Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 061

Saturday, June 3 2006

• Re: measuring the mean lunar month
• Re: Waiting to Daven Maariv on Shavuous
• Re: geirut
• Re: Kedushah
• Re: Waiting to Daven Maariv on Shavuous
• RE: source for stmnt attributed to Rav Herzog z"l
• Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• Re: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Re:Calling a spade a spade

R Zev Sero wrote:
> It shouldn't matter, lunar or solar eclipses should do equally well, but
> solar eclipses are more noticeable, and it's easier to tell exactly what
> time they occurred.

Just to embellish... A lunar eclipse is when the earth is between
the sun and the moon, blocking the light that would otherwise reflect
back. It can only happen, therefore, when the moon would otherwise be
full. A solar eclipse would have the moon right in front of the sun,
and therefore only happen at a new moon. The greatest point in the
eclipse would therefore be the most precise way of knowing where in its
orbit the moon is. Either is easier to accurately time than the molad,
the first sliver of moon of visible size.

However, we still have a precision problem, as R Chaim "hankman"
Manaster wrote:
> Actually two successive eclipses won't do it. Due to my interest in a
> previous thread about the length of Elul, I checked in an Ephemerides, ...
> I randomly picked data starting in Jan 1924 thru April 1928 ... and
> calculated ...        I then calculated the mean value for the 52 months
> expecting a value close to the accepted length of the synodic month. Too
> my surprise my value (assuming my arithmetic was all correct - there was
> a lot of it) was quite a bit larger (29 d 13 h 7 m to the nearest minute).

Your math could be right; this is what I was lead to believe as well. I
was told, in fact, that to guarantee a precision of one cheileq, you would
need 20 centuries of lunations. RAMiller posted sample months, and figured
out that even with three centuries to average over, the error would be
almost 2 chalaqim. <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n160.shtml>

> What I found, however, that the data is not quite as erratic as RMB
> assumed. ... the short term prediction was not so erratic so as to be
> unable to see the direction of the change from month to month. Much like
> the weather (so much more complicated) is essentially an unpredictable
> system but forecasts are nonetheless possible for just several days
> hence....

> Also, the miniscule "3sec/century" is not the magnitude of variation I
> had in mind, but variations on the order of up to several hours/month
> is what I was thinking of.

That's not the variation -- we know it's -6.5 hr to +7 hr
or so, as you wrote. See also RAMiller's example months in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n160.shtml>. 3 sec/century is
the first approximation of the drift in the *moving average*. The molad
is the average, not the actual lunation; and the molad drifts at that
rate (plus a small quadratic effect, and a t^3 component, and t^4,
etc...) The actual lunations vary more, the molad, being an average
(decaying average? sliding window average?), less.

The fact that the precision we have requires averaging over more time than
it takes for the average to drift more than a cheileq. Measuring the molad
is therefore impossible. By the time you had enough months to have an
accurate average molad, the number you're trying to measure has changed.

And, the amazing precision is in the days of the founding of the
calendar, centuries AFTER we first had the number! It wasn't accurate
to the nearest cheileq when Rabban Gamliel recorded his grandfather's
tradition of its length, but centuries later, when Hillel II used it. I
guess it's possible that Hillel I had a tradition that was wrong by just
the right amount to be accurate for Hillel II, but that "coincidence"
would be no less miraculous than the revelation asserted by Chazal.

About the year...

R Joe Slater wrote:
> 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....

Why? Any measure of the solar year will only be an estimate. There is
no unit of measure, other than using the solar year itself, in which the
length would be a rational number. The ratios of molad to year or day to
year (or day to molad) are all irrational, and can always be expressed
to more digits of precision.

So, chazal had to estimate. The question would just become which estimate
is "good enough". They needn't have decided the best available estimate
is necessary -- it could have been considered unnecessarily complex for
useless extra precision. This, like my first point in this post, is a
minor variant on what RZSero wrote. We simply disagree over the issue
of whether derabbanan/minhag vs de'Oraisa would motivate estimation
choice more than the breadth of the population who would need to use it
driving simplicity.

R Arie Folger wrote in the original post:
> It has been asserted several times on list that the sod ha'ibbur is the
> mean duration of the lunar month, and that it can only be calculated with
> current technology. 'Hazal having such a good estimate of its duration
> means they must have gotten it from Tradition.

This is based on a ma'amar chazal on "hachodesh hazeh lachem", not
deduced. Hashem gave Moshe that particular Molad (not Tohu/Baharad),
and the duration between them.

And therefore I don't understand:
> I had a little talk about this with Professor (Rav?) Eli Merzbach,...
>        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.

But that wouldn't be "hachodesh hazeh".

