Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 16

Mon, 09 Apr 2012

• 1. Re: ret: costa concordia - and Specialization (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Taamei haMitzvos (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Theoretical and Real Shiurim (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Theoretical and Real Shiurim (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Taam Matza vs Zerizin Makdimin (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Re: vihi noam last week (Poppers, Michael)
• 7. When do princes say shema (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Theoretical and Real Shiurim (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Theoretical and Real Shiurim (Micha Berger)
• 10. Theoretical and Practical Shiurim (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 11. Re: Theoretical and Practical Shiurim (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Chief Rabbi Metzger: Women can lead Seder (Poppers, Michael)
• 13. Learning from the past - another look at the 10 plagues of Egypt (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 14. Re: Theoretical and Real Shiurim (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Chief Rabbi Metzger: Women can lead Seder (Harry Maryles)
• 16. Leading Charedi Posek Says metzitza' Should Not (Beth & David Cohen)

On 5/04/2012 5:10 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Instead you repeat something to which I already responded. Yes, until
> Jews had any hope of life without eivah, no one worried about doing things
> to avoid eivah.

That is just not true.  They did worry about eivah, and they did permit
some things mishum eivah, but they said that this particular action would
not be permitted because it would not stir up eivah.  They permitted
midwifing a nochris during the week, even though it's technically ossur,
mishum eivoh.  But they said that on Shabbos it was not permitted, because
the einom yehudim would accept our claim that shabbos overrides their
pikuach nefesh.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On 5/04/2012 4:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 02:08:35PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:

>> >>  They [presumably the audience] or mochi lei -- if it's HLMS, what is
>>> >>  this talk about not tearing, and if it's so that the seifer Torah
>>> doesn't
>>> >>  ch"v tear, why is it HLMS? (No answer, the Y-mi moves on to list more
>>> >>  halakhos LMS about making sifrei Torah.)
>>> >>  So, every HLMS must be a choq?

>  Seehttp://3x4.7u.sl.pt

> Which lacks real sources. The wiki author only cites maamarei chazal from
> which he deduces his points.

Um, that's the Rambam.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

[Oops. That link brought me to the middle of a wiki page, so I had
assumed wikipedia. Well, I guess I inadvertantly reinforced the complaint
of those who didn't like the Yad's dirth of citations. -micha]

On 5/04/2012 4:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Furthermore, there is no universally accepted shiur.  There are different
> shitot.

Not really.  There's a historically accepted shiur, and then there's
the recent chumra by some Ashkenazi acharonim which never got wide
acceptance.

In any event, while Rashi and the Baalei Hatosfos may never have
seen an olive, the Rambam certainly did.  And the Yerushalmim who
established their minhag did.

On 5/04/2012 4:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> If we -- today -- had never seen an olive and were simply using the
> term k'zayit because that's what it says in the Gemara, we'd have to
> make a WAG as to the size of an olive.  Erring on the side of bigger,
> of course.

How could we err on the side of bigger, when that is often a kula?
We'd have to give a range, as we do anyway when we say that a kezayit
is either 1/2 or 1/3 of a kebeitza.

On 5/04/2012 4:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> Let me do it stepwise:

> 44 cm/ammah / 24 etzba/amah = 1.3 cm / etzbah

You mean 1.833

 2 x 2 x 2.7 etzbah = 3.67 x 3.67 x 4.95 cm = 19.8 cc

Oops.  What are you doing there?  Try again.


On 5/04/2012 4:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> 5- Rambam, Hil' Shemitah veYovel 10:5 says the geonim of EY had a broken
> mesorah about which year was shemittah (derabbanban), because the didn't
> account for shemittah during bayis I and II. Still, he says their ruling
> is binding anyway.

On the contrary, he says they have an *unbroken* mesorah that what Chazal
did during Galus Bavel and again after churban bayis sheni was different
from what he thinks they ought to have done.  And he therefore defers to
that mesorah, and the count that results from it, because he accepts that
it is unbroken since Chazal's time.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 05:04:23PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: On 5/04/2012 4:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
:> Let me do it stepwise:
:> 44 cm/ammah / 24 etzba/amah = 1.3 cm / etzbah

: You mean 1.833

:  2 x 2 x 2.7 etzbah = 3.67 x 3.67 x 4.95 cm = 19.8 cc

: Oops.  What are you doing there?  Try again.

