Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 66

Sun, 14 Apr 2013

• 1. Re: Rebbi Akiva, Rabbon Gamliel, Who Brings the Chatos (Arie Folger)
• 2. re Proper Attire For Shabbos (Ezra Chwat)
• 3. Is yovel not in sync with the sabbatical cycle according to R' Yehude? (Arie Folger)
• 4. kinyan hagbaah (Meir Rabi)
• 5. kinyan hagbaah (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: kinyan hagbaah (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: YHA nidche (Kenneth Miller)
• 8. YHA nidche (Eli Turkel)

On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Meir Rabi <meir...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do we know where RY was on that day, that taking his walking stick and his
> money, he walked to Yavneh? Why is it any more reasonable to suggest that
> he walked from beyond the Techum than to imagine that he walked within the
> Techum? Besides, that would not have been as effective a public display as
> RY wearing leather shoes or sandals.
>
Are you so sure that wearing shoes on YK is deOraita? The Rosh in Yoma 8:1
doesn't think so. ?And even the Ran wqho does believe it is pentateuchal,
(how is that translation of DeOraita, after all, the Bible includes NaKh
;-)), defines it as messaro hakatuv lachakhamim.

Whereas carrying is more likely to be a DeOraita, especially if he was
coming from outside the city, as the text does seem to imply.

> Furthermore, may we assume that it would have been normal for those times
> for the people to wear leather footwear? Is it not reasonable to assert
> that the Mishna?s omission of RY putting on his shoes, as it lists his
> taking his walking stick and his money, is significant and worthy of being
> noted?
>
No. Many people wen barefoot. Perhaps RY was poor (I have no idea), or he
could have preferred wooden clogs or even wooden sandal (FWIW, our leather
shoes combine both technologies, as the heel is generally wood or synthetic
material).

> Concerning the various versions that are recorded regarding the exchanges
> that RY had with RA and others, I merely note that from the Mishnah it
> appears that even following RA exposition that validated RG?s ruling and
> setting of Rosh Chodesh, RY was still mightily distressed. We don?t see
> that he was at all decided to abide RG instruction or not. AFAIK, we may
> well suggest he was quite happy to go and felt no sense of humiliation in
> submitting himself to RG ruling: his distress was entirely due to his
> thinking that the people would all be missing and desecrating the true day
> of YK.
>
Yes, you may suggest, but there is not the slightest indication in the text
to suggest this. (I know, I know, this is an argument from silence, but
given that no one ever suggested and recorded this suggestion in previous
commentaries know to mankind, it definitely doesn't seem an obvious
explanation). In fact, if the issue is what other people will think or do,
iqar chasser min hasefer. So this argument from silence is actually not
that weak.

> Now going back to Rabbi Teitz?s suggested resolution of the anomalies
> between the Mishna?s version and the Berayasa?s version of what RA said ?
> From the Mishnah it seems that RY was NOT happy to accept RA exposition. He
> perhaps deemed it to be a bit of clever footwork but not really a true
> Halachically binding or legitimate approach. He therefore did not say
> Akivah, you have comforted me; and he still sought comfort elsewhere.
>
I also suggested something along those lines.

> In the Berayasa?s version, RA offered an exposition that RY did accept.
> Perhaps he accepted it because it was  -  as the Berayasa intimates  -  the
> exposition of RY himself, and was therefore immediately comforted. Indeed,
> according to this analysis, there are two versions as to what RA actually
> said to RY and whether RY did teach this Derasha.
>
The two versions do not conflict, I assume that they simply happened one
after the other (RA1, RD1, RD2 and RA2).

By the way, as was already pointed out to you, just because RA said to RY
limadetani does not mean that it had been RY's teaching. It rather seems
like a standard phrase when correcting or teaching one's teacher, and was
more likely RA's chidush (as it fits very well with RA's general approach
to peshat. Listen to RYoel Bin Nun's shiur on this, downloadable on the
site of Yeshivat Maaleh Adumim, shitato shel Rabbi Aqiva, to be totally
blown away by his analysis of RA).


Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Schnellkurs im j?dischen Grundwissen: I. Der Schabbat (Audio)
* Warum beschneiden Juden ihre Knaben ? Multimedia-Vortrag
* Beschneidung, die aktuelle Rechtslage ? Multimedia Schiur
* Was mir in Holocaust Museen fehlt
* Beschneidungslerntag ? Schlu?worte (Multimedia)
* Paneldiskussion zur Beschneidung ? Audio-Datei
* Welche B?nde gibt es zwischen Mensch und G?tt? (Multimedia)
* R?ckblick Gedenkfeier F?rstenfeldbruck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130414/bd013c66/attachment-0001.htm>

Through the numerous posts on this issue it's clear that the cultural
context is the key factor involved. Perplexed with the search for sources
of normative practice, I could only come up with the  following:
RH Vital (Sha'ar haKavanot, the last article before tchum Shabbat; Etz Hayim Shaar Shabbat IV, Lvov 1864, fol. [64]a) retells the practice of ARI ZL :

1.	 to wear 4 white garments, including all outer garments (except,
possibly  shoes). Perhaps an allusion to the 4 white garments of the Cohen
Gadol on YK. Under-Garments added to protect from cold, can be colored.

2.       Avoid wearing any Shabbat attire, including undergarments, any other day (yom tov, Yamim Noraim, life-cycle smachot, unclear).

3.       Avoid  wearing black on Shabbat. A gruesome tale is attached in these sources.



In Tikuney Shabbat Malchita (ed. Siddur Berlin 1699 fol. 63b) recedes a bit
from the ARI, granting for the difficulty involved due to the dire
conditions of the "heavy yoke of Galut that that 'our souls are close to
dust' ", and allows for colored garments except black and red, the colors
of the days of the week.


Dr. Ezra Chwat
The Department of Manuscripts/
The National Libraryof Israel
blog: Giluy Milta B'Alma: http: http://imhm.blogspot.com/







[cid:admailBnr6.jpg]<http://web.nli.org.il/sites/nli/hebrew/pages/default.aspx/>


________________________________


powered by admail<http://www.admail.us>





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130414/b65efb38/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: admailBnr6.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14518 bytes
Desc: admailBnr6.jpg
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130414/b65efb38/attachment-0001.jpg>

RMB posited that according to R' Yehuda, yovel is not synchronous with the
seven shemitot cycle, and inch forward every cycle by one year, so that it
will first be the first year of shemitta, fifty years later the second,
fifty years later the third.

While admitting that it has been a while since I covered those sources, I
do believe that his explanation is in error.

Both RY and Rabbanan agree that yovel and shemitta are synchronised. The
question is only whether the jubilee year is part of the sabbatical count
and year fifty is at once also year one (RY), or whether jubilee interrupts
the count and year one is the fifty first year of the previous cycle.

Of course, I could be wrong, but that is what I recall.

--
mit freundlichen Gr??en,
with kind regards,
Arie Folger

visit my blog at http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
sent from my mobile device
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130414/8d88d288/attachment-0001.htm>

Is it not true that even though my agreement with the supermarket is that
things in my trolley are things that I am CONSIDERING buying and I have not
yet been Koneh, But placing items in my trolley grants me Kinyan that
prevents others from taking those [last items on sale] items from me

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130415/936019a3/attachment-0001.htm>

<<For the same reason that if I walk into your home and pick things up they
don't become mine.  There's no agreement between us for a sale to occur.>>

If so when does it belong to the consumer assuming it is delivered and the
customer doesnt touch the items after it passes the cashier?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130414/bc1ae287/attachment-0001.htm>

On 14/04/2013 10:04 AM, Meir Rabi wrote:
> Is it not true that even though my agreement with the supermarket is
> that things in my trolley are things that I am CONSIDERING buying and
> I have not yet been Koneh, But placing items in my trolley grants me
> Kinyan that prevents others from taking those [last items on sale]
> items from me

No.  You have no baalus on them at all.  People can't take them from you,
not because they're yours, but because they're physically in your possession.
If someone did take something from your cart do you really imagine you'd have
recourse to a court or a beis din?!