Second, Stonehenge yochiach. Chazal had all the tools necessary to
measure a year down to a single cheileq using only one year. Averaging
over a few years, they could get even more precise.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 49th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        7 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            goal of perfect unity?

R Danny Schoemann wrote:
> I once heard a shiur from the late Rav Alter Eliyohu Rubinstein zt"l
...
> He proved that in halocho there is no concept of Temimim regarding hours
> in days.

I'm not zocheh to understand, and have a couple of questions:

1- Shiv'ah neqi'im? If bedikah is somewhat after sheqi'ah, the whole
day could be lost. There are other examples from taharos.

> IOW: A bris can take place 7.5 days after birth, as we don't count hours
> WRT 8 days.

2- WRT omer, the Torah specifically says "sheva shabasos
temimos". Explicit mention of temimos that we don't have by milah. Second,
omer involves cardinal numbers -- 49 days. Beris uses ordinal number --
on the eighTH day. Those who follow Brisker practice of waiting for the
6th hour for milchiks can eat any time during the 6th hour. Those who
wait 6 hours have to wait 6 whole hours. It's a factor of the TH. I do
not see how 49 temimos days is comparable to the 8th day.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 49th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        7 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            goal of perfect unity?

R Zev Sero wrote:
> A giyoret marrying a cohen?  How can such a thing be?  I went looking
> for this tosafos but couldn't find it.  Which DH is it?

If the giyores became Jewish before three, and before the takanah
otherwise, she could have married a kohein. As for a maqor, I'm
looking. It may be in the discussion in Yevamos 60b or maybe Kesuvos
37a about the permissability of a giyores who is under 3 later marrying
a kohein. More after Shavu'os be"H.

> Surely this applies only when the child knew that he had this option.
> If he didn't know that, then how can his continuing to keep mitzvot
> be taken as a sign of consent?  He did mitzvot because he thought he
> had no choice.
...
> OTOH, a point often missed in these discussions is that, AIUI, the
> child's retroactive consent is only required in the case of adoption.

I do not believe this last point is true lehalakhah. To put another
spin on what RJR already wrote, the geir qatan who is being raised by
his birth-parents is also halachically being raised by a couple other
than his parents. The situation is the same as adoption.

Also, if I thought it was relevent, being raised frum turns it into
a zechus -- what difference would the identity of the ones doing the
raising change the cost benefit analysis? In either case, it's an
unmitigated zechus to be no less Jewish than one's family.

We might have differences over the perception of adoption in the Torah,
but zechus is a measure of realia, how the geirus impacts the child's
life.

Which brings me to my second point: Zachin le'adam shelo bifanav is used
to explain why milah (when possible), miqvah, and olah (when possible)
do not require the child's consent. However, qabalos ol mitzvos is a
different issue; it's a fourth peulah necessary for geirus. So it's
not talui on zachin le'adam, it's simply necessary just like miqvah
is. It also therefore needn't be artificially divorced from upbringing
and environment, nor necessarily a conscious choice made by weighing
all options.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 49th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        7 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            goal of perfect unity?

R Gershon Dubin wrote:
> The definition of kedusha is separation, which is why a kedesha is
> called such, al tigash bi ki kidashticha, with the opposite meaning of
> "sanctity".

But then you would be arguing that a metzorah /is/ qadosh.

FWIW, most semitic linguists believe this use of the root /q-d-sh/ was
started by Asheirah/Ishtarta worshippers. They had zenus as a form of
worship. One who was simply associated with physical need was a "zonah",
in a usage related to mazon addressing a different physical need. That's
not the connotation of "lo sihyeh qedeishah mibenos Yisrael", which is
broader. I do not know of the linguists are wrong, or if this is via a
ribui rather than peshat. OTOH, it is interesting to note that "lo sihyeh
qedeishah" isn't where money is mentioned, it's in the next pasuq "esnan
*zonah*". Also, if one is medayeiq in the lashon in Bereishis, I think
you'll find that Yehudah related to Tamar as a zonah, and only calls
her a qedeishah when asking of the townsmen about her -- because that
is what he thought they would consider her. This would also add to why
Sanhedrin 82a considers the act an afront to HQBH's qedushah; that's also
not muchrach, since the context is one of relations with an ovedes AZ.

> I don't believe tevel is kadosh simply because it's asur ba'achila;
> it cannot by definition above be kadosh until it's separated.

It would seem from RGDubin's follow-up post that tevel is "includes that
which ought to be qadosh" which is ke'ein haperat (qadosh) in the pasuq.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 49th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        7 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            goal of perfect unity?

