Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 79

Mon, 18 May 2015

• 1. Standing at a Chupah (Prof. Levine)
• 2. If a woman can say "you do not need to redeem me and I will not give you peros" (Chana Luntz)
• 3. Re: Zilzul Shabbos (Kenneth Miller)
• 4. Megilat Rut: The night of Boaz and Rut Revisited (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: Announcing the Molad (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Announcing the Molad (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Announcing the Molad (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: If a woman can say "you do not need to redeem me and I will not give you peros" (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: RMA (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: Announcing the Molad (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Announcing the Molad (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: Announcing the Molad (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Announcing the Molad (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Announcing the Molad (Zev Sero)

Yesterday a friend of mine told be that the Rov where he davened said
that he knew of grandparents who did not want to walk down at their
grandchildren's Chassana,  because they knew that the people
attending the chupah would not stand for them even though they were
70 + years old.  They did not want to be involved in lifnei Iver.

Truth be told,  I have seen the following many times.  When the
grandparents who are 70 or more years old walk down,  no one stands
for them.  However,  when the chosson and kallah walk down everyone
stands for them.

It is, of course,  a positive mitzvah to stand up for any person 70
years old or more.  See

See 
http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/35165/stan
ding-for-someone-whos-turned-seventy 


It is questionable if one has to stand for the chosson and kallah.  See
http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/levine/standing_chasuna.pdf

I told my friend that it should be announced at the beginning of
every chupah that  1.  All cell phones should be turned
off;  2.  There should be no talking during the chupah,  and  3.  If
grandparents who are 70 or more will be walking down,  then one is
required to stand for them.

I think if this were done at Chasanas it would soon become the norm.

YL


llev...@stevens.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150518/27636d75/attachment-0001.htm>

Rav Zylberstein in the Cheshukei Chemed on Daf 78a of Kesubos discusses the
question as to whether a woman today who has lots of peros from her property
can say to her husband - "you do not need to redeem me, and I will not give
you the peros" - on the ground that the need for redemption today is not
common ("lo schiach") - even though the gemora there says that she cannot
avoid this trade as mandated by Chazal (despite her being able to avoid the
trade between mezonos versus ma'aseh yadeha, again a takana of Chazal, as
this last takana was done for her benefit).

Rav Zylberstein brings a discussion based on various rishonim to show that
actually, pidyon was not common even at the time of Chazal, or at the time
of the rishonim, and hence the fact that it is not common today does not
change the situation from that mandated by Chazal.  He also adds in the
position of the Ran, that the takana regarding pidyon is not just made for
her benefit (as the mezonos one is) and hence something that can be waived
by her, but is also for the benefit of the husband, as without her
redemption, the husband doesn't have the benefit of her company and
services, while with mezonos that doesn't apply.

However, it seems to me that Rav Zylberstein is not in fact dealing with
what strikes me as the fundamental question.  That is, it is not a question
of whether or not pidyon is not common today (indeed, I would be tempted
dispute that it is in fact "lo schiach", despite Rav Zylberstein taking this
for granted)  - but rather that the job of pidyon today is one of those that
has been appropriated away from family members such as husbands, and is now
the province of governments.

The decision as to whether an individual may or may not be redeemed from
ISIS, or pirates off Africa, or wherever, is now one which governments take
with regard to their citizens.  Governments which are prepared to do deals,
like France, redeem their citizens (albeit for astronomical sums).
Governments, like the UK and the US, who refuse to do deals on the grounds
that it just encourages terrorists - will not let individuals, including
husbands, redeem, even if the sums could be raised individually, as a matter
of general policy.  Nobody assumed it was the job of Gilad Shalit's family
to effect his release - except to the extent that they was required to lobby
the Israeli government (it might even have been treason to go negotiating
with Hamas directly).  Release or non release negotiations therefore,
including the price to be paid (whether by prisoner release or otherwise) is
today a government price. 

So it seems to me that what in fact we have today is a situation where
husbands are, for the most part, forbidden by law (dina d'malchusa dina)
from redeeming their wives, ie from fulfilling their side of the takana of
Chazal.  In such circumstances - while one might argue that the state of
which the woman is a citizen is entitled to (at least some portion of) the
peros (taxes?) the real question then seems to become: on what basis does
one say that the second half of the takana stands - not just in relation to
a woman who tries to say "you do not need to redeem me", but in relation to
any woman in this circumstance.

Has anybody come across anybody discussing this question, and any thoughts
on any justification for the retention of the husband's benefit if in fact
husbands are not legally allowed to effect redemption?

