Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 165

Sat, 21 Sep 2013

• 1. new manuscripts (Eli Turkel)
• 2. The First Night of Succos (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Hamelech Hakadosh - during the year (Sholom Simon)
• 4. perpendicular schach (Eli Turkel)
• 5. HaMelech Hakadosh (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 6. Re: How many Korban Pesachs could be sacrificed in 1 day (Marty Bluke)
• 7. (no subject) (Marty Bluke)
• 8. Re: How many Korban Pesachs could be sacrificed in 1 day (Zev Sero)
• 9. manuscripts (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: HaMelech Hakadosh (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: www.crcweb.org/SchachMatFencing2013.pdf (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Dimensions of a circular sukkah (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Hamelech Hakadosh - during the year (Simon Montagu)
• 14. the sun's path at nite (saul newman)
• 15. Re: Hamelech Hakadosh - during the year (Harry Weiss)
• 16. Movement in a minyan (Ben Waxman)
• 17. smart watch (Eli Turkel)

We all know the opposition of CI to new manuscripts including R. Chananel
as being unreliable. I recently saw in an article by R. Brodt a list of
many achronim that indeed do rely on R. Chananel including the Mishneh
Bruruah, Cheshek Shlomo and R. Isser Zalman Meltzer.
In particular Avodat Hamelech extensively uses R. Chananel to explain
difficult Rambam's on the assumption that Rambam frequently follows the
opinion of R. Chananel.

In summary it would seem that the opinion of CI is a singular opinion.
Especially with the passage of time it  has become a standard perush on
gemara.


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130917/c29e0689/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://www.kashrut.com/articles/TheFirstNightOfSuccos/

Question: How does one properly fulfill the mitzvah of eating a 
k'zayis of bread on the first night1 of Succos?

Discussion: Every adult male is Biblically obligated to eat a k'zayis 
of bread in a succah on the first night of Succos. The Talmud2 
derives this obligation from the similar obligation of eating a 
k'zayis of matzah on the first night of Pesach. Since these two 
obligations are closely related, their halachos are similar in 
several respects. Like all mitzvos, this mitzvah, too, can only be 
properly fulfilled if there is prior planning and clear knowledge of 
all the requirements. Indeed, the poskim remind us that in the late 
afternoon of erev Succos, one should not eat so much food or wine 
that he will be unable to eat the k'zayis of bread with a good appetite.3

Let us review the pertinent halachos:

See the above URL for more. YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130917/f79a228a/attachment-0001.htm>

>> ... if after Yom Kippur one uses Hamelech in place
>> of Hakel, the tefillah is equally invalid.
>
> I have been unable to find a source to either confirm or contradict this.
> Does anyone know of a source which speaks of this situation, i.e., if one
> says "HaMelech Hakadosh" at a time OTHER than the Aseres Ymei Teshuva?

I was reading "Shloshim Yom Kodem HaChag" and he says the same thing. 
Actually, he gave a broader rule -- any change that you make during the 10
days that are not specifically related to R"H/Y"K (e.g., things that
mention writing or sealing, etc. -- e.g., HaMelech) does not invalidate a
tefilla for after the 10 days.

But, alas, a quick look back, and I can't find it.

-- Sholom

<<I have never understood the idea of putting the schach on wooden sticks
which rest on something that is mekabel tumah (e.g. metal) for the
following reason. The wood that is used to hold up the schach is in and of
itself kosher schach (otherwise it can't be used as a maamid)  therefore,
why should we consider the wood a maamid of the schach , rather it should
just be considered schach itself which is resting on the metal. R' Tzvi
Pesach Frank among others points this out and I have not seen a good answer
for this claim.>>

If I understand correctly the question is on all maamid.
In fact CI doesnt disbtinguish between maamid and mmamid de-maamid but that
is a daas yachid
seemly against SA.
If I remember Brisk allows even maamid

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130917/3a1645b8/attachment-0001.htm>

 I have been unable to find a source to either confirm or contradict this.
 Does anyone know of a source which speaks of this situation, i.e., if one
 says "HaMelech Hakadosh" at a time OTHER than the Aseres Ymei Teshuva?

