Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 15

Fri, 09 Feb 2007

• 1. Re: Mesei Midbar (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Barukh Hu Uvarukh Shemo (David E Cohen)
• 3. Re: Belated Tu-Bishvat Post (Danny Schoemann)
• 4. Re: how many died in the Midbar each year? (Danny Schoemann)
• 5. Re: early bird specials and ribbis (David Riceman)
• 6. Re: How many died in the Midbar every year? (Danny Schoemann)
• 7. Re: Talmud Torah (Chana Luntz)
• 8. Pisuq raglayim (Meir Shinnar)
• 9. Re: Pisuq raglayim (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: RYBS TEEM Musings (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 11. Re: early bird specials and ribbis (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Barukh Hu Uvarukh Shemo (Micha Berger)

 

	
	
	
	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 
	====================================
	1. It's possible sanhedrin knew this but not the haamon am
	2. It's possible that this is true for "halachik reality"
purposes but not for beit din shel maalah purposes. poor analogy - if
ones birth year were misstated on their original entry into the US ,
they might be age 65 for social security purposes but their body is 64
years old - if they assumed HKB"H was mitaken that every x number of
days (which should be 9 av) was the day ......
	

	
	K T
	Joel Rich 
	

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070208/9f3c5ca4/attachment-0001.htm 

Regarding "barukh hu uvarukh shemo," R' Micha Berger wrote:
> 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.

How, then, are we to explain Tehillim 72:18-19?  (For those without a Tanakh
handy, these are the last 2 pesukim that we say each morning immediately
before "Vaivareikh David.")

I have an answer to my own question, but I don't know how strong it is.
Since Tehillim is structured as poetry, it is quite common for it to say
essentially the same thing twice through the use of synonyms.  Thus, this
sequence of pesukim doesn't necessarily infer that there is any distinction
beween "Hu" and "Shemo."  The simple phrase "barukh hu uvarukh shemo," on
the other hand, would imply this.

I think that the question is stronger than the answer, though.  Can anybody
think of a better answer?  Also, are there any other pesukim that express
the sentiment of "barukh hu uvarukh shemo" where my answer would not be
applicable?

--D.C.

RMB asked:
>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?

We learnt tonight that according to some opinions (IIRC in the
Yerushalmi) they started chopping the wood (that they stopped chopping
on Tu B'Av) on Tu-Bishvat. The other opinion is Rosh Chodesh Nissan.

- Danny

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

>This is not consistent 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.

From what we heard at the siyum tonight, HKBH swore in his anger 40
years. (Arbo'im shono - Asher Nishbati B'api).

The "angry" decree was 40 years and would have included those from age
13. But the Midas Rachamim confined it to the 20 - 60 year olds. This
they only discovered post-facto.

- Danny

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

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

<me>
>> 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.

<RZS>
> 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.

This is not a good analogy.  The mishna is cited l'halacha in YD 176:6, 
where it is applied both to rent and to wages, but only if the renting or 
working begins immediately (see Taz ad. loc.).  Now look two halachos down 
at 176:8 which prohibits a discount for early payment of wages if the work 
does not begin immediately.

I'm sure the camp people are already working part time (they've already sent 
out pamphlets, for example), but as far as customers are concerned the work 
we pay for doesn't start until our kids are at camp.

So how is this mishna relevant?

David Riceman 

At the siyium tonight we learnt that this explanation is brought down
on the last page of the Chavos Yair (IIRC) in the name of a Rav Oppenheimer.
>
> On 2/7/07, SBA <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
> > 9 years out of the 40 Tish'sh B'Av fell on Shabbat, and as they were not
> > allowed to dig graves on Shabbat, we have 37 - 9 = 28 years.

RMB writes:

> Aren't you conflating the two lists? The mishnay of "Eilu 
> devarim she'ein lahem shiur: hapei'ah vehabikurim" ends with 
> talmud Torah. As does the gemara of "Eilu devarim she'adam 
> ocheil peiroseihem ba'olam hazeh vehaqeren qayemes lo le'olam 
> haba", but that's the one that includes iyun tefillah.
> 

I am confused. There are indeed two lists in the Mishna in Peah, but
they come one right after the other (ie eilu dvarim is there as well, in
the versions of the Mishna I have), and the very end of the Mishna is
talmud torah kneged kulam (it does indeed have talmud torah listed at
the end of the first list as well).  I was assuming that the talmud
torah kneged kulam was going on both lists in the Mishna (ie the kulam
included those mentioned in the first list as having no shiur, as well
as those mentioned in the second as where one eats the perus in olam
hazeh), but even if you say that it does not, and only goes on the
second list, that is the one that contains iyun tefillah.