Ah, I see, I only did the etzba to cm conversion once rather than
thrice. 66.7 cc / revi'is it is, yeilding a kezayis of 22.3 cc.

In terms of olive trees still around from Chazal's day, the largest
are shami olives, but they run about half that -- and we are aiming for
the medium. So much for getting a consistent value through historical
recreation!

Or, comparing to acharonic shitos, we get somewhere between the CI's
*lemaaseh* of 17cc and R' Naeh's 27cc. I should point out that my attempt
at defining an archeological ammah is also slightly below RACN's at a
range of 43.25 - 44.4 cm.


: On 5/04/2012 4:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
:> 5- Rambam, Hil' Shemitah veYovel 10:5 says the geonim of EY had a broken
:> mesorah about which year was shemittah (derabbanban), because the[y] didn't
:> account for shemittah during bayis I and II. Still, he says their ruling
:> is binding anyway.

: On the contrary, he says they have an *unbroken* mesorah that what Chazal
: did during Galus Bavel and again after churban bayis sheni was different
: from what he thinks they ought to have done.  And he therefore defers to
: that mesorah, and the count that results from it, because he accepts that
: it is unbroken since Chazal's time.

Yes. I was *trying* to say they had a mesorah of a broken value for
which year is shemittah. After all, that is a 5th example of process
defining law despite our (or in this case, the Rambam's) determination
of the facts.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@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

R' Zev Sero asked:

> While we're at it, can someone explain how we still have taam
> matzah, and must not drink so as not to wash it away, after
> we've drunk two more kosos.

This has bothered me too. The best I can come up with is that when we say
"taam matzah", what we really mean is "taam mitzvah". I don't really like
that though, because arba kosos is d'rabanan, and ought to interfere with
matzah d'Oraisa.

Or maybe it is related to how solids and liquids don't combine, neither for
bracha acharona, nor for Yom Kippur. And maybe they don't interfere with
each other here either.... No, that logic would allow us any kind of
liquid, not just the last two kosos.

Any other guesses?

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

In Avodah V30n12, RSG clarified that the Ezras Torah luach says to say
"Viyhi Noam" on erev Pesach 5772.  FTR, the Minhag Frankfurt (and, I
suspect, the Minhag in W.Europe) is not to say VN on erev Yuntef. 

Best wishes for a gut'n Shabbes and a Gut Yuntef/Chag Sameach from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

>> While we're at it, can someone explain how we still have taam
>> matzah, and must not drink so as not to wash it away, after
>> we've drunk two more kosos.

While I'm on the topic of things that have puzzled me for a long
time, can someone please explain when princes are supposed to say
shema?

And what makes Beis Hillel say "uveshochbecho uvekumecho" means the
time when "people"  sleep and get up, rather than the time when *you*
do so?  I understand that they reject Beis Shammai's hyper-literal
interpretation that it refers to your posture, and they say it means
a time instead, but where do they get "bnei odom" from?  Bepashtus the
possuk means simply that you should say shema just before you go to
bed (as we do) and just after you get out of bed.  E.g. within half an
hour or an hour or 18 minutes or 72 or whatever shiur the chachomim
determine, but related to your own going to sleep and waking up, not
to other people's.  So what made Beis Hillel give a less obvious
interpretation involving "people"?

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On 5/04/2012 5:44 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Or, comparing to acharonic shitos, we get somewhere between the CI's
> *lemaaseh*  of 17cc

Where is that from, exactly?  For what application.  Don't forget
that the classic definition of a kezayis is *either* 1/2 or 1/3 of
a kebeitza, so for derabanan purposes such as maror, or where
smaller is a chumra, RACN says 18 cm^3.  Adjust now that we know the
Rambam's dirham was about 12% smaller than the Ottoman one, and we're
not far off.


On 5/04/2012 5:44 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Yes. I was*trying*  to say they had a mesorah of a broken value for
> which year is shemittah. After all, that is a 5th example of process
> defining law despite our (or in this case, the Rambam's) determination
> of the facts.

But they had an actual mesorah.  It's not just a matter of them being
the geonim so he must defer to them.  It's "im kabalah hi nekabel".
He's deferring to them not because of their authority but because he
believes that they have this ish mipi ish from Chazal, so his
understanding of the gemara must be mistaken.  So it's like if we had
a hin measure from the BHMK that had been handed down in some family
of kohanim on Djerba or somewhere, that was marked "hin" and we could
measure it and derive our shiurim.  That would surely override all
our cheshbonos, wouldn't it.  That's what the Rambam is deferring to.