BTW on the question of the commonness of redemption - part of that would
depend on the scope of the definition of "pidyon".  Clearly redemption from
ISIS or pirates in Africa falls within this category - but how about
rescuing somebody who was trekking in Nepal at the time of the earthquake?
Again this is something that governments are now regarded as having a
responsibility to do (the British Government has been criticised for failing
to do as much as others, such as the Israeli and US governments, have done).
At first  blush I can't see why flying somebody out of an earthquake zone
would not fit within the pidyon definition - despite it being physical
forces, such as landslides, rather than people, who may be trapping the
individuals.  How about a package tour company going bust?  Again, the
person in question would (absent ATOL and similar travel bonding schemes set
up by the relevant governments) be trapped in a foreign country and need to
be returned to their country of origin, as per the language of the
takana/ketuba.  So why would this not be a form of pidyon?  But again, is
not the fundamental responsibility now assumed to devolve onto the
government in respect of its citizens?  So while I am not actually sure that
it is true that pidyon is in fact so extremely not common, it seems to me
that the fundamental question is rather a different one.

Regards

Chana

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> Among the arguments that came up in the discussion of the Kosher
> Switch was that it's zilzul Shabbos.

> ... what does the fact that a community eruv is NOT zilzul
> Shabbos say about the nature of zilzul Shabbos and its
> applicability to nidon didan?

Excellent point. And I'd like to add another point: There are those who
have argued that the availability of various types of timers (including
those with software and adjust themselves for varying sunset times)
have made the Kosher Switch unnecessary. I disagree strongly.

The Kosher Switch, and similar devices do not merely add convenience,
but can do a lot for lessening tzaar, and that is a valid and recognized
halachic consideration.

There were many times when I went to bed earlier than planned, but the
light would not go out for another hour, and it was keeping me awake. And
there were many times when my seudah lasted longer than expected, but
the lights had gone out and we benched in dim light.

There were many times when I set the air conditioning for what was
expected to be a very hot day, and when it turn out to be mild, we
all froze in the cold house. And there were many times when I left the
air conditioning off, and regretted it when the day turned hotter than
expected.

Of course, a couple of centuries ago, people did not have these
conveniences, and they learned to cope with them. But I really believe
that for us, who have gotten addicted to them, it is a real tzaar when
we must do without.

(None of the above should be construed as meaning that I endorse any
particular sort of device. I'm only talking about devices which we are
allowed to use on Shabbos.)


[Email #2. -micha]
R' Micha Berger asked:
> When community eruvin got started, wasn't there a much easier
> argument of zilzul? Why wasn't it made?

I'm not sure which period of history you're referring to with the phrase
"when community eruvin got started", but here's my attempt at an answer:

Eruvin did not allow something which had been previously assur, the
way timers do and the way the Shabbos Switch would (according to its
supporters).

Beginning in Moshe Rabenu's day, people were very careful not to carry
from a Reshus Hayachid to a Reshus Harabim, or vice versa, or 4 amos
within a Reshus Harabim. But everything else was no problem. People
would carry from one home to another within the same chatzer without
thinking twice. Or even to a home across the street, IF that street was
NOT a Reshus Harabim.

But over time, accidents started to happen, because it is not always
so easy to determine what's a Reshus Harabim and what's not. So at
a certain point (either by David Hamelech's beis din, or Shlomo's, I
don't remember) TWO halachos were enacted, at the SAME tme: One, that
hotzaah was forbidden in a wide variety of areas other than within one
Reshus Hayachid. Two, that these other areas could be transformed into
a Reshus Hayachid by following some specific rules.

The net result is that after Hilchos Eruvin were instituted, there
were NO actions which people could be done that were not being done
before. No one said, "Now the neighborhood can have a picnic on Shabbos
afternoon!", because they could have done this all along, if there was
no Reshus Harabim running through. Thus, no one lamented the zilzul
Shabbos caused by allowing picnics which had previously been forbidden,
because they had NOT previously been forbidden.

I suppose it is possible that in the beginning, these procedures were
used only by small neighborhoods (chatzeros and not much larger), and
it was only much later that they were used by entire communities. If
that's what RMB was referring to, then I'll have to stop here and let
a historian continue.

Akiva Miller

See http://tinyurl.com/kmyx55p

YL

llev...@stevens.edu 

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 1:32pm EDT, R/Prof. Yitzchok Levine wrote on
Areivim:
: Yesterday in shul I asked a 12 year-old boy who attends a good
: yeshiva if he was willing to announce the Molad.  He looked at  me
: incredulously and said "What's the Molad?" I replied,  "You know,
: when the new moon can be seen."  He still didn't get it, and I had
: to elaborate a bit.

I want to get all nerdy with this.

The molad is actually an average, not when you could first see the
moon this particular month. From 1601 to 200 CE, the actual physical
lunation could be 6h 21m shorter or 7h 15m longer.

And, the average too changes over time. (As I've noted in the past,
it is amazing to me that we had back in the days of Galus Bavel,
a molad value that was most accurate in the same century R' Hillel II
and his Sanhedrin crated a standard calendar, some 900 years later