> Without rishonim, one would think the mishnah in Pei'ah is 
> simply saying that one can be meqayeim the mitzvah with no 
> minimum. That's not necessarily the chiyuv of vehagisa bo. 

The vehagisa bo derivation, as I understood it, came from  "v'talmud
torah kneged kulam", which was the phrase that started this off.  As far
as I know, the reference to  v'talmud torah kneged kulam in Mishna peah
1:1 is the first reference that we have to the phrase - am I wrong?
Yes, you could indeed, withour rishonim, split that Mishna and say -
well the first bit is talking about being meqayeim with no minimum and
see it as  being totally unrelated to the second half.  However a) that
is actually a more forced reading, as it requires splitting the Mishna -
whereas I would have said a more natural reading involved looking at the
two lists together; and b) isn't that what we have rishonim for - to
indicate which possible understandings are more likely within the
mesora?

> But in any case, it's a far cry from requiring learning above 
> other mitzvos. And one would think that the gemara is 
> referring to the fact that someone who learns al menas 
> la'asos can do mitzvos in olam hazeh, thus giving him peiros 
> to consume in olam hazeh without exhausting the qeren.
> 
> The other question is "keneged"? Keneged the other mitzvos 
> she'adam ocheil peiroseihem, or all other 612? If the latter, 
> how can is be keneged 611 mitzvos and Shabbos, if Shabbos is 
> keneged kulam -- the other 611 plus talmud Torah? Similarly, 
> yishuv EY and tzitzis are also called keneged kulam

I agree that there is a problem in reconciling the varies references to
kneged. 

 . The 
> idiom is either a guzmah, or we need to know in what 
> particular way are they equal. Torah could be equal the other 
> 612 in a different way than the other three.

Yes.  The key thing though that some form of talmud torah kneged kulam
is not just the language of the gemora, which may contains what might be
considered mussaric references that may contradict, but is brought down
in some form in the halachic seforim - including that least likely place
to find such things, the Shulchan Aruch (see the references I provided
previously.

 But then we need 
> to know what way to know if it should mean there are times 
> (which times? always?) men should be choosing Torah over 
> other mitzvos.
> 

Yes, exactly - that is the issue.

> And on Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:30:43AM -0000, RnCL wrote:
> :> So how do you learn pshat in 'vetalmud torah keneged kulom"?
> 
> : Well the halachic sources when quoting the reference phrase 
> it slightly differently and add a critical word "shikul", which does 
> rather suggest we are talking about heavenly scales rather than
earthly 
> doings - eg the language of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah siman 246
si'if 
> 18) "talmud torah shikul kneged kol hamitzvos" ...
> 
> But I thought the mishnah said I can't know secharan shel 
> mitzvos, and thus can't choose a chamurah over a qulah.

It is a good kasha, although one could answer that maybe the exception
proves the rule.  Or, as I implicitly suggested at the end of my
analysis last time, maybe the idea is that it is supposed to weigh on
the mind while you are performing other mitzvos (see what I said there
in comparision with kibud av).

> 
> :                   And the nose keliim, as well as referring to your
> : mishna, also refer back to the gemora in kiddushin 40b in which they
> : were asked which is greater talmud torah or ma'asim and while Rabbi
> : Tarfon said ma'asim, rabbi Akiva said talmud torah because 
> talmud torah
> : brings lyade ma'asim.  Note also that from Megila 3a that 
> in order to
> : hear the megila, the cohanim etc are mevatel from the avodah, and in
> : order to do the avodah, one is mevatel from talmud torah so as kal
> : vchomer one is mevatel talmud torah....
> 
> Which implies that keneged kulam in our context is that it 
> have more peiros for olam hazeh, because it's mevi'ah liydei ma'aseh.
> 

