiur - Ani Hamehapech Bachara
• Re: measuring the mean lunar month

I have a question which came up this past Shabbos. Usually, the haftorah
always follows the theme of the Maftir. On Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh,
we read a special maftir which is followed by the Haftorah as found in
the theme of the Maftir.
Yet on three Shabosim there is no special Maftir, and yet we read a
special Haftorah. THese are1. Like this past Shabbos, Haftorah of Mochor
Chodesh, 2-Shabbas Shuvah and 3-Shabbos Hagodol.

The question that was raised is why are these three Haftorot different
from the others?

A chag Someach to all.
Ben

> I found in my files an article sent to me by Prof. Lowinger of bnei
> brak on Arvis and Kiddush on Shavuos. I am not sure who Hamburger is and
> the sefer he copied it from. It should resolve all the questions on the
> issue. Gut Yomtov.
> [See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/qidushShavuos.pdf>. -mi]

FYI, The piece posted at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/qidushShavuos.pdf> was written by
Rav Hamburger shlit"a (see Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, cheilek daled,
perek shishi - you will see that is the same material, same font,
etc.). I suggest that you ask Professor Lowinger and he should confirm
that for you. It is he who got it from Rav Hamburger, not vice versa !

In the front of Rav Hamburger's seforim there is a strong notice,
e.g. in SMA IV "kol hazechiyos shemuros 2004. Ein lihaatik o lihafitz
chibur zeh, o kitaim mimenu, bishum tzura ubishum emtzoi, elecktroni o
mechoni, lirabos tzilum o haklata, lilo ishur biksav mehamotzi lidfus."

I think there is therefore no place for posting pieces of the sefer
online without permission from the mechaber, who put much work into it.

[The read permissions for the pdf file have been shut off until the
issue is resolved. -mi]

Mordechai

[R Zev Sero:]
> OTOH, a  point often missed in these discussions is that, AIUI, the
> child's  retroactive consent is only required in the case of adoption.
> If the child  is being raised frum by his biological parents, then the
> giyur is an  unadulterated zechut, and he may not opt out when he comes
> of age.  

I could be wrong but I think his biological parents are not considered his
parents and the ger (even one converted as a young child) is considered
to be a new-born person with no parents.

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

In Avodah 17:5, R. Joel Rich asks if the Ha'aretz article "I will sing
for Rashi" (by R. Rafael Benjamin Posen) is in Hebrew.
The URLs for the article are
<http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=718561> [Hebrew]
<http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=719950> [English]

Joseph I. Lauer
Brooklyn, New York

On May 28, 2006, Micha Berger wrote:
> The debate was about whether infintesimals exist, phrased as whether
> an angel can get infintesimally small -- and therefore if an infinite
> number of angels can fit on the head of a pin.

I've never heard about this debate but I have a kasha on the whole
thing. If angels are purely spiritual, the debate is immaterial (spiritual
beings do not occupy any space...l'chora) and if we are referring to
their physical manifestations, the question should be no different than
the one facing physicists, i.e. how far can we break down matter into
its individual elements. Atoms are a good place to start but they are
broken down into subatomic elements (electrons, protons and neutrons)
which are further broken down into quarks and neutrinos. I don't know if
there will ever be an end to the dissection of matter but whatever that
end is should, l'chora, be the culmination of available space on a pinhead
regardless of the physical entity occupying that space... l'chora...

Simcha Coffer     

On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:30:33AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: I've never heard about this debate but I have a kasha on the whole
: thing. If angels are purely spiritual, the debate is immaterial (spiritual
: beings do not occupy any space...l'chora)...

What about leshitas haRambam, that mal'achim are tzurah beli chomer?
Can those tzuros be reduced to a point?

OTOH, did the Rambam break from Aristotle and believe that completed
infinities exist? Aristo believed that "infinite" existed only in
potential; e.g. that infinitely powerful would mean that any posited
[finite] quantity of power is less than the one in question. But not
that an infinite set could actually exist. This is also a given for
Zeno, which is why he considered proving that motion would require an
infinite number of steps was the same as proving that motion wasn't real.

The Rambam has a negative theology [the only real attributes of Hashem
are what He isn't], which avoids having to describe even to the Borei
an actual infinity.

As I think the debate didn't really touch our rishonim, and was more a Notzri
discussion, I'm not sure how relevant it is anyway.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 47th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about
Fax: (270) 514-1507               unity-how does it draw out one's soul?