On 5/04/2012 5:04 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On the contrary, he says they have an *unbroken*  mesorah that what Chazal
> did during Galus Bavel and again after churban bayis sheni was different
> from what he thinks they ought to have done.  And he therefore defers to
> that mesorah, and the count that results from it, because he accepts that
> it is unbroken since Chazal's time.

To make this clearer, I'm saying that this is in the same category
as R Yehoshua holding that Rabban Gamliel was wrong to have been
mekadesh the chodesh when he did.  Even leshitaso, however, Yom Kippur
was when RG said it was, not when RG ought to have said it was.
I think the Rambam is doing a similar thing in Hil' Shmitta Veyovel:
he's saying that according to his understanding of what Chazal *said*,
they ought to have counted one way; but we have a mesorah that they in
fact counted a different way, and shmita follows what they did, not what
(we think) they ought to have done.  (Leaving aside the fact that it's
the same Chazal.)

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 06:16:22PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 5/04/2012 5:44 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Or, comparing to acharonic shitos, we get somewhere between the CI's
>> *lemaaseh*  of 17cc
>
> Where is that from, exactly?  For what application....

R' Chaim Kanievsky, reporting on the CI's seder. Nidon didan.

...
> To make this clearer, I'm saying that [the mistaken shemittah] is in
> the same category
> as R Yehoshua holding that Rabban Gamliel was wrong to have been
> mekadesh the chodesh when he did....

Which also didn't matter lehalakhah.

I was going to cite it as a 6th example, except that qiddush hachodesh
has "hachodesh hazeh *lakhem*" to separate astronomy from Rosh Chodesh.
We define, not find, RC. One can't use it to point to a general rule
about following pesaqim even when based on a mistake.

...
> I think the Rambam is doing a similar thing in Hil' Shmitta Veyovel:
> he's saying that according to his understanding of what Chazal *said*,
> they ought to have counted one way; but we have a mesorah that they in
> fact counted a different way...

Then it would be following eidus about the CC or CI over their books.
All within legal process. I don't see the comparison to R Gamliel's RC,
but okay.

I am not sure you're correct. Why would the Rambam mention the geonim
rather than people in bayis sheini, Chazal, or the generations since the
geonim (e.g. "mei'avosai"), if he meant something continuous that happened
to run through their era.

But since it's certainly possible, I guess I should take shemitah off
my list of proofs. Nu, I have only 4. And WRT those related to science,
the Gra and R' Kook have a shittah that we "only" follow laws that have
a basis in rejected theories lechumerah. If that carries through to our
case, we would still need to eat matzah and maror within the range of
accepted shitos tonight, and the historical kezayis would have to be
used for Yom Kippur's maximum.

:-)|,|ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

There is currently a thread titled, "Theoretical and Real Shiurim". The
comments there have pushed me to ask a related question that's been bugging
me for a while. But to keep the threads distinct, I've changed the subject
line. Those who respond are urged to take note of the exact subject line,
to avoid confusion.

In that the other thread, R' Micha Berger wrote:

> A kezayis is a third of a revi'is, which is 2x2x2.7 etzba'os (10.8
> cubic etzba'os), and each etzba is 1/24 ammah.
> Let's take a ballpark number of the amah of an even 44cm, yielding
> an etzba of 1.83 cm, or a revi'is of 20 ml. (Given the
> approximation from the data, I'm rounding.) A kezayis would be
> 6.6 cc.

To me, this is all in the realm of "Theoretical Shiurim", at least as
matzah is concerned. It could also be a "Practical Shiur" for fruit or meat
or anything else which has no airspace, but not for bread or matzah.

> ... which is a shade larger than R' Chaim Volozhiner's 3 cc,
> but much smaller than the next (in size) on RDBannett's list, the
> CI's lemaaseh (as per R' Chaim Kanievsky) of 17 cc. RACNaeh at
> 27cc is WAY WAY larger.

Can someone please explain to me how it was determined that Rav Chaim
Volozhiner's matzah was 3 cc? It seems to me that the most anyone could
possibly say is a description of the area and thickness of the matzah he
used. But we have no way of knowing how he related to the airspace, do we?

