Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 14

Thu, 08 Feb 2007

• 1. Re: how many died in the Midbar each year? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: how many died in the Midbar each year? (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Modim Modim (Gilad Field)
• 4. gittin situation (Newman,Saul Z)
• 5. Belated Tu-Bishvat Post (Jonathan Baker)
• 6. Modim Modim (Jonathan Baker)
• 7. Re: gittin situation (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Belated Tu-Bishvat Post (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: early bird specials and ribbis (Micha Berger)
• 10. How many died in the midbar (Jonathan Baker)
• 11. Re: Belated Tu-Bishvat Post (Simon Montagu)
• 12. Re: Belated Tu-Bishvat Post (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: early bird specials and ribbis (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: early bird specials and ribbis (David Riceman)
• 15. Mesei Midbar (Galsaba@aol.com)
• 16. Re: Mesei Midbar (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: early bird specials and ribbis (Zev Sero)

I do not understand any of these counts, as they exclude woman and elderly men.

Tosafos BB 121a "yom shekalu", writes that Moshe got his nevu'ah back on Tu
beAv of year 39 because it was the end of shiv'ah for the last year in which
people died for the cheit. While the onesh was in effect, they lacked the joy
necessary for Moshe to acheive that kind of nevu'ah.

This is not consistant with the Y-mi, quoted by Rashi, which says they dug
graves in the 40th year and were surprised when no one was left in them.
Because that implies that they didn't know the qelalah was over to be joyous
about it.

Rabbeinu Tam cites a medrash that each year, whomever turned 60 died. The last
year, the only ones who were alive would be those who entered the midbar as 20
yr olds. Hashem anulled the decree a year early, retroactively changing it to
only be those who were above 20, rather than 20 or above.

This rules out assuming a consistent number of people died each year.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

PS: In the future, Avodah posters are expected to identify themselves once in
a while.

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Galsaba@aol.com wrote:
> Reading Ta'anit Daf 30, I do not understand how many died each year.
> I read Mefarshim that calculated simple.  60 Ribbo / 40 years = 1.5 
> Ribbo a year = 1,500.

You mean 15,000.


> Then I read Tossafot that says 21,000.

Where did you read this Tosfot?


> One of the explanations I heard is that the 40 years are calculated
> from leaving Egypt. As the spies were sent on the second year, and
> the gezera was made thirs year, then we have 38 years left.  The last
> one was  forgiven, now 37.  9 years out of the 40 Tish'sh B'Av fell
> on Shabbat,

Why would that be?  Out of 37 years, only 5 or maybe 6 should have been
on Shabbat.  They decided each month separately, so even if we were to
suppose (based on no reason I can think of) they manipulated Tishri to
avoid ADU as we do, that would not affect Av.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

On Tue, February 6, 2007 7:15 am, R Michael Kopinsky asked about my comment:
:> (Granikim don't say it because the only "Hu" one can give a berakhah to
is
:> "Shemo". Once one distinguishes between the two, "Hu" refers to the Ein
Sof,
:> for Whom the concept of berakhah is meaningless.)

:> What is your mekor for this?

:>RHSchachter's discussion of RYBS's position (it is usually said, except
for
:>hefseiq when trying to be yotzei their berakhah). Perhaps one of the
chevrah
:>who own RHS's sefarim can let us know if it appears in print.

in nefesh harav (page 127) he says that it was the minhag of the gra not to
say it and cites maaseh rav (siman 43 - but I don't have a copy to look it
up). he said that the rav explained (based on nefesh hachaim) that we can
you praise Hashem on his midos but not on "atzmuso" because as it says in
tikunei zohar "d'leis machshava t'fisa bei".

Giilad Field
gilad73@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070207/ce9415ae/attachment-0001.htm 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/822760.html going to family court about
the custody arrangements causes a get to be mvutal lemafrea? there must be
another side of this story....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070207/93aa2ceb/attachment-0001.html 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer has sent you a link to a blog:

> Link: http://rygb.blogspot.com/2007/02/belated-tu-bshvat-post.html

As long as we're making beleated Tubby Chwat posts,

http://thanbook.blogspot.com/2007/02/tu-bish-what-seder.html

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

RMi:
> RJBaker once posted on mail-jewish a reference to R Bezalel Naor,
> "Post-Sabbatian Sabbatianism" on the Sabbatean gematria of 814. I see he also
> mentions the Gra connection, but as an "alternative theory". Perhaps he will
> chime in.
 
> In that exchange, a "Seinfeld" asserted the position that the Gra's problem
> was that one ran the risk of talking over part of the Chazan's berakhah.

