Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 231

Mon, 16 Nov 2009

• 1. Re: akeidah (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Simon Montagu)
• 3. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit http://www.answers.com/topic/lunar-phase (Danny Schoemann)
• 4. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit (Alan Rubin)
• 5. Re: having a melech: lechatchila or bideved??? (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)
• 7. Nagilah V'nism'chah Vo (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. Re: chukotav & rashi (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Bereshit 23: 6-16 (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: yishmael v. the mitzri??? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: yishmael v. the mitzri??? (David Riceman)
• 12. Re: Nagilah V'nism'chah Vo (Akiva Blum)
• 13. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Nagilah V'nism'chah Vo (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)

>>>>>>
> [1] The word "na'ar" seems to refer not only to a young person but to a
> person who is?subordinate in some respect to the godol or zaken -- the
> servant, attendant or student is a na'ar, no matter how old.? See Shmos
> 33:11, where Yehoshua is called a "na'ar"? -- "Vediber Hashem el
> Moshe...umeshorso Yehoshua bin Nun *na'ar* lo yamish mitoch ha'ohel."
>

I note that Artscroll translates "naar" as a young lad

<<Then you want to look at Ber. 22:19 where it says, right after the
akeida, "....vayelchu yachdav el Be'er Shava vayeshev Avraham biVe'er
Shava."  On the words "Veyeshev beVe'ere Shava" Rashi says, "Lo
yeshiva mamash, sheharei beChevron hayah yoshev" -- When it says, "He
lived in Be'er Sheva" Rashi says "Not actual living" -- i.e., he just
stayed there for a while, maybe only a day or two -- "because he was
living in Chevron at the time."   Rashi here again repeats that
Avraham was living in Chevron at this time and had moved from Be'er
Sheva to Chevron already twelve years previously.>>

I agree that is what Rashi says. The point is that it doesn'f fit into
the pasuk that Avraham went to
Beer Sheva and settled there that it means he went for a day or two.
Beer Sheva is not on the way from Jerusalem to Hevron.
As pointed out Ibn Ezra and Rabman disagree with Rashi
-- 
Eli Turkel

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:09 PM, <T6...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>  From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
>
>
>  >> Also see above that the Aruch Laner that states "New moon is never
> visible in the morning" <<
>
> >>>>>
> Those of you with scientific knowledge -- is this true?
>

Yes.

As you quote below, "each day the moon rises and sets about fifty minutes
later than the previous day.  In the middle of the lunar month when the moon
is full, it rises at about sunset and sets at about sunrise." Around new
moon it rises at about sunrise and sets at about sunset.

So the moon can't be seen during the day around full moon, when it is only
in the sky during the night, and around new moon when it is too close to the
sun and its light is lost in the glare (except in the case of a solar
eclipse). A day or two before the molad it is rising a little before the
sun, and is close enough to the sun that it can only be seen after moonrise
and before sunrise; and a day or two after the molad it is setting a little
after the sun and close enough that it can only be seen after sunset and
before moonset -- which was the time when potential eidim looked out for it.



>
> Re Ber. 19:23, Sodom was destroyed as the sun rose.  Rashi says there it
> was the time when the sun and the moon are both in the sky (so that
> sun-worshippers and moon-worshippers would both see that their gods could
> not save them). A/S in a footnote says, "Each day the moon rises and sets
> about fifty minutes later than the previous day.  In the middle of the lunar
> month when the moon is full, it rises at about sunset and sets at about
> sunrise.  Thus, on the dawn of the sixteenth of Nisan, the day on which
> Sodom was destroyed, the sun and the moon are both visible at dawn."  This
> seems to indicate that only the full moon, but not the new moon, is visible
> at dawn.
>

Digression: one might ask why davka the 16th, since the moon is visible at
dawn throughout the second half of the lunar month. I believe this is
because AZ connected to the moon (and some modern superstitions) believed
that the power of the moon varies with its phases, so that they would have
expected it to be it at its most powerful at this time, thus making the
lesson most effective.