Here's a more current example, taken from the second Hebrew edition (5734)
of Rav Dovid Feinstein's "Hagada Kol Dodi". In sections 2:5-9, he speaks of
the Theoretical Shiurim of reviis and beitzah, and then converts them into
Practical Shiurim of fluid ounces, for the Arba Kosos. Later, in 14:11, for
Achilas Matza, he takes those figures and converts them for kezaysim.

Upon concluding that a person needs to eat 1.4 fluid ounces of matzah, he
writes: "And this shiur is a piece of matzah 4 by 6 inches..." At the end
of that paragraph, in a line which looks (to me) like it was pasted in for
this second edition, he writes, "Hagah: I measured it again, and I found
that the kezayis is even bigger, that it is about 6 1/4 by 7 inches of
matzah."

So the first time, it was 24 square inches, and then it was about 43.75
square inches, an increase of over 82%! Over 25 years ago, I penciled this
note to myself in the margin: "I heard from someone that the first
measurement was based on ordinary matzah meal, the second on cake meal." -
In other words, the first time he ground up some matza to the fineness of
matzah meal, and calculated how much matzah would make 1.4 ounces when
ground. But then he ground up the matzah much more finely, and found that a
much larger piece was needed to fill the 1.4 fluid ounces.

If this "someone" is correct, then it would seem that to Rav Dovid
Feinstein, airspace in matzah does NOT count towards the kezayis, because
he ground it up very well before measuring it.

Unfortunately, I have no memory of who the "someone" was. But the really
important question is: Does anyone know for sure what procedure he used for
making these calculations?

But even more germane to the thread titled, "Theoretical and Real Shiurim",
is *this* question: Who knows what procedure Rav Chaim Volozhiner and the
Chazon Ish used? Similarly, who is to say that Rav Feinstein's second
calculation is more correct than his first?

Well, actually I can answer that one: When Rav Feinstein published Kol Dodi
in English (ArtScroll, 2000) it mentioned only the second shiur.
Apparently, *he* is the one to say that the first calculation was wrong.
(And Rav Shimon Eider seems to have agreed; he ignored the first
calculation, on page 242 of his Halachos Of Pesach.)

But was Rav Dovid Feinstein possibly not eating enough matzah in the years
between his first and second editions? And if the smaller shiur *IS*
enough, then why not say so?

And, by the way -- does this, or does it not, support the view that the tiny airholes in a spongy matzah *do* count toward the kezayis?

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f7e5e792c6e2d0976st02vuc

On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 03:08:30AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: To me, this is all in the realm of "Theoretical Shiurim", at least as
: matzah is concerned. It could also be a "Practical Shiur" for fruit or
: meat or anything else which has no airspace, but not for bread or matzah.

But back in 2003, when we were discussing people who publish kezeisim in
terms of the equibalent weight for a matzah of typical composition, a
wise man thought this was problematic, because
> But *some* air DOES count toward the kezayis, namely the very small
> airspaces. A kezayis which has lots of small airholes will weigh less,
> and a kezayis which has fewer airholes will weigh more.
> 
> What's the solution? Beats me. I'm just gonna follow Rav Moshe's
> measurements and hope that its okay with Hashem.

<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol11/v11n004.shtml#01>

I agree more with what you wrote then. Aside from abnormally large
bubbles, the air is part of the matzah. And thus the same recipe
will yeild different weights -- weight is a poor way to approximate
volume. What I said then was that because we are so bad at estimating
thickness, where 1/12 of an inch looks much like 1/10 but is a difference
of 20% of necessary area, I'm not sure trying to use weight is worse.
Depends on whether bakeries vary on thickness more than on air.

...
: Can someone please explain to me how it was determined that Rav Chaim
: Volozhiner's matzah was 3 cc? ...

We're saying he *wrote* that we should use what is in metric measures 3cc.
RCV said to use today's olives, he measured olives, and got a number. Yes,
for the eidus about the CC's or CI's matzah we would need to know air
content.

And speaking of thickness, drift in thickness over ages would not be
noticed, and by relying on mimeticism you could be eating much much less
(or more, if matzos were getting thinner) than what you thought you
were imitating. Mimeticism is only as good as our ability to precisely
remember matzah thicknesses even when they're so thin that a large
pecentate is still just a smidgen.

: And, by the way -- does this, or does it not, support the view that
: the tiny airholes in a spongy matzah *do* count toward the kezayis?