The problem you have with this analysis, similar to the problem I raised
on Birchas HaTorah, is again, women.  If talmud torah is kneged kulam
because you have more peiros for olam hazeh - then surely that applies
to women too - if they learn in order to perform.  Agreed you are
talking about fewer mitzvos to perform, because you are excluding
mitzvos aseh shehazman grama, but in relation to those mitzvos that
women do, why is the analysis not completely the same.  Of course you
might say e hachi nami - but the stronger you make the case that talmud
torah is about meviah liyadei ma'aseh, the odder the distinction between
the teaching we give to the two sexes becomes.  Because if the talmud
torah we are currently providing for the boys in fact is optimised to
bring to ma'aseh, then are we trying NOT to bring the girls to ma'aseh?
And if the teaching we give the girls is optimised to bring to ma'aseh -
then you have to say that we are giving the boys something else, which
is not optimised to bring to ma'aseh (in which case, if you follow this
definition, you have to question whether we are in fact giving the boys
talmud torah).

The easiest and most traditional way out of this conundrum is to say
that there is (at least) two aspects of talmud torah.  The first
bringing to ma'aseh, and that is the kind we have to teach girls too,
and the second is something more theoretical, which does not in fact
necessarily bring to ma'aseh (and thus arguably is not what Rabbi Akiva
and Rabbi Tarfon are discussing), and which is the form that is to be
pushed aside for acting on other mitzvos (except those that are
permitted to be done by others) as per the Shulchan Aruch.  

> Tir'u baTov!
> -mi

Shabbat Shalom

Chana

RMB>
> Pisuq ragalayim isn't a modern invention. It's das Moshe, Sinaitic, assur even
> if everyone does it and no one finds it "interesting". It comes from the
> kevesh and not having stairs. The big she'eilah is what's the matir for men.
1) The kohanim wore michansayim... From the keves, one should learn,
if anything, that skirts should be assur...

2) Is there any classic halachic source from before the nineteenth
century that codifies pisuk raglayim as assur for either men or women?
Ellinson, even though he comes out that one shouldn't wear pants
because frum women don't wear pants and it's essentially a uniform -
while he brings very late tshuvot who seem to rely on a midrash, seems
to think that there is no such dat moshe, sinaitic, or even rabbinic
issur that can be derived definitively - and the issue is far more
communal norms.
(I think that the isse of communal norms depends on the community -
and one should be wary of inventing new halachot - lekula or
lehumra..)
Meir Shinnar

Just to start at the beginning. We discussed pisuq raglayim back in volume 2,
v2n157 - n160. Take a look at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n155.shtml#01>, where RYGB raises the
question of pisuq raglayim and men, and the conversation that ensued at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=P#PISUK%20RAGLAIM>, and
the subsequent two entries in the topic index.

(I'm surprised you don't have a conversation from 8 years ago at your
fingertips. <grin++>)

On Fri, February 9, 2007 8:15 am, R Meir Shinnar wrote:
:> Pisuq ragalayim isn't a modern invention. It's das Moshe, Sinaitic, assur
:> even if everyone does it and no one finds it "interesting". It comes from the
:> kevesh and not having stairs. The big she'eilah is what's the matir for men.

: 1) The kohanim wore michansayim... From the keves, one should learn,
: if anything, that skirts should be assur...

Collecting a few of RYGB's points: Rav Moshe Tzuriel (mashgiach, Sha'alvim)
argued that the kapote is superior to the jacket because it eliminates pisuq
raglayim questions. The kohein's kusones serves a similar purpose -- except
when running up stairs.

: 2) Is there any classic halachic source from before the nineteenth
: century that codifies pisuk raglayim as assur for either men or women?

As for RMT's meqoros, RYGB adds:
> Rabbi Tzuriel told it to me personally, but in the Beis Yechezkel vol. 1
> p. 304 he quotes the Maharil in the Likutim and Sefer Eleh Ha'Mitzvos
> l'R"M Chagiz.

The Maharil would place it at 14th, not 19th cent. Whether the Chazal can be
taken to assume such an issur lema'aseh is debatable. I would say yes, but I
am sure you would question it.

RYZirkind found Rashi in Pesachim 3a "lashon neqi'ah", which speaks of the
issur of women taking harchovas haposi'os. A different problem that is
somewhat related. But at least shifts the kohein's precedent to a question of
women.

So, what needs justification isn't why women can't wear pants, except perhaps
with a sari, but why men are allowed to without a similar long shirt or
jacket.