RAF:
> Instead, he suggests that 'Hazal's great wisdom is apparent in  their
> knowledge of the length of the *solar* year, which is much  harder
> to measure.

RZS:
> But we have no evidence or  reason to believe that they *did* know 
> that.

Yes we do. The bracha vesen tal umatar livracha, beginning each year on
December 4th (or 5th). I don't know how they figured out when to start
saying it each year before they had printed calendars on their fridges,
but it is clearly tied to the solar and not the lunar year. You can
surely tell me how they calculated it.

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

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Yes we do.  The bracha vesen tal umatar livracha, beginning each year on 
> December 4th (or 5th).  I don't know how they figured out when to start 
> saying it each year before they had printed calendars on their fridges, 
>  but it is clearly tied to the solar and not the lunar year.

And it's *not* accurate. In fact, that cheshbon is even less accurate
than Chazal knew how to make it. We know they had both cheshbon Shmuel
and the more accurate cheshbon R Ada -- and so did their Greek, Roman,
and Persian neighbours. But cheshbon R Ada, aka the Metonic cycle, is
not all that accurate either -- it's closer to cheshbon Shmuel than to
the real value, and I know of no evidence as to whether Chazal knew this.

> You can surely tell me how they calculated it.

Looked it up in a Roman calendar, probably. Which is why they used
cheshbon Shmuel, since that's what the Roman calendar used. (The Romans
knew better, they just didn't care.)

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:41:57AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Yes we do. The bracha vesen tal umatar livracha, beginning each year
: on December 4th (or 5th). I don't know how they figured out when to
: start saying it each year before they had printed calendars on their
: fridges, but it is clearly tied to the solar and not the lunar year.
: You can surely tell me how they calculated it.

That's based on tequfas Shemu'el, which assumes a pretty inaccurate
solar year of 365 day, 6 hr. My guess: It's a derabbanan, and accuracy
was therefore less of an issue than ease of use.

The year, and therefore the ibbur of Adar, is based on tequfas R' Ada,
365 days, 5 hrs, 55 min, and 25 sec. Which fits my idea that we went
with greater accuracy for de'Oraisos. But this too only halves the error,
and is nowhere nearly as accurate as the molad.

This tequfah fits the 19 yr cycle used for shanos me'ubaros, and would
therefore be the candidate for "sod ha'ibbur". But, the same cycle
used in Bavel, but with an ibbur of Ellu [Elul] originally. The Chinese
calendar uses the same cycle as well -- although they're on a different
point in that cycle as we are. The Greeks knew it as the Metonic Cycle,
named for the first of their astronomers to discuss it. Even assuming
they learned it from us, it's a hard thing to identify as a "sod", IMHO.

Callippus, a century after Meton, which puts him early bayis sheini,
had a variant based on 76 year cycles, an adaptation of four Metonic
cycles. A Callippic calendar would only lose 1 day every 553 years.
Our calendar loses 1 day every 219 years. This was known centuries
before Hillel's calendar, and could have been utilized.

We discussed calendar slippage around a month ago. In those terms,
tequfas Shemu'el has slipped 13 days, tequfas R' Ada slipped only
7, but a Callippic cycle would only have slipped 3 days so far.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 47th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about
Fax: (270) 514-1507               unity-how does it draw out one's soul?

On May 30, 2006, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:30:33AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
>: I've never heard about this debate but I have a kasha on the whole
>: thing. If angels are purely spiritual, the debate is immaterial (spiritual
>: beings do not occupy any space...l'chora)...
 
> What about leshitas haRambam, that mal'achim are tzurah beli chomer?
> Can those tzuros be reduced to a point?

The Rambam (Moreh 1:49) certainly seems to say that malachim are
essentially incorporeal. Other than this perek, what are you referring to?

Simcha Coffer

On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 03:05:09AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: The Rambam (Moreh 1:49) certainly seems to say that malachim are essentially
: incorporeal. Other than this perek, what are you referring to?

Yesodei haTorah, 2:3 end, and 2:5.

He says they are non-physical, but it would seem to the Rambam that
means a lack of chomer. But yes, with a tzurah.

Tzurah need not mean they have a shape, though. It could refer to a
collection of other attributes. After all, he does continue by ruling out
discussion of their physical location, that reference to mal'achim being
"higher" or "lower" is both ontologically and of their knowledge of the
Borei, not geometrically.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 47th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about
Fax: (270) 514-1507               unity-how does it draw out one's soul?