It would require knowing how the eid estimated the shiur from the
observation.

But I didn't think (nor did you, 9 yrs ago) there was a view that required
reducing matzah to matzah meal, packing it down into a measuring cup,
and seeing how much of a sheet of your brand of matzah fill without air
into a kezayis.

:-)|,|ii , and a :-)|,ii to all our Granikim!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

In Avodah V30n13, R'Micha replied to RAM:
> Given that it's a machloqes rishonim, I would think RYM's sevara can be taken to lean to one side over the other. Again, unless he defines
a chiluq between birchas hamazon and sippur yetzi'as Mitzrayim. <
I don't understand, R'Micha -- isn't it true that there's a machloqes
whether women are chayav in BhM mid'Oraysa or only mid'Rabbanan and no such
machloqes whether they (shehayu b'oso haneis) are chayav in sippur y'tziyas
Mitzrayim?

Best wishes for a gut'n Shabbes and a Gut Yuntef/Chag Sameach from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

When looking at the 10 plagues of Egypt, the question arises - why those?
Hashem could have achieved the same effect of liberating the Israeli nation
by bringing in an enemy that would have let the Jews go (side note: perhaps
a problem with this one - that the Egyptians could claim that their fears
were true, see Parshat Shmot...);

Hashem could have brought upon them earthquakes; the nile could have
overflowed and flooded the land; meteorites could have fallen; I'm sure you
can all think of many other scenarios. But Hashem selected the 10 plagues. 

Chazal bring various answers: Mida KeNeged Mida; To show the Egyptians the
falseness of their gods; To teach Israel the might of Hashem; But my
question is then - we have a tradition that anything that is in the Torah is
intended LeShe'ata VeLeDorot. What is it that we can learn from the 10
plagues that is relevant to OUR generation?

In examining this question, and re-reading the Torah I realized that there
is one theme that keeps repeating itself: Israel is about to leave the Land
of Egypt and go to the Land of Israel where they will have to lead a normal
life. No longer slaves; No Mahn from Heaven; Just a regular state with all
the issues that need to be addressed. [note: if they hadn't sinned they
would have been in Israel within a year].  Now, Moshe Rabeinu was raised in
the House of Pharaoh and probably had an education in governance, but the
people were slaves for 210 years and were used to doing without; suffering
or relying on the Egyptians for such issues. How were they going to become
aware of what was involved? How could they learn and understand that they
need to make the effort to care for these issues? And more importantly -
what were the issues?

And that's when I realized that the 10 plagues could give us the answer.
They were environmental disasters of the highest order. The Jews could see
first hand the results of these disasters and thus learn that it was
important to prevent them when they reached the land of Israel.

So, here are some thoughts/notes (that can be expanded) on the 10 plagues,
as environmental disasters:

Water based disasters:
Blood - without water, there is no life!  Water also symbolizes our
spiritual life. 
Frogs - Even if there is water, we have to guard it, that it won't be
spoiled (indicated by too many/few frogs living near water resources etc.)
 
Soil  based disasters:
Lice - This plague is created from the earth, the soil.  When the soil is
sick - so are the people.
 
Animal kingdom disasters:
Wild animals/flies & rodents: There are 2 basic understandings of this
plague. In both cases, an imbalance occurs in the animal kingdom, generating
more wild animals/rodents and pests than can be tolerated by the general
animal life/plant life of humans. This teaches us the importance of the
balance in nature and in the need to support this balance and not do
anything to damage it.
 
Disease:
Livestock plague: Disease that strikes the livestock which is part of the
livelihood of a nation that lives on agriculture and animal husbandry.
Human plague: Human disease.  We know nowadays, that cleanliness and basic
care can minimize human disease. 
 
Natural Disasters:
Hail and Fire: This special hail combines water and fire, two of the most
powerful natural forces. The hail represents the weather and the disasters
it can cause. Fire represents volcanoes and other related natural disasters
(and perhaps energy based human disaste).
Locusts: An animal/plant based disaster that again is created b/c of certain
specific conditions that cause the locusts to swarm and travel from place to
place seeking food - and destroying all plant life in its path.
 