> However, see this picture that I found of the new moon apparently visible
> at dawn -- or perhaps this is just /before/ dawn and once the sun rises, the
> new moon will no longer be visible?
>
>
> http://thegreenbelt.blogspot.com/2009/05/sky-watc
> h-new-moon-and-morning-star-2.html
>

That's not the new moon, it's the old moon. How do I know? Firstly because
the moon has a "D" shape in the first half of the month and a "C" shape in
the second half (mnemonic: it's the opposite of what you would expect: C for
Crescendus and D for Decrescendus), and secondly because the blogpost is
dated May 24 2009 and says the picture was taken "Tuesday morning", which
would put it on 25 Iyyar)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091116/0b4271a5/attachment-0001.htm>

From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
>>  Also see above that the Aruch Laner that states "New moon is never
visible in  the morning" <<

RTK:
> Those of you with scientific knowledge -- is this true?

True; it's not possible to see a Waxing Crescent moon during the first
half of the day. No need to be a scientist; just spend some time
outdoors (gasp!) and after a few weeks you too can become an expert on
this heavenly subject. :-)

But if you want scientific "proof", see http://www.answers.com/topic/lunar-phase

RTK:
> However, see this picture that I found of the new moon apparently visible
> at dawn -- or perhaps this is just /before/ dawn and once the sun rises, the
> new  moon will no longer be visible?
> http://thegreenbelt.blogspot.com/2009/05/sky-watc
> h-new-moon-and-morning-star-2.html

Clearly a mislabeled picture, since the moon lags behind the sun at
that time of the month; that picture was taken a few days before Rosh
Chodesh.

Chodesh Tov,

- Danny, who saw a razor thin moon 2 days ago before HaNetz, and
expects to see similar towards the end of the week at sunset.

Toby Katz asked

>>>  Also see above that the Aruch Laner that states "New moon is never
>visible in  the morning" <<

>>>>>
> Those of you with scientific knowledge -- is this true?

Yes. The new moon always rises shortly after the sun and would not be visible.

>However, see this picture that I found of the new moon apparently visible
>at dawn -- or perhaps this is just /before/ dawn and once the sun rises, the
>new  moon will no longer be visible?

This looks to me like a rather old (waxing) moon.

Alan Rubin

David Riceman wrote:
> Harvey Benton wrote:
>> Is having a melech a bidieved or a lechatchila?
>>   
> See Ibn Ezra Shoftim 17:15 s.v. "Som Tasim".
>
> David Riceman
>
And see Rabbi Hartman's footnote 14 in his edition of Gur Aryeh Noah
10:8 (and, of course, what the Maharal says there).

David Riceman
_______________________________________________
Listen to the current series on KMTT (Gush) - English- Society and Halacha.  #3 speaks to this as do the others.\
KT
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.

On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 05:34 -0500, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
> On the Pasuk Bereishis 24
> 
> 4But you shall go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for
> my son, for Yitzchak.
> 
> RSRH writes
> 
> Lib'ni l'Yitzchok. Eliezer is to be guided by two considerations:
> First,Lib'ni ;
> she should be worthy of being the wife of my son; she should justify
> my hope that she will become my daughter even as he is my son. This
> is the general requirement regarding her character. But two people can
> each be of the most excellent character and still be incompatible.
> Hence,
> l'Yitzchok; Eliezer should make sure that the woman is compatible with
> Yitzchaks individual character.
> 
> Avraham rejected the daughters of Canaan, preferring an Aramean
> woman for his son. Let us bear in mind, though, that the Arameans,
> too, were idolaters. Thus, the reason for Avrahams decision was not
> the idolatry of the Canaanites, but their moral degeneracy.
> 
> Idolatry is basically an intellectual error, andthatcan be corrected.
> Moral degeneracy, however, takes hold of the whole individual, heart
> and soul. Hence, even a man such as Avraham could not hope to find
> among the Canaanites a modest, morally pure woman as a wife for his
> son, a woman who would bring with her a nobility of spirit and the
> purity of morality, as a pearl for his home.

This begs the question Avraham may have been willing to accept an
idolater (someone who was an idolater to that point) as a wife for
Yitzchack, but what does this say about Rivkah in particular? Was Rivkah
an idolater? Anyone have sources either way?