To me it would be obvious that it is invalid since it is the converse of the halacha.
Therefore, I see no reason why there has to be an additional source.
In other words, if 'hamelech hakadosh is specific for the aseres y'mei t'shuva and
doing the usual 'hakel hakadosh' instead would render it invalid, then the converse
would also be true. If it were not so, and doing the 'Hamelech hakadosh' after the
aseres y'mei t'shuva didn't invalidate the tefilla, then the hamelech hakadosh 
during the ten days, would lose its essence.

Here is 1 additional point that I would like to bring up. In addition to
the Korban Pesach which would have 10 or more people in a chabura there
was a chiyuv on every male to bring an olas r'iya on the first day of Yom
Tov, this is 1 korban per person, so if there were 1.2 million korban
pesachs each with at least 10 people, that is at least 6 million olas
r'iyas that needed to be brought. In addition, there was the chagigas
yud daled which was supposed to be brought to provide meat to eat at
the seder (especially if there were big chaburas for the korban pesach)
plus additional shalmei simcha.

That adds up to between 7 and 10 million animals (1.2 million sheep
for korban pesach, 6 million olas r'iya and an indeterminate number of
shalmei simcha) that needed to be brought to Yerushalayim, housed there
for a few days and slaughtered. That is clearly not physically possible.

As R"n Luntz pointed out we can't just say it was miracles because Rava
doesn't even allow relying on a small miracle to close the azara doors
on Erev Pesach when sacrificing the korban pesach.

[Email #2. -micha]

Until now we have discussed how this could have worked in the Beis
Hamikdash. However, Bnei Yisrael brought the Korban Pesach the second
year in the Midbar as well. At that time there were only 3 Cohanim,
Aharon and his 2 sons. The population was 600,000 men plus presumably
600,000 women, assuming even 20 people per chabura that leaves 60,000
korbanos. Even if the shechita was done by a non-kohen, 3 cohanim had
to do all the other avodos, kabolos hadam, holacha, zerika, ... burning
the emurim on the mizbeach. That is an impossible task for only 3 cohanim.

I wrote:

: I have never understood the idea of putting the schach on wooden sticks
: which rest on something that is mekabel tumah (e.g. metal) for the
: following reason. The wood that is used to hold up the schach is in and of
: itself kosher schach (otherwise it can't be used as a maamid)...
and R' Micha Berger answered"
"Until you put it on a maamid that is meqabel tum'ah. Then it becomes
invalid for sekhakh, but still valid as a maamid. Your sevara is that
of the CI's chumerah"

I don't think this is related to teh Chazon Ish at all (and neither
does R' Frank in Mikraei Kodesh). In the case I described above you
have something that is kasher schach that is resting on a davar
hamekabel tuma. Why should you arbitrarily say that it isn't called
schach but a maamid? The Chazon Ish goes much further, The Chazon Ish
holds that you can't even use metal screws to hold the walls together.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130918/b015d3a5/attachment-0001.htm>

On 17/09/2013 2:18 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
> Here is 1 additional point that I would like to bring up. In addition to
> the Korban Pesach which would have 10 or more people in a chabura there
> was a chiyuv on every male to bring an olas r'iya on the first day of Yom
> Tov, this is 1 korban per person, so if there were 1.2 million korban
> pesachs each with at least 10 people, that is at least 6 million olas
> r'iyas that needed to be brought.

They could be spread over 7 days.   And not every male is obligated.


> In addition, there was the chagigas
> yud daled which was supposed to be brought to provide meat to eat at
> the seder (especially if there were big chaburas for the korban pesach)
> plus additional shalmei simcha.

The shlamim could be brought in the morning, and AFAIK it doesn't have to be
done for the sake of a specific owner.  For all I know the BHMK could have
slaughtered bulls all morning as shlamim, and made the meat available to
anyone who donated towards the cost.

> That adds up to between 7 and 10 million animals that needed to be brought
> to Yerushalayim, housed there for a few days and slaughtered.

Why housed there at all, let alone for a few days?  They could be grazing
in the vicinity.  Even if they have to be inspected for 4 days, that could
be done outside the city.

Alternatively, each family kept its korbanos where it stayed.  And that
they all found room to stay in the city *was* a miracle.