R' MB wrote:
> 2- WRT omer, the Torah specifically says "sheva shabasos
> temimos". Explicit mention of temimos that we don't have by milah. Second,
> omer involves cardinal numbers -- 49 days.

Right, but if it's not about temimous, but counting to 49 - you did that
yesterday evening, I suppose.

About "sheve shabboses temimes", the actual question is - how comes
nobody ever thought that was to be understood like that before R' Yankev
Pollak? Did all the tannoem, amouroem, ge-ounem, rishounem, and lots of
achrounem break the law year after year?! Hard to believe.

ELPhM
[ 8~)

On Wed, 31 May 2006 03:13:08 -0500, "Marty Bluke" <marty.bluke@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pinchus Klahr asked:
>> Anyone know a source for a statement attributed to Rav Herzog z"l,
>> to the effect that "we <have a mesorah that klal yisrael will 
>> NEVER be driven out of Eretz Yisrael a third time" ?

> RHS has made a similar statement (see his essays about the Medina 
> in his sefer) based on the Ramban al Hatorah. The Rambam writes 
> that the tochacha in Bechuksai refers to the Galus of Bayis Rishon 
> and the tochacha in Ki Savo refers to the Galus of Rome (Bayis 
> Sheni). The tochacha in Ki Savo ends with geula. We see from here 
> that there will only be 2 exiles and after the end of the second 
> exile the Geula will come.

Of course, this really begs the question as to whether the situation
that currently exists is something which, if ended, would be considered
a third exile. As opposed to a continuation of the second exile.

I'm not taking that position myself, but it is a possible one.

Lisa

RMi:
>: Actually, the Chovos haLevavos (shaar haYichud) disagrees with you. He
>: maintains that anytime you can add to something or subtract from it,
>: it does not have the true qualities of infinity...

> Rather, I think the question is whether the ChL is actually speaking of
> the concept of inifity, rather than G-d as Absolute, including Absolute
> Unity. After all, Absolute Unity precludes having parts, even infinite
> ones.

Yes, I was thinking about the hotel analogy, and figured that that
explained it. When was the concept of mathematical infinity worked out?
It resolves the difficulties of Tzimtzum Kipeshuto - that Hashem remains
the Infinite One before *and* after the Tzimtzum. In fact, it leads me
to wonder if those who put forth Tzimtzum Eino Kipeshuto simply didn't
understand what Infinite means - it's only necessary if you think that
creating a finite Universe within God somehow diminishes God's Infinity.
But Infinity-1 = Infinity. No change before or after. So the Kipeshuto
position of a vacuole empty of God-stuff in which the universe was
created, works fine with the mathematical concept of Infinity.

R' Moshe Shulman:

> I have read much of this discussion from Chabad sources on tzimtzum
> k'peshito and I think it is really more confusing of the issues then
> clarifying. After all the Ari discusses tzimtzum in a two dimensional
> world (BTW the RMK in Pardes has it as three dimensional.) I think the
> less said about this the better, it is only confusing people. The main
> issue is to understand that HaShem is beyond any physicality, and that
> his Hashgochah permeates this physical world.

Isn't that the Kipeshuto position, though, that God does not permeate
the physical world, only His Hashgocho does?

I saw that in the Etz Chaim it was two-dimensional. What occurred to me
today, is that perhaps this analogizes to Hashem existing in different
dimensions from us - so we cannot perceive His presence. but He is
still here, perhaps at 90 degrees to our four dimensions.

RSC:
> All of the baalei shita I have seen (The Arizal, the Mishnas
> Chassidim, The Shomer Emunim, R' Yaakov Emden, R' Yonasan Eibishitz,
> The Gra, the Tanya, R' Chaim Volozhiner, Rav Dessler and the LR) all
> discuss tzimtzum on the level of the mashal. There is no other way to
> discuss kabbalistic concepts.

The nimshal is the Big Bang, of course. At least from the side we can
perceive. What it is in the Divine Reality, of course, is
incomprehensible. It's rather like RAJHeschel's comment that "Torah
Misinai" vs. "Torah min Hashamayim" is a question of perspective. From
our perspective, it came from Shamayim. From Hashem's perspective,
it was given at that moment in time and space, at Sinai.

However, I fail to see why TkP is heretical. We posit the existence of,
well, God-stuff, or Godness, or whatever, filling Infinity. At some later
time we posit a physical finite universe. TkP would imply that God-stuff
was removed from the space occupied by the finite universe, even if
(accoun- ting for RML's hotel explanation) the Infinite is not changed by
its coming into being. How is heresy defined with regard to this? I see
Rambam's Third Principle, "shlilat hagshmut", but the way he describes
it, it's not a denial of physicality, but a denial of Form - no guf,
no things that can be attributed of a guf, such as strength, tiredness,
hunger, etc. But that does not exclude an assertion of Divine Substance,
that is, atzmus umahus elokus, in the late Lub. Rebbe's words. Even he,
who clearly holds of TEkP, seems to posit a physical reality to God-stuff.
Where is the heresy? Other than by assertions of those who hold TEkP.