--Ken

"zeh hayom asah HaShem
nagilah v'nism'chah vo"
(Tehillim 118:24)

We say this pasuk quite often enough, yet it occurred to me that I'm not sure what the last word means.

Does it mean that we'll rejoice "in Him" (i.e., HaShem), or that we'll rejoice "on it" (i.e., this day)?

I looked in some siddurim, and it turns out they go both ways. For example,
Birnbaum and ArtScroll both have "on it", while Metzuda has "in Him". Not
that I put much value in those, because the contrasting translation may not
have occurred to the translator. So I looked in the meforshim.

Hirsch is very explicit: "It is the Lord Who has brought about this day... Hence we have reason to rejoice and be glad in *Him*..."

But Radak on the pasuk seems to take it the other way: "We should rejoice and he glad on this day [bazeh hayom] because it was from Hashem and He did it."

I'm not positive, but I think the Ibn Ezra would also translate it as "on
it". If I'm understanding him correctly, he quotes "Rabi Moshe" as
rephrasing the pasuk to say, "This is the day that Hashem made for
rejoicing and being glad on." Is this "Rabi Moshe" the Rambam? Does Rambam
talk about this pasuk somewhere?

Does anyone know of any other sources on this? Personally, I think it is
entirely possible that the poet had *both* meanings in mind. But if someone
can show a similar phrase used elsewhere, it could be very enlightening.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Instant Debt Consolidation Quote
Free debt consolidation quote online! No obligation. No credit check.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=MF2LB8YbV1SIspGwWa-QOgAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAAPT9lD4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABI2kQAAAAA=

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:20:24PM -0800, Harvey Benton wrote:
: this week's parsha mentions mitzvotav, chukotav and torotav;
: on chukotav, rashi mentions that they are things without reason, a
: gezeiras hamelech; ... do other meforshim agree with rashi that there
: are no reasons for these kinds of mitzvos? ...

I think you mean "mishmarti, mitzvosai, chuqosai vesorosoi. (26:5)

Are you sure that's what Rashi means? It is more likely that Rashi holds
these are things we do because they are gezeiros haMelekh despite our
not grasping a reason.

Rashi defines it there was "Things which the yeitzer hara and the nations
of the world have answers on [doing] them. Such as eating pig, wearing
shaatnez, for the taam is not in the thing, but they are a decree of
the King and His law on His servants." Does "ta'am ein badavar" mean
there is no reason, or that we don't find reason in it? Which fits the
first part?

Also, the contrast is with mitzvosai, which are "things that even if
they weren't written they would have been worth being commanded, such as
theft and murder." The antonym of obvious is non-obvious. Not
reason-less.

(Mishmarti: gezeiros; Torosai: Halakhah leMoshe miSinai.)

A few months ago we discussed Divine Command Theory, the theory of
morality that defines it as "that which Hashem commanded". Not that
Hashem commands things that are moral, but that the entire concept of
moral *means* "following Hashem's command".

Among the observations was that (unlike Notzrut and Islam), Yahadus has
few if any advocates of DCT. We specifically discussed Rashi and ruled
him out as an adherent. That would make your take on how Rashi explains
choq" to be quite difficult.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

I once heard (pun intended, sorry) it explained that Avraham was
performing two transations: a purchase of property from Efron, and
obtaining sovereignty from Benei Cheis. It is possible for a non-national
to own land that is still under the country's sovereignty. But Avraham
wanted to accomplish both.

Therefore, the transation being "le'einei Benei Cheis" and "asher dibeir
be'oznei Benei Cheis" was critical. It was that enables pasuq 20 to tell
us that Avraham acquired the field "*la'achuzas* qever mei'eis Benei
Chais", a national holding bought from the BC tribe, not only a land
purchased from Ephron.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 01:40:18PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: >I would deduce from the Pesikhta (40 "bachodesh hashevi'i")

: The section is quite long.  Could you give a more detailed reference 
: (and tell me which edition - -  I imagine Friedmann=Ish Shalom).

No, because the majority of what I write here is based off notes, and I
hadn't seen sources for years. Often I just trust the speaker, and it
went into my notes without ever even looking.