Community Disasters:
Darkness: The first thing that darkness prevents is the ability of people to
get together, to cooperate - and to build a community. This is both in the
physical and the spiritual sense.
The death of the firstborn: Prior to building a  community, you need to
build a stable family. The firstborn is considered, in Jewish thought, to be
the link that connects the generation of the parents to the generation of
the children. The firstborn comes into the world the closest to the parents'
marriage (usually), when they are the youngest (usually). But the firstborn
is also a child and a member of the next generation. The death of the
firstborn symbolizes the destruction of the united family that is the basis
of a healthy society. In fact we involved Eliyahu HaNavi in our Seder to
remind us of the importance of bringing peace and cooperation to the
children and the parents: VeHeishiv Lev Avot Al Banim VeLev Banim Al Avotam!
 
I have only said a few words here. There is a lot more that can be said and
written on this topic. This was just to give you a taste and some room for
thought.
 
I wish us all a disaster free holiday, joy and a good life!
 
Shoshana L. Boublil
Permaculture Designer
Israel
 

On 6/04/2012 7:59 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> I was going to cite it as a 6th example, except that qiddush hachodesh
> has "hachodesh hazeh*lakhem*" to separate astronomy from Rosh Chodesh.
> We define, not find, RC. One can't use it to point to a general rule
> about following pesaqim even when based on a mistake.

And the same thing applies to Yovel, where the pasuk says "vesafarta
lecha".  So if this is the way we counted then it doesn't matter if
we "should" have counted a different way.  So the example from the
Rambam fits exactly.


> I am not sure you're correct. Why would the Rambam mention the geonim
> rather than people in bayis sheini, Chazal, or the generations since the
> geonim (e.g. "mei'avosai"), if he meant something continuous that happened
> to run through their era.

Becuase he didn't get the kabalah from his fathers.  The kabalah is
specifically kept by the Geonim, who have it ish mipi ish.  The Rambam's
own ancestry was from Spain, not Iraq.


>> Where is that from, exactly?  For what application....

> R' Chaim Kanievsky, reporting on the CI's seder. Nidon didan.

Unless he's talking about the single kezayis of matza that women eat
(if they're not getting from the kaarah), all the kezeisim of the
seder can be 1/3 of a kebeitza, rather than 1/2.

Besides which, this is inconsistent with the CI's letter to RACN,
published in Shiurei Mikveh, where he insists that even though he
has no proof for his shiurim, "libi omer li" that they are correct,
and he would rely on them even to permit an eishes ish to the world.
How could he then turn around and not use them himself?

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

--- On Thu, 4/5/12, Poppers, Michael <MPopp...@kayescholer.com> wrote:


I don't understand, R'Micha -- isn't it true that there's a machloqes
whether women are chayav in BhM mid'Oraysa or only mid'Rabbanan and no such
machloqes whether they (shehayu b'oso haneis) are chayav in sippur y'tziyas
Mitzrayim?
-----------------------------------
?
Once again: Sipur Yitzias Mitzrayim is a D'Oraisa for women (MItzvah 21 in
the Chinuch). 'Af Hein Hayah B'Oso HaNes' is not a Sefora that is used for
D'Oraisos. It is used for D'Rabbanans - like the Daled Kosos. The Minchas
Chinuch questions how this Mitzvah (Being?a MASHZG from which women are
exempt -?is nonetheless a Chiuv D'Oraisa for them.
?
The Kehilas Yaakov suggests that since it is Makish to Achilas Matzah in
the sense that one of the meanings of Lechem Oni is that it is something
over which many questions are answered (i.e. the Haggdah that begings with
the Arba Kushios) it derives its Chiuv D'Oraisa from that. Matzah is also a
MASHZG and a Chiuv D'Oraisa for women. We apply the following dictum: Kol
Sheyeshna B' Bal Tochel Chametz - Yeshna B'Kum Ochel Matzos.
?
HM

Want More Haggadah Torah? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120409/09024977/attachment-0001.htm>

"Is there really anyone who holds that?  All the sources I'm aware of
seem pretty clear that bediavad peri`ah is me`akev, but metzitza is not.
It says "mal velo para` ke'ilu lo mal", but it never says anywhere that
"mal velo matzatz ke'ilu lo mal", implying that bediavad the boy is not
an `arel."

Then this leads me back to my original question: do we have any sources
that deal with balancing l'chatchila requirements with possible pikuach
nefesh considerations?  IOW, assuming metzitza is a l'chatchila
requirement, but b'deeved the bris milah is kosher, does pikuach nefesh
override the requirement? Sources??

David I. Cohen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120409/6198e683/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 16
**************************************

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..."