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

Micha Berger wrote:

>  :> the term in 1965's The Lonely Man of Faith, Soloveitchik insists that 
> :> tzelem 'signifies man's awareness of himself as a biological being and 
> :> the state of being informed of his natural drives' (75-76).
>
> : Fascinating take on "Tzelem Elokim." One wonders what the zayde (in this 
> : case, R' Chaim *Volozhiner* would have had to say about this. Is there 
> : any precedent in earlier Jewish sources for this definition?
>
> I understand TLMF as saying that tzelem E-lokim is self awareness. And of
> what is one self aware? What exists at a plane "below" that awareness? His
> biology and its drives.
>
> Self awareness is the flipside of bechirah. One can only consciously
> choose if one is conscious of the process of choosing. And so, RYBS's
> position as I understood it isn't that far from the Meshekh Chokhmah
> (although not the same), who identifies tzelem E-lokim with bechirah.
>   
Do we know that dolphins are not aware of themselves, their biology and 
their drives?
> : "Natural law" sounds to me like Rousseau. Is RYBS suggesting that  human 
> : beings are "naturally" ethical?
>
> I believe so... That HQBH created us with a yeitzer hatov.
>
>   
Yes, but he says: "Firstly, in order to experience the ethical norm, 
external divine intervention is necessary. Only through the divine 
command can man transcend his natural biological self and experience the 
ethical...." etc.

I don't see a YhT as distinct from kiyum mitzvos here.

YGB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070209/2976ec0a/attachment-0001.html 

On Thu, February 8, 2007 8:37 am, R Zev Sero wrote:
:> 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.

But it's kind of arbitrary whether you view the base price as X and a discount
to Y for early payers or a base price of Y with a penalty bringing it up to X
for late ones.

So, you argued two chiluqim, that I can tell:
1- Norm.
2- Whether the later payer is covering a real cost due to his lateness.

Let's talk of a case where the norm is ill defined. Many dinner attendees pay
for their rubber chicken beforehand, others at the door, and many shul members
or parents at a school function get billed later.

: 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.

And my point is that in many situations, both leshonos are equally valid
descriptions of reality.

Second, it depends on the nature of the real cost.

a- Sometimes this too is ill defined. Back to the shul dinner. The shul wants
to minimize the number of people who pay at the door, as that adds variability
to the number of meals to order. This pricing scale motivates people to
pre-register. One can say they are paying for the cost of wasted meals. But
then, so are the people who pay regular price.

b- The most common cost to later payment is interest being charged. Bizman
hazeh, getting money later isn't just opportunity cost of what I would have
done with the money, but also the fact is your bank is paying you interest
instead of my bank paying me. Present value of money, based on yeild curves,
is part of my professional bread-and-butter. The dollar isn't be'etzem the
same dollar.

Inflation is also an effect that makes the dollar paid later less money than
it used to be.

Accounting for these things is considered ribis, AFAIK. And yet, they are real
costs incurred by the shul because people pay later. So it seems non-obvious
to me that ribis is defined by whether I invented the differential to motivate
people to commit early, or whether I am passing along a real cost.

Is the shul's loss due to paying an accountant to keep track of your bill or
meals they must overbuy to allow you the option of just showing up any more
valid a motivation than the shul's loss due to not collecting interest from
the bank?

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

On Thu, February 8, 2007 1:00 pm, David E Cohen wrote:
: Regarding "barukh hu uvarukh shemo," R' Micha Berger wrote:
:> 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.

: How, then, are we to explain Tehillim 72:18-19? ...

Unfortunately, I'm unaware of the Gra writing a peirush to it, so I can only
guess. But I think your answer is strong.

: I have an answer to my own question, but I don't know how strong it is.
: Since Tehillim is structured as poetry, it is quite common for it to say
: essentially the same thing twice through the use of synonyms.

In fact, given Tehillim's propensity for keifel lashon, I would assert that if
anything the parallel pesuqim are far more likely to refer to two tiers of the
same basic notion than not. It's not just an "efshar lomar"; the presence of
parallelism makes it the default assumption.

The first pasuq can't be referring to the Ein Sof, as it says "E-lokei
Yisrael". I would say the two pesuqim read as a berakhah to the Sheim Hashem
in terms of our relationship to Him, and a berakhah to the universal Sheim
Hashem that will be manifest when all people come to relate to him. Along the
same lines as "... bayom hahu yihyeh Hashem echad uShemo echad." Not many
people worshipping different deities, and those who are monotheists believing
in inferior understandings of Who He is.

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



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 15
**************************************

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..."