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> When is megillah ever moved?  The official reading is always on
> one of the two days decreed by Chazal.  By special dispensation
> villagers can read it on one of the three preceding days, but
> 1) the official reading remains on the correct day, and they're
> merely being allowed to read now as if it were then; 2) this is
> only possible because the AKHG gave authority for it in the
> pasuk itself, which means it was part of the original takanah,
> not a later innovation.

Granted that it was part of the original takanah, but surely this teaches us something about how to celebrate the anniversary of an event, doesn't it?

It is undeniable that the original takanah DID allow the villagers to read
the megilla on specific alternate dates. It is also undeniable that there
were good reasons for giving this dispensation to those villagers. (The
gemara cites various views on exactly what those reasons were, but there
WERE good reasons.)

But even if there are good reasons for the dispensation, that's not going
to help unless we can somehow show a connection between the original event
and this alternate date. One possible connection was suggest by R' Simon
Montagu:

> It's my belief that today our mindset is much more precise than
> Hazal's, witness the fuss some people make about exact
> measurement of shi`urim, or hanetz minyans who time themselves
> to the second by atomic clocks. I'm not sure that they would
> have seen an anniversary being off by one or two days as an
> issue, even.

As one of the moderns who tends to a precise mindset, I would prefer NOT to
go with that suggestion. I'd much prefer to find that each of the alternate
dates named by the Mishnah marks an event worthy of the recitation of the
Megillah/Hallel. But I am not aware of any such events (other than for Adar
13). All I know is that the gemara darshans "b'zmaneihem" to tell us that
the original takanah DOES include additional days when the Megillah made be
read. But I am not aware of any suggestion regarding what event might have
happened, for example, on Adar 11.

The implications for YHA should be obvious. If we can find events of the
Purim story which occurred on Adar 11 and Adar 12, and we can also find
Hallel-worthy events on Iyar 6, then perhaps Purim can be a good precedent
for YHA nidche, despite the posts of R' Micha Berger and R' Harry Maryles.

But if we cannot find any such events on Adar 11 or Adar 12, then perhaps,
just as the Anshei Kneses Hagdolah saw fit to grant a dispensation to read
the Megillah on a day which was ostensibly unfit for doing so, then perhaps
we too can justify saying Hallel on YHA nidche, in order to minimize the
Chilul Shabbos.

Akiva Miller

DISCLAIMER: The above post presumes the legitimacy of saying Hallel when
YHA is *not* a nidche. This is an important question which should not be
ignored, but is to be answered by minds much greater than mine.

.
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 60 But Looks 25
Mom publishes simple facelift trick that angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/516aba9b5fc943a9b695ast04vuc

<<My father sheyichyeh once suggested to me that there is a strong reason
to favor the nidcheh / muqdam date over 5 Iyyar. The existence of a
country in which the legal holidays are moved around so as to minimize
chilul Shabbos is much of the significance of the event.

OTOH, if you really believe that 5 Iyyar is the anniversary of an event
worthy of saying Hallel, that argument doesn't really workd for a moved
date. My father's line of reasoning only makes sense to me for those
who don't say Hallel.>>

R Ariel points out that the British mandate actually ended on the 6th of
Iyar which was a shabbat.
Ben Gurion moved up the announcement of indeoendence to friday afternoon to
avoid chillul shabbat.
Hence, the "real" YH should have been the 6th of Iyar and and only
observance of shabbat changed the date. Hence, now when YH is moved because
of shabbat it actually reminds us that shabbat is part of the independence
of EY.

Hence, his final psak for this year is to Hallel on tuesday the 6th of Iyar
and not to say Tachanun on both monday and tuesday the 5th and 6th of iyar
(that is what my shul is doing)

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130414/58db5e4a/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 66
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)