> Hashem. Any concept that any beriah, even the highest Malach or Saraf
> can conceive of is a form of limitation of Atzmus Ein Sof. The truth is,
> although we think of Hashem as spiritual, this only refers to the level
> of Shechina, that is, Or Ein Sof. In reality, Hashem is entirely removed
> from any concept at all, even the most highly refined spirituality. You
> simplky cannot say anything about Him at all, whether biderech mashal
> or nimshal. This is a fundamental point of kabbalah and is indispensable
> in its proper explication. This is why I feel that the Gra and R' Chaim
> could never have been referring to AES as the LR claims they were.

Yet the Etz Chaim refers directly to atzmus as that in which the tzimtzum
occurred. "Hinei az tzimtzem et atzmo E"S benekudah ha'emtza'it..." not
OES, but AES. If one doesn't comprehend that Infinity-Universe=Infinity,
one is forced to say it was a metaphor for a metaphor - it was in OES
not in AES, but that goes against RCV's words.

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

P.S. I don't know if it should be spoken about in public. However,
as more and more material is published in English, and on the Web (you
can get much of the Baal haSulam's Talmud Eser Sefirot on the Web, in
English; also about 2/3 of the Shaar haYichud of the Mittler Lub. Rebbe,
in English; also many fundamental texts in Hebrew and Aramaic, in many
versions), it is something that apparently needs to be addressed, lest
people fall into mistaken ideas. I obviously include myself in that
class of "people".

I'd guess it has to be within the Mishna's parameters in Chaigah 2:1,
since it just pushes up against, but doesn't cross the line of, "what
is before."

Good Yom Tov.

I agree that the details of tzimtzum are not appropriate for an internet
discussion.

My sole concern was to object to the criticism directed against gedolim
who have asserted tzitzum kePeshuto. Gedolim have every right to accuse
other gedolim of being mistaken. However I don't understand how any member
of this discussion group can assert - based on their own reasoning - that
some gedolim hold views that are kefira or close to it. As a minimum
it is necessary to cite other gedolim to substantiate that assertion.

Let me talk **about** this issue rather than getting into the issue of
tzimtzum itself.

Regarding the view of the Leshem - I am enclosing the introduction
he wrote to the section I posted before - this might help clarify the
issue. If it doesn't please contact your local expert on the Leshem.

[<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/leshemTzimtzumIntro.pdf> -mi]

Regarding the Shomer Emunim - If you look in the introduction, the
publisher noted that the Mishnas Chasidim wrote a haskama to the Shomer
Emunim - but criticized the Shomer Emunim for rejecting the view of
tzimtzum kepeshuto. The Mishnas Chasidim was not and is not considered
a kofer.

It is important to note that it is not clear what the view of the Gra
was - but the Leshem asserts that it was tzimtzum kepeshuto. The Leshem
while holding this view also says it is beyond our comprehension.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe asserted that the early misnagdim believed in
Tzimtzum kepeshuto. In this he follows the Baal HaTanya. I am not aware
that they contended that those who hold by tzimtzum kepeshuto are heretics
-but they clearly hold that they were mistaken..

There are significant consequences of which view you hold.[Again -
ask for a private discussion with an authority]

Rav Dessler does not carry much weight in the world of Kabbala. I assume
that is true also in the world of chassidus as indicated by the fact
that the Lubavitcher Rebbe specifically rejected it. For those who
want to understand more - Rav Geldzahler(son in law of Rav Dessler)
has written an extensive defense of Rav Dessler's views ). Rav Dessler
of course was a great talmid chachom, tzadik, and baal mussar. Further
complicating the picture is that Rav Moshe Shapiro - who learned as
chavrusa with Rav Dessler - is unhappy in general about the accuracy of
the views attributed to Rav Dessler in the Michtav M'Eliyahu. [I don't
know if this extends also to the issue of tzimtzum]

The issue of the nature of tzimtzum as well as the status of the Arizal
and his writings were and are issues of contention between the Misnagdim
and Chassidim. If you speak to a follower of the Leshem you will get a
different understanding than those who follow the Ramchal. If you ask
a sefardic mekubal you will get a different understanding than asking
a chassidic expert.

Daniel Eidensohn

Tue, 30 May 2006 from R. Davud Riceman asked:
>[T]he Rambam was the elder brother, so he started
> with two thirds of the family estate. What happened to his capital?