> Bnei Yisrael brought the Korban Pesach the second year in the Midbar
> as well. At that time there were only 3 Cohanim, Aharon and his 2 sons.

Moshe was also a cohen, so there were four.  But that doesn't really
answer the question; four should have been overwhelmed as easily as three.

-- 
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

Concerning the use of recently published manuscripts I note that one
problem is the authenticity of some of these manuscripts. i.e. were they
written by the person listed

I saw an article that claimed that part of the opposition to using newly
found manuscripts was caused by the controversy over "Besamin Rosh" which
most academics consider to be a forgery although many poskim still claim it
is written by the Rosh.
Of course we all know that there was much confusion between the chiddushim
of the Ramban,Rashba, Ritva etc many of which were published originally
switching the author.

I also recently read an article abount the Malbim that some of the seforim
"by the Malbi" were written by others in a style they felt was true to the
Malbim - sort of like kosher style food

chag sameach

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130918/8b745790/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:09:03PM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: To me it would be obvious that it is invalid since it is the converse
: of the halacha.

If someone (presumably someone who doesn't daven standard Ashkenaz) says
"morid hatal" in the winter, he does not have to repeat the berakhah.
It is only someone who omits "mashiv haruach umorid hageshem" altogether.

However, someone who says "... umorid hageshem" in the summer instead
of his usual "morid hatal" does have to go back. 

(See OC 114:4 and the Beis Yoseif.)

The reason is that praising Hashem for the weather in the rainy season
is critical. Keeps one from taking credit for how their crops are growing.
Remembering rain in particular is superior, but not mandatory.

OTOH, rain in the dry season is a sign of Divine Displeasure. (Not as much
as rain tonight on Sukkos would be.)

Symmetry is not a given.

Perhaps you can argue that the SA's silence on the issue of "haMelekh
haQadosh" during the year implies he held it was symmetry, but I don't
think the SA is complete enough for that deduction.

For example, he discusses the Israeli in chu"l on yom tov sheini, but
not the other way around, and acharonim argue about what Maran Bet
Yosef would hold.

With berakhos that Hashem makes it easy for all of you and all of BY
to fullfil vehayisa akh sameiach,
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 08:37:06AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote:
: I don't think this is related to teh Chazon Ish at all (and neither
: does R' Frank in Mikraei Kodesh). In the case I described above you
: have something that is kasher schach that is resting on a davar
: hamekabel tuma. Why should you arbitrarily say that it isn't called
: schach but a maamid? ...

Because it's NOT kosher sekhakh if it's resting on something that is
meqabel tum'ah. Your middle sentence is a self-contradiction. And that's
what keeps us from saying the support poles are sekhakh, only maamidim.

Since we hold the maamid concept is only one step deep, the maamidim can
be resting on a davar shemeqabeil tum'ah and still be okay as a maamidim.
(But, again, not as sekhakh.)


Another way of looking at it:

I think you're trying to include the beams in "the sekhakh" before
assessing where they rest, and thus putting the entire sekhakh as a unit
into the question of kosher or pasul. But who said that if we invalidate
one subset of the sekhakh the whole sekhakh would be pasul, anyway?

So the beams are pasul for sekhakh (because of the maamid) and yet still
valid for being a maamid (since they themselves are not meqablim tum'a)
the rest of the sekhakh is judged, each piece on its own, as kosher.


:                      The Chazon Ish goes much further, The Chazon Ish
: holds that you can't even use metal screws to hold the walls together.

The CI holds that ma'amid does not only go to one level of
causation. Since the sekhakh rests on the walls, or on wood that rests
on the walls, the walls are maamid, and since they in turn are ma'amidim
via the screws, the screws are maamidim the sekhakh as well (by 2 steps
of causation).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Eliot

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:33:31AM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: I *am* familiar with the concept that we've often discussed here, that a
: working legal system needs to incorporate estimates and calculations that
: are feasible to the average person, and must sometimes choose expedient
: over accurate. Still, this case seems to be rather extreme. Is 3 really
: an accepted value for pi in halacha l'maaseh, as opposed to the much
: closer 3 1/6? Can anyone comment?