That's the stated reason in Maaseh Rav.  There's a footnote that says
"there are other reasons", which might refer to the idea that BHB"S without
the "vav ha-chibur" is 814 (or 815?), which is the gematria of Shabtai
Tzvi.  But I don't know Naor's source.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 10:34:40AM -0800, Newman,Saul Z wrote:
: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/822760.html going to family court about
: the custody arrangements causes a get to be mvutal lemafrea? there must be
: another side of this story....

It seems that the get was given al tenai. From the article (emphasis
mine):
   T., a Haredi woman, divorced her husband several years ago. The
   husband CONDITIONED the granting of a get (religious divorce) on
   allowing all other issues that had been discussed at the outset in
   rabbinical court to continue to be discussed there....

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 02:12:08PM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: As long as we're making beleated Tubby Chwat posts,
: http://thanbook.blogspot.com/2007/02/tu-bish-what-seder.html

Is there anyone more than 3 centuries ago who refers to Tu beShevat
as anything more than a date necessary for assessing one's terumos
umaaseros? A pragmatic cut-off for a din?

(Question not meant rhetorically.)

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 10:22:19AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: Because there is no prohibition on discounts for paying early.  The
: prohibition is only on surcharges for paying late.  What matters is
: when is the usual time that payment is due...

That's not always well defined. Camps, shul functions... there are
a lot of such examples.

It would seem that it such cases your chiluq would boil down to an issur
on the lashon. Writing:
    Admission: $20, $10 for early birds who sign up by Feb 15th
would be mutar, but writing:
    Admission: $10, $20 for late sign-up after Feb 15th
(or the more common, "at the door") would be assur?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, February 7, 2007 9:57 am, Galsaba@aol.com wrote:
: Reading Ta'anit Daf 30, I do not understand how many died each year.
: I read Mefarshim that calculated simple.  60 Ribbo / 40 years = 1.5 Ribbo a
: year = 1,500.
: Then I read Tossafot that says 21,000.  Where can I find one?

First off, 1 ribo = 10,000.  So 60 ribo/40 years = 15,000 per year.
Which is at least the same order of magnitude.

Second, the marginal note in whatever version e-daf.com used has the
same numerical issue you do, and corrects C"A ALF to MT"R ALF: from 
600 thousands, rather than 21,000 - undoes the numerical solution.

Third, Tosfos in Bava Basra 121a says it's 16,000 - which fits, since 
people didn't die the first year, or was it two years?  If two years,
it's closer to 16,000 - 15,882.

Fourth, from same Tosfos, Midrash Eicha says 15,000/year.

Fifth, Maharsha Chidushei Halachot seems to be the source of the
marginal note's correction, noting that in all versions of the
Rashbam that he's seen, Rashbam talks about 15,000, not 21,000,
so it has to be a mistake here.

So I think it's safe to assume that the marginal note is correct, and
it's really not 21,000.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

On 2/8/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Is there anyone more than 3 centuries ago who refers to Tu beShevat
> as anything more than a date necessary for assessing one's terumos
> umaaseros? A pragmatic cut-off for a din?
>
> (Question not meant rhetorically.)

See the second half of the chapter in Hamo'adim Bahalacha. Bekitzur
nimratz: many rishonim from Rabbenu Gershom Ma'or Hagola onwards refer
to not saying tahhanun or setting a fast on TBS, since it is one of
the four Rashei Shanim. The earliest source quoted for the minhag of
eating fruits on TBS is the Magen Avraham (OH 131 sk 16) which is
indeed only just over 3 centuries ago.

Having said that, I'm not sure I understand the point of your
question. Is there anyone more than 25 centuries ago who refers to Yad
beAdar as anything more than the date when one begins to expound
hilchot Pesahh? Or (admittedly more controversially) is there anyone
more than 6 decades ago who refers to He beIyyar as anything more than
the date when one begins to expound hilchot Atzeret?

Tempora mutantur...

On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 10:23:33AM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote:
: Having said that, I'm not sure I understand the point of your
: question. Is there anyone more than 25 centuries ago who refers to Yad
: beAdar as anything more than the date when one begins to expound
: hilchot Pesahh? Or (admittedly more controversially) is there anyone
: more than 6 decades ago who refers to He beIyyar as anything more than
: the date when one begins to expound hilchot Atzeret?

.... or anyone who discusses keeping a cheshbon hanefesh before Rabbeinu
Bachya? If you're going to pick late inventons, you might as well write
with knowledge of who you're asking.