But this notion that the baal Teshuvah is a new person is in the Rambam
Teshuvah 2:4 (as already mentioned, this Rambam gets a lot of attention
in Brisker circles around the 10 yemei teshuvah). I'll now add it's also
in the Ran, when he explains RH 16a's discussion of the value of a BT
changing his namer. It eases the transformation.

R' Albo applies this idea to tefillah, in Ikarim 4:18. (Side-note:
I noticed the Ikkarim often follows his rebbe, the Ran; their aggadic
positions tend to line up very closely.) Tefillah doesn't remove the
decree, it changes the person from being the one on who the decree
was made.

: I don't see how to harmonize this with either zdonos na'asim lo 
: kishgagos or kizchuyos.  Either way he's got the same history.  It's not 
: like his past was erased and replaced with something different.

Does this mean the person has no memory of the past? Of course he does.
And a ger can be a new person, and yet still his memories of his
pre-geirus past inform (often by contrast, but not always) his avodas
Hashem.

The person who does teshuvah mei'ahavah is now doing something
constructive with those memories. Before it was aveirah goreres aveirah,
now it's the source of charatah, and motivates closeness to the Borei.
Their are naasos kezechuyos because at this point they accomplish the
same goal as a mitzvah. He is something new, even if there is continuity
with what the new person was made from.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

Micha Berger wrote:
> But this notion that the baal Teshuvah is a new person is in the Rambam
> Teshuvah 2:4 (as already mentioned, this Rambam gets a lot of attention
> in Brisker circles around the 10 yemei teshuvah).
Rashi says "Ra'ah ki ein ish atid latzeit mimenu sheyitgayer".  
Whoever-it-was-who-started-this-thread understands, quite correctly in 
my view, that this is in addition to being guilty of a capital crime.  
According to you what is Rashi saying? How does this add to Moshe's 
knowledge that the mitzri has committed a heinous crime?

David Riceman

>> Akiva Miller:
> 
> "zeh hayom asah HaShem
> nagilah v'nism'chah vo"
> (Tehillim 118:24)
> 
> We say this pasuk quite often enough, yet it occurred to me 
> that I'm not sure what the last word means.
> 
> Does it mean that we'll rejoice "in Him" (i.e., HaShem), or 
> that we'll rejoice "on it" (i.e., this day)?
> 

Psikta deRav Kehane (22:2): Nogila venismecha bo. Amar Rav Avin, ve'ein onu
yodin bame lismoach, im bayom im bKBH, ubo Shlomo upireish, nogila venismecha
boch (shir hashirim 1:4), boch betorosoch, boch bishuosoch.


?????? ??? ???? (????????) ????? ?? - ??? ???? ?"? [?] ?? ???? 

?"? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?????, ?? ???? ??? ????"?, ??? ???? ????? ?????
?????? ??, ?? ??????, ?? ??????? 

Said Rav Avin, and we don't know in what to rejoice, if in the day or in HKBH.
Shlomo came and explained, "we will celebrate and rejoice in you", in you and
your Torah, in you and your salvation.

Akiva

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:08am EST, Zev Sero wrote:
: Of course they *knew* the cheshbon, and not just the grossly simplified
: model that we use, but the actual astronomical calculations that predict
: where and when the moon really will be visible...

Similarly, on Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:35am GMT, R Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
:> R' Chananeil / R' Bachayei: we used an algorithm from day 1, this being
:>    the essence of the mitzvah
...
: Where does Rabbeinu Chananel say that an algorithm was used? All
: he says is that the cheshbon was used, and cheshbon and algorithm are
: not one and the same....

I'm not sure how to understand R' Bachayei if we asert they aren't.

There are a number of ways the Sanhedrin could use the cheshbon:

1- Not at all

2- It was al pi re'iyah, but they could use the cheshbon to verify the
plausability of the eidus.

3- It was al pi cheshbon, but they took license with it as needed.

4- The calendar was fully fixed by the cheshbon.

R' Bachayei says that the iqar mitzvah of qidush hachodesh is al pi
cheshbon. I would think that rules out the first two, and possibly even
the third. The question would be when did other things arise that
justified not doing the iqar mitzvah, and (to get back to the subject
line) would they arise RC Tishrei or Nissan such that sefeiqa deyoma
becomes a problem.