Yes, three really is close enough to pi halakhah lemaseh. How do I know,
because (as one example):
: The above calculation shows why I was very surprised to find Mishna
: Berurah 634:4 (citing Beis Yosef) giving the circumference of that
: circle as only 29.4 tefachim. In the Shaar Hatziun there, he explains
: the calculation: Seven is multiplied by 1.4 to get the length of the
: diagonal. That is the diameter of the circle, and is multiplied by 3 to
: get the circumference. This calculation gives 29.4.

IOW, why ask a question in surprise rather than take it as your answer?

BTW, saying that 3 is good enough enough for pi has a different weight
than 1-1/5 for sqrt(2). After all, we have a pasuq that uses it.

(In my "observable / existential" way of viewing halakhah, I would
say that it makes sense for pi to be more off than sqrt(2) at only one
digit precision rather than two digit, or 5% off instead of 1%. After
all, people mentally estimate straight lenghts better, and have less
tolerance for calling wavy lines "basically lines" than some hand-drawn
almost circles.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org        are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org   a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Bechinas haOlam

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Kenneth Miller <kennethgmil...@juno.com>wrote:

> > ... if after Yom Kippur one uses Hamelech in place
> > of Hakel, the tefillah is equally invalid.
>
> I have been unable to find a source to either confirm or contradict this.
> Does anyone know of a source which speaks of this situation, i.e., if one
> says "HaMelech Hakadosh" at a time OTHER than the Aseres Ymei Teshuva?
>

The Kaf HaHayyim,
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41181&;st=&pgnum=125 in se`if
katan gimmel says not to go back in this situation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130918/8a8e95b7/attachment-0001.htm>

http://www.zootorah.com/RationalistJ
udaism/Sixteenth%20Century%20Attitudes%20to%20Talmudic%20Cosmology.pdf
http://www.zootorah.com/RationalistJudaism/TheSunsPathAtNight.pdf
r slifkin's monographs  in time for the daf....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130918/73b208aa/attachment-0001.htm>

> From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
>
>> ... if after Yom Kippur one uses Hamelech in place
>> of Hakel, the tefillah is equally invalid.
>
> I have been unable to find a source to either confirm or contradict this.
> Does anyone know of a source which speaks of this situation, i.e., if one
> says "HaMelech Hakadosh" at a time OTHER than the Aseres Ymei Teshuva?
>
Not a normal source (It lists in the beginning numerous sources for its
piskei halacha but the Beth Tefillah Yom Kippur Machzor in the Motzei Yom
Kippur davening says toch kdei dibbur one corrects, otherwise one does not
go back.

We all know RMF's piskei halacha about davening in a minyan with a 
different nusach. I was wondering how that worked with movement. 
Meaning, you move in way which is different from the minyan.

My most common experience is when I go to a Sefardi shul and they sit 
for many of the kaddishim. I asked a relative (a rav) of Rav Moshe's and 
he told me that in his opinion, Rav Moshe's psak doesn't apply because 
you can always say that you are in a part of the tefilla that requires 
standing. I never found that such a satisfying answer, a kind of a minor 
lie. Plus there are times when it is obvious that you are standing for a 
kaddish for which they are sitting.  Normally I stand because there are 
usually a few Sefardim who stand for every kaddish (I've been told that 
Moroccans stand for kaddish).

However on Friday (1st day Cholo Moed here) I went to a Sefardi shul and 
when we got to shaking the arba minim the differences were black and 
white. First the way they shake is completely different from my minhag. 
Secondly, they shake the minim fewer times than I do (only the first 
Hodu each time Hodu is said).

So I want to be l'tchatchila, should I have shook the minim the  way 
they do?

Ben

In addition to my previous post my son recently bought a pebble smartwatch.
He said that he had to disable some functions to be able to use on
shabbat/chag.
He felt that the Samsung smartwatch could not be used and that future smart
watches ,ight be a problem depending on how much can be disabled manually.

Of course all this assumes that the owner is tech-wise enough to do these
changes.
Personally I dont wear a watch on shabbat but for those that do - buyer
beware.

BTW the same holds for smart refrigerators and other home appliances, My
son felt that with more sensitive airconditioning sensors walking in the
house might cause problems.
Those who accept the decisions of RSZA should be okay. However, those who
are machmir might have difficulties as devices get smarter and more
sensitive

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130921/a48533bb/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 165
***************************************

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