On May 29, 2006, Yoseph Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
>  From what little I know of the Heichal HaBesht, it is malei v'gadush
> inaccuracy, and this essay is no exception. Tzimtzum in the *_*Ohr*_*
> Ein Sof (OES) is *_*not*_* what is commonly known as tzimtzum k'peshuto
> (TkP). TkP refers to tzimtzum in the _**Atzmus**_ Ein Sof (AES). The
> essay from Heichal HaBesht erroneously conflates the two. It is the TkP
> in AES that is heretical. (BTW, IIRC, Chabad refers to its Rebbes as
> "OES melubash b'guf" - it is the difference between AES and OES that
> saves that doctrine from being heretical, as our competitor religion,
> l'havdil elef alfei havdalos, is of the belief that their Saviour was
> AES melubash b'guf.)

Before I make the following comment, I wish to state that essentially,
I agree with RYGB that Toras Chabad regarding Tzimtum is limited to
'Or' rather than 'Maor' chs'v but I have a problem. The way I remember
the sicha of the LR, he stated (Shoftim 5711 I think) regarding his
father in law that he was (in Yiddish) "atzmus u'mahus azoi vee ess
iz areingishtelt in a guf" (as opposed to utilizing terminology such
as OES). This was one of his first (his first?) sichos and was stated
regarding his father-in-law who had recently (one year?) departed. IIRC,
he mentioned that this doctrine was not obligatory on his followers
and IIRC he defended his position (in the footnotes) by referring to
a Zohar regarding the fulfilment of the mitzvah of re'iy'yah on Yom
Tov by appearing in front of RSBY. I would have liked to have seen
something more definitive in the direction of RYGB's interpretation but
unfortunately I have not encountered such throughout my exposure to
the modern day explication of Toras Chabad. Perhaps RYGB can discuss
this with his eminent uncle and report back to us (I am aware of the
sefer Al haTzadikim...I am looking for a clear explanation from RYGB,
not a pass the buck reference...)

[Email #2. -mi]

On May 28, 2006, YGB wrote:
> I do believe tzimtzum k'peshuto is heretical (or, at least, close to
> it). I do not think anyone really holds of tzimtzum k'peshuto. 

This hasn't happened much on Avodah but I agree with RYGB unreservedly. To
explain his first statement, tzimtum (in Atzmus) k'peshuto is heretical
no less than saying that Hashem has a guf or is limited by anything
else. "Leis machashavah tefeesah bei klal" means that nothing *at all*
can be said about the essence of the Boreh (we refer to Him as Boreh
as pertains to his kesher to our world as Creator but this term is
not a modification of his essence chs'v) and thus, to state that his
"Atzmus" was contracted chs'v is the most fundamental kefira in our
understanding of Hashem. The only reason RYGB qualified his words is
because Rishonim like the Ra'avad toned down the Rambam's condemnation
of one who corporealizes Hashem but essentially RYGB is correct regarding
the crux of the matter.

As far as his second statement (which I believe to be unequivocally
correct), I was already mitzyen Rav Dessler in chelek dalet and
hey... ayin sham.

Simcha Coffer 

> I get into trouble even with some of my RWMO world when I suggest that
> knowing a posek's personality/circumstances would be helpful.

Why's that? It sounds like good sense for a thinking person.

cbk

> Since when is one not allowed to give family discounts?

That's not what he said. The statement said "a doctor who charges his
Jewish patients less than his gentile patients" with no mention of family
status. If that were the case then the dr. would give the same discount
to families of non-Jews. Otherwise, it is religious discrimination and
that is subject to legal action.

cbk

[R Zev Sero:]
> OTOH, a  point often missed in these discussions is that, AIUI, the 
> child's  retroactive consent is only required in the case of adoption.
> If the child  is being raised frum by his biological parents, then the 
> giyur is an  unadulterated zechut, and he may not opt out when he 
> comes of age.

I could be wrong but I think his biological parents are not considered his
parents and the ger (even one converted as a young child) is considered to
be a new-born person with no parents.

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

The source for this chiluk is the gemara in ktuvot 11a.

KT
Joel Rich

The din of RODEF applies in retzicha and arayot. Thus, if I see A about
to kill B (or rape a married woman), I can "terminate" A. The din of
RODEF doesn't apply to avodah zara.