OTOH, #3 seems compelling if the length of Elul was set by Anshei Keneses
haGefdolah and yet Chazal discuss exceptions.

Yes, the formula for computing the molad need not yeild our particular
algorithm for deciding Rosh Chodesh, but basing the new month on
the formula does mean some algorithm was used, no? Am I missing
something? Perhaps my list of options is incomplete?

In fact, given that we have evidence that Chazal argue about exceptions to
lo adu rosh all the way until half a generation before Hillel Nesi'ah, we
are compelled to say that the algorithm we now use wasn't the one they did
-- even according to R' Bechayei who seems to me to say they used one.

BTW, a point in favor of R' Bechayei's position is from Machar Chodesh.
According to the Y-mi (don't ask me where, I don't recall) "hachodesh
hasheini" was the 2nd day of Rosh Chodesh. See the targum ad loc.
David and Yehonasan knew in advance that it was going to be a two day
RC.

Also, if they weren't using an algorithm, what was done during galus
Bavel?

Returning to RZS:
:>Proof of Chazal's using this ability we see in Chazal's decision to 
:>limit the time of when the Eidim can come forth.

: What kind of proof is that?  All it shows is that BD is able to
: arrange for a long month by the simple expedient of not being there
: when the eidim arrive.  After all, the Torah doesn't regulate their
: working hours!  And if they don't hear testimony from eidim they
: *can't* declare a short month, so perforce the month will be long...

I'm not sure that's a plausible possibility. What would it take,
cloud coverage over the entire area within travel distance?

: But how do you get from there to a right to declare a rosh chodesh
: without eidim, based simply on cheshbon and/or tzorech hatzibur?
: Tzorech hatzibur can be taken into account for ibbur shana, but for
: ibbur chodesh?

Rabbah bar Shemuel makes this distinction. In short, if they have a
right to modify the calendar, it's not for ulterior motives.

Abayei says that R' Yehudah says that R' Yochanan says that we can
intimidate people into testifying that they saw the moon in order to
make Elul or Adar short.

Beqitzur, the question isn't yes or no, but the topic of a machloqes.

...
: Where do you get this?  There is not the slightest hint of it in the
: mishneh, or in any commentary that I've seen.  It's clear from the
: mishneh that the machlokes was about metzius: was it scientifically
: possible for the eidim to have seen what they claimed to have seen.

The whole story is contrary to the notion that Elul was already of fixed
length. That aside...

R' Gamliel knew the cycle of the moon. He is the one who produced the
chart, no? Do you think he didn't know that it was impossible? It seems
R' Gamliel intentionally acccepted iffy testimony.

Which gets us back to whether one can force a short month.

: R Yehoshua accepted R Dosa ben Horkinas's claim that it was impossible,
: and therefore that R Gamliel had no right to accept their testimony,
: and therefore that the BD had no choice but to declare a 30-day Elul,
: while R Gamliel maintained that his astronomical knowledge was better
: that R Dosa's, and the testimony was indeed plausible, and there was
: no reason to disbelieve it.  He did *not* give any reason to prefer
: one result over the other, and nor did he assert any halachic authority
: to knowingly accept false eidim...

"Afilu meizidim"!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
To: avo...@lists.aishdas.org
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash
References: <20091112.223554.1973...@webmail15.vgs.untd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20091112.223554.1973...@webmail15.vgs.untd.com>
X-Mutt-References: <20091112.223554.1973...@webmail15.vgs.untd.com>
X-Mutt-Fcc: =avodah
Status: RO