Ta'anis Esther is a poor example, as we had a sanhedrin capable of
making derabanans. If you're going to pick holiday practices, Simchas
Torah is uncontraversial and too late to be a derabannan.

But who said my point was to disparage following these practices? Rather,
I am interested for historical reasons; how quickly can these things
snowball. Personally, I think much of the current rise of Tu beShevat
has the same origins as Israel's agrarian foundations. Found also in
Dr Nathan Birnbaum's G-ttesVolk; he left political Zionism for the
Agudah and haOlim, but DNB didn't lose his romantic notions of agrarian
life. (Unfortunately, the abridged translation at gottesvolk.us is gone,
replaced by a domain name squatter.)

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
micha@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rabbi Israel Salanter

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 10:22:19AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> : Because there is no prohibition on discounts for paying early.  The
> : prohibition is only on surcharges for paying late.  What matters is
> : when is the usual time that payment is due...
 
> That's not always well defined. Camps, shul functions... there are
> a lot of such examples.

Generally the proper time to pay for such things is at the door,
when you are getting the benefit that you're paying for (just like
concert tickets, etc).  The proof is that they do sell tickets at
the door, so that is when payment is due.  The reason they ask
people to pay earlier is for their convenience; it's much easier
for their planning if they know in advance how many people will
come, and to have money to pay for the advance expenses.  So to
encourage early payment they offer a discount.  But if you had
to cancel, al pi din would they have to refund your money?  If
so, then you haven't got what you paid for, and payment is not
yet due. 


> It would seem that it such cases your chiluq would boil down to
> an issur on the lashon. Writing:
>     Admission: $20, $10 for early birds who sign up by Feb 15th
> would be mutar, but writing:
>     Admission: $10, $20 for late sign-up after Feb 15th
> (or the more common, "at the door") would be assur?

Yes, the lashon should match the reality, that they're offering
a discount for early payment, not a penalty for late payment.
If they misdescribe what they are doing, that could be a problem.
The lashon on mechirat chametz, otzar bet din, etc., must also
be correct, or it could be a problem.

But, e.g., if you show up at the door with no money, and they
let you in on a promise to pay later, they may not charge you
extra.

Q: What if the surcharge is intended to pay for the administrative
cost of having to send you a bill, and keep track of whether your
payment has come in yet, send you a second bill, etc.?  Surely
that is a reasonable charge which should be allowed; you're paying
not for the fact that their money is still in your hands, but for
the extra expense that you have made them undergo.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

From: "Zev Sero" <zev@sero.name>

> Because there is no prohibition on discounts for paying early.  The
> prohibition is only on surcharges for paying late.

Is there a source for this? It sounds to me like this is a hiluk between 
ribbis d'orayssa and ribbis d'rabbanan.  See Hochmath Adam 131:3,9.  Compare 
YD 160:6.

David Riceman 

How come Benei Israel day that they might made a mistake on the date of 9 
B'Av (and they stayed on the Kevarim on the 10th, 11th...till the 15th).  Isn't 
it happened after they got the first Mitzvah, which is Kiddush Hachodesh, and 
no matter if they do a mistake or not (Masechet Rosh Hashana) they Rosh Chodesh 
is the day that they said it was.  They decide. so cannot be mistake.

If that's the case, why they thought they might made a mistake?

Aaron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070208/71a2bcae/attachment-0001.htm 

On Thu, February 8, 2007 11:05 am, Galsaba@aol.com wrote:
: ... the Rosh Chodesh
: is the day that they said it was.  They decide. so cannot be mistake.
: If that's the case, why they thought they might made a mistake?

RAG already asked me this privately. Here was my best off-the-cuff guess:

Maybe they knew the mitzvah, but didn't yet realize it meant they define the
reality rather than are charged to sanctify in response to reality. I could
just imagine the growing stress as the days move on, people wondering "Just how
wrong did we get the calendar in 39 years? How are we ever going to pull this
off in the long term?"

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

David Riceman wrote:
> From: "Zev Sero" <zev@sero.name>
> 
>> Because there is no prohibition on discounts for paying early.  The
>> prohibition is only on surcharges for paying late.
> 
> Is there a source for this? It sounds to me like this is a hiluk
> between ribbis d'orayssa and ribbis d'rabbanan.  See Hochmath
> Adam 131:3,9.   Compare YD 160:6.

It's an open mishna on BM 65a.  "One may add to rent but not to
a sale price".  The gemara explains that this is because rent is
not due until the end of the period, whereas the price of a sale
is due as soon as the property transfers.

The scheme with the rental property is in SA Harav, Ribbis 50.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 14
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."