According to Rav Sheilat (in his edition of the Rambam's letters) the
Maimon family apparently came to Egypt in 4926 in their flight from
the intensifying persecutions in Morocco. Rav Maimon died a few months
afterwards (Letter 229:2).

The Rambam married in Egypt, and from 4928 until 4937 --11 years--
he was supported by his brother, and as we know, this lasted until the
brother's tragic death.

The Rambam began his Commentary on the Mishnah around 4920, and finished
it in the year 4928. He worked on the Mishneh Torah from 4928 until 4937.

Ad kahn Rav Sheilat.

This makes the period during which he was supported by his brother the
period during which he wrote the Mishneh Torah.

I don't know how much of an estate Rav Maimon was able to bring with
him to Egypt, how much had to be used towards the family, or how much
of it the Rambam used to support his own family, although it seems that
without his brother's support it wasn't enough. There is also the fact
that the Rambam lost a great deal of money during a time of suffering by
personal enemies, as he writesin his letter. After his brother's death,
the Rambam felt forced to make money as a physicican.

Zvi Lampel

RZL insists on pursuing this topic. It clearly is something that he
feels strongly about. However, at the end, I find his readings forced
and unnatural - and people will have make thir own decisions. There are
not many more iterations about what is, IMHO, simple pshat.

RZL insists that simple pshat in the letter of the rambam means that the
rambam receives financial support from his brother, while I think that
the simple meaning is that the rambam's brother was the one who invested
the family assets. I had previously cited a letter (unfortunately I
don't have access to the original) cited in which the rambam discusses
some of his financial activities.

The pshat that beyado mamon rav li (understanding that we are dealing
with a hebrew translation) is quite understandable if we are dealing that
the rambam's brother had money invested by the rambam. RZL wishes to
argue that it also makes sense if the money was tzedaka the rambam was
expecting from his brother. I don't think that pshat makes linguistic
sense. However, even if, for the sake of argument, one assumes it does,
at the least, the other pshat remains viable.

It is clear that in the rambam's discussion of support of talmide
chachamim, he does not have any mention of support by the family.
Support of children is mentioned up to a certain age - but none of any
other family members. If the rambam believed as RZL does, he would have
written it. Further, in the rambam's many writings, the midrash about
yissachar and zevulun is not cited anywhere - and indeed, it goes against
the rambam's shitta (after all, the tribes of yissachar and zevulun were
not that close family). Therefore, he insists that a possible shitta
be accepted just so that the rambam not be viewed as forbidding such
support - without any real support from the rambam.

RZL
> (By the way, I can't resist pointing out that now that RMS allows
> himself to say "Even if one insists that the designation 'li' means for
> me rather than mine..." his understanding of "lomdus 101" [see previous
> posts] would define his position as a weak one, since he is offering an
> alternative payrush of the source...)

I am quite honored that RZL would view my posts of areivim to be worthy
of any "lomdus"..

> It [salaries, stipends and public financial support of rabbanim and
> students of Torah] is called midas chassidus rather than lecatchila
> because it is difficult to call the practice of so many kehillot
> lecatchilla.

(I made aan error -I meant difficult to call the practice of so many
kehillot bedievad - although the rambam had no such qualms - and viewed
them as actually trefe) - this may explain RZL's post

RZL
>I'm afraid RMS is misunderstanding the sources. The kehillos which
>supported their lomdei Torah had this practice predating the Rambam
>as well as during his time and antedating him, and as he himself says,
>they considered it a mitzva.

WRT his long analysis of the Kesef Mishne, he finds my interpretation
weak, I find his interpretation unsustainable. I don't think anything
will convince him - but read the kesef mishne as if the issue was not
such a hot button topic, but say, on hilchot eruvin - and I think that
my reading is crystal clear. The kesef mishne tried multiple attacks -
realizing that in general they were weak and the rambam is right - and
in the end concedes that the rambam is theoretically right, but due to
practical necessity, we allow it.

WRT to the one specific argument - RZL misunderstands the rambam's
position. This is a time of famine, and feeding them is actually
hatzalat nefashot (we are not talking about giving money - there was
a food shortage). It is well recognized that in issues of hatzalat
nefashot, talmide chachamim have precedence. In spite of this, because
of the well known and universally accepted (at the time of the mishna)
issur of profiting from being a talmid chacham, R Yonatan be amram refused
to accept the food - because he thought the issur of using the torah in
this case applied, because, after all, something of monetary value was
being distributed - and it wasn't a clear case of hatzalat nefashot.
Meir Shinnar

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


[ 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         ]