:      On a related matter, Tosafos in P'sachim 58b, d.h. K'ilu, says that
:      Lo AD"U Rosh (or, rather, Lo D"U -- he says nothing about Sunday)
:      was practiced during the time of kiddush al pi r'iya.  This does not
:      imply that Lo BD"U Pesach was in effect, since it is not an
:      independent rule, but a consequence of Lo AD"U Rosh and the fixed
:      number of days we now have between Pesach and Rosh Hashana.  Today,
:      if Pesach would be Monday, then RH would perforc be Wednesday. When
:      r'iyah was used, a Monday Pesach did not automatically result in a
:      Wednesday Rosh Hashana, since, e.g., Tammuz could have had 30 days,
:      causing RH to be Thursday, or Av could have had 29, so that RH would
:      be Tuesday. . 
:      As for Rabban Gamliel's Yom Kippur, as R. Zev Sero pointed out, it
:      wasn't an attempt to manipulate the calendar.  Witnesses came on the
:      thirtieth, and he was m'kadesh the new month (otherwise, the old one
:      would automatically have been a thirty-day month).  Then, when the
:      moon was not visible that night, R. Yehoshua contended that it
:      proved that the witnesses must have been wrong, and he therefore
:      held that the month should indeed have been thirty days and Rosh
:      Chodesh should be on the thirty-first.  However, he was informed by
:      R.Akiva that whether R. Gamliel's kiddush was based on true or false
:      witnesses, what was done was valid and could not be undone because
:      "atem afilu muta'in."
: EMT
: ____________________________________________________________
: Manufacturer-Direct Hardwood Floors
: Never pay retail again. Wholesale prices on all hardwood floors!
: http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=LMBTAcy9k3709yiUrqF
: j2wAAJ1DzeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAAKmBqj4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANl
: dAAAAAA=
: _______________________________________________
: Avodah mailing list
: Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
: http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 03:48:53PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: REMT:
: > On a related matter, Tosafos in P'sachim 58b, d.h. K'ilu, says that
: > Lo AD"U Rosh (or, rather, Lo D"U -- he says nothing about Sunday) was
: > practiced during the time of kiddush al pi r'iya. This does not imply
: > that Lo BD"U Pesach was in effect, since it is not an independent rule,
: > but a consequence of Lo AD"U Rosh and the fixed number of days we now
: > have between Pesach and Rosh Hashana.

: Question:
: How strictly wad LO AD"U or LO D"U applied?

: If you have a strict LO AD"U, then sfeiqa deyoma is de facto limitted
: to the case of Mon. Vs. Tues. [Which as we have it is only 1/9 possibiity]

: > As for Rabban Gamliel's Yom Kippur, as R. Zev Sero pointed out, it
: > wasn't an attempt to manipulate the calendar. Witnesses came on the
: > thirtieth, and he was m'kadesh the new month (otherwise, the old one
: > would automatically have been a thirty-day month). Then, when the moon
: > was not visible that night, R. Yehoshua contended that it proved that
: > the witnesses must have been wrong, and he therefore held that the
: > month should indeed have been thirty days and Rosh Chodesh should be
: > on the thirty-first. However, he was informed by R.Akiva that whether
: > R. Gamliel's kiddush was based on true or false witnesses, what was done
: > was valid and could not be undone because "atem afilu muta'in."

: I dunno.

: Re: The first 2
: R Yochanan Ben Nuri says "eidei sheqer heim" because their internal
: eidus was contradictory. As such AFAIK their eidus is passul. But RG
: said they simply were mistaken

: In the second R Dosa b Hyrcanos says Sheqer re: the moon's
: disappearance...

: This is how I understand P'shat:

: This mihsnah is saying RG took very "flaky" eidim and accepted their
: edus because of his cheshbon, something that comes accross to me as
: "The ends justify the means" in that ?wink wink? the eidim were really not
: solid eidim but RG "heard what he wanted to hear and disregarded the rest"

: And no one defended his tactic! R Aqiva only defended his Authority to
: "pull shtick" [so to speak] because what's done is done even be'ta'us.

: No one defended him by saying : "RG was simply someich on palginan
: dibbura" etc.