The reason why a warning [hatra'a] to the potential murderer isn't
required is given by the Bedek haBayit on TUR Choshen Mishpat 428: since
the person wants to save a life. See also Drush v'Chiddush R. Shlomo
Eiger on the Chiddushei RAE on the gemara in Ketuvot 33b [since the
potential murderer could kill his pursuer].

There's the din of "d'avid inish dinei l'nafshei" [see discussion in
ROSH Bava Kamma 3 #13 and Yam Shel Shlomo on Bava Kamma 3:26] how people
can take action against criminals ["hefresh m'issura" (preventing a
criminal act)].

One is prohibited to save the life of a MESIT who is in danger (Minchat
Chinuch 459). I'm wondering out loud if the din of "d'avid inish dinei
l'nafshei" would apply here **if** the one who was enticed killed the
MESIT in rage. After all, the MESIT might be dangerous and he seeing
your angry response may kill you.

And kids, please don't do this at home :-)

KT

Josh

The Mishna Berura in Siman 627 Sif Katan 3 writes that the minhag was to
make early Shabbos specifically on this Friday. The reason is as follows.

The Gemara in Pesachim (46a) has a machlokes Rabba and R' Chisda, is
there an issur d'oraysa if you cook on Yom Tov for a weekday? Rabba says
no and R' Chisda says yes. Rabba says no because of ho'eel, since guests
can come and eat the food it falls under the heter of ochel nefesh. R'
Chisda disagrees. Rabba asks R' Chisda according to you how do we cook
on Yom Tov for Shabbos? R' Chisda answers that tzorchei shabbos naasim
b'ytom tov, that you are allowed to prepare from Shabbos to Yom Tov.

There is a big nafka mina between the 2 opinions. What happens if you
finish cooking very late in the day right before Shabbos? According to
Rabba you are in trouble, the heter of ho'eel does not apply as there was
not time for guests to come and eat the food on Yom Tov (the Mishna berura
calls it a chashash of an issur d'oraysa), while according to R' Chisda
there is no problem as you are allowed to prepare from Yom Tov to Shabbos.

It is not clear who we pasken like, Rabba or R' Chisda. Based on this
the Mishna Berura writes that we should be choshesh for Rabba's opinion
and finish cooking early in the day. Therefore the Mishna Berura writes
the minhag was to make early shabbos.

To sum up, this Friday you should try to finish any cooking early in
the day to be yotze Rabba's opinion and it is a good idea to make early
Shabbos.

If anyone is interested, I have attached the handout of (Hebrew) mekorot
that I prepared for a shiur I plan for the Shavuot eve learning program
in our shul. The subject is "Free Market Economics and the Halacha -
An In_Depth Study of the Law of Ani Hamehapech Bachara". I am attaching
both Word and pdf versions of the document. Althoug the material contains
only sources (and notes, see below), the "mahalach" of the shiur should
be fairly obvious from the table at the beginning of the document and
from the sources themselves.

Two additional notes:

1. Since I typed most of the document myself, there will inevitably
be typos/errors.

2. I wrote the the endnotes (that follow the sources) to provide
help/background for people in the audience who lack a strong
gemara/Aramaic background. They are not an attempt at scholarly erudition.

I apologize for any errors that have crept in. Chag sameach.

<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/un_SourcesAniHamehapechBachara10.doc>
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/un_SourcesAniHamehapechBachara10.pdf>

Saul Stokar
shtuker@bezeqint.net

R' Arie Folger wrote:
> Professor (Rav?) Eli Merzbach [...] claims that the great knowledge of
> 'Hazal is not apparent in their awareness of the mean lunar month, for -
> contrary to what has been claimed here - that is quite easy to calculate:
> just divide the length of time between two successive eclipses (don't
> recall if he meant lunar or solar, probably the former) and divide by
> the number of months.

With all due respect to the professor, surely Hazal would
have been even wiser to do what the non-Jewish sages
of their time did, and use the Greek astronomer Hipparchus
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus_%28astronomer%29>' tables. Or
if they lived before Hipparchus, they could have used the Babylonian
ones which he used as a basis for his own, more accurate ones.

> Instead, he suggests that 'Hazal's great wisdom is apparent in their
> knowledge of the length of the *solar* year, which is much harder
> to measure.

I don't see that.

jds

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


[ 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         ]