: Technically the eidim gave a piece of emes but the on the whole the
: eidus was really passul as "eidei sheqer heim"

: Thus, RG arrived at a correct verdict by dubious means. And afaik no one
: defended his tactics, only they told R Yehoshua not to deviate from the
: results lest we break up into sects. IOW we cannot have two calendars
: even if RG was "playing fast and loose"

: Limmud z'chus:
: Now RG might have felt compelled to get in the qiddush Hachodesh "on
: time" and extenuating curcumstances may have pressed him to pull this
: "fast one.". So there is room to be melamed zechus, But his colleagues
: did. not seem to do so. Only later generations were more forgiving

: My 2 Cents

: PS See artscroll yad avraham RH 2:8 [P. 53 in old edition]

: Also see above that the Aruch Laner that states "New moon is never
: visible in the morning"

Tangent: When teaching yom 4, it's more honest to teach our children
that the moon rules at night because that's the only time it dominates.
We teach out children (not just Jews) that the sun is out during the day
and the moon is out at night, but really the moon is equally up during
the day as the night. Closer to Rosh Chodesh, it's up mostly during the
day; closer to the 15th, it's up mostly at night. Overall, it's evenly
split.

Then we get this idea stuck in our heads that doesn't match reality, nor
can be peshat in Bereishis 1:16.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:21:09PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: BTW is the shitah of RT allowing women to say a beracha on mitzvat aseh
: she-hazman gerama connected with teh RT on minhag?

Connected, yes. An instance of, no. We don't find that women only make
berakhos on mitzvos where it's commonplace for them to perform them. IOW,
most Ashk women make birkhos hamitzvah without a chiyuv or even a minhag.

The Brisker Rav's explanation of making birkhos hamitzvos on minhagim is
where the minhag has a cheftzah shel mitzvah. (Again: meaning one is
performing the same act with the same object, but not in the context of
chiyuv.) The link from act to berakhah is therefore not that the act is
itself a mitzvah, but one close enough to trigger making a berakhah
thanking G-d for getting the mitzvah we are imitating.

That kind of sevara would also apply to an einah metzuvah ve'osah.

So I would say they are connected, but by a "leshitaso".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:

> I'm not positive, but I think the Ibn Ezra would also translate it as
> "on it". If I'm understanding him correctly, he quotes "Rabi Moshe" as
> rephrasing the pasuk to say, "This is the day that Hashem made for
> rejoicing and being glad on." Is this "Rabi Moshe" the Rambam? Does
> Rambam talk about this pasuk somewhere?

He couldn't mean the Rambam; when he died the Rambam was only about 30
years old; even if he was aware of the Rambam's work he would not have
called him "Rabbi Moshe" and expect to be understood.  It seems to me
far more likely that he meant R Moshe Hadarshan.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Micha:
> There are a number of ways the Sanhedrin could use the cheshbon:
...
> 2- It was al pi re'iyah, but they could use the cheshbon to verify the
> plausability of the eidus.

> 3- It was al pi cheshbon, but they took license with it as needed.
...

AIUI [d'lo ker. Bachaye]

It's 2.5

2.5 The eidus was iqqar but the cheshbon was known [at least somewhat]
and it was a back-up, and occasionaly that cheshbon was used to force
the issue when needed.

But from the mishnayos, never to make up eidus mamash.

I don't think RG himself held that edus was 100% Kosher. Aiui he forced
the issue anyway, using the cheshbon, and over-reaching its use
IOW the edus he relied upon was a "fig-leaf" and a somewhat radical
departure an end that justified the means...

OTOH R Bachaye's sheeta AISI, makes R Dosa and R Yehoshua look very bad,
almost rebellious C"V. If Cheshbon was really the iqqar than THEIR
behavior was inexcusable, and RG's was not at all. AISI, R Bachaye is
using hazaqa dehashta to [unconsciously?] super-impose a post Hillel II
hashqafah on the era of RG, but it seems really shver to see it that way.

Rather during RG's time what he did seemed over-the-top, but after Hillel
II it seems rather normal in retrospect. Thus RG's biggest avla might be
that he was "ahead of his time" and not the first leader to suffer for it.

Remember, by all accounts RG was pushing the envelope
He indeed may have had a tzorech gadol to do so.

Re: Machar Hodesh. By all means people probably knew the "normal"
sitaution. But if all knew it really well, then s'feiqa deyoma is more
or less a joke. If RH is either Sunday or Monday and I KNOW lo ad"u
Rosh for a fact, what's the safeiq?!

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 231
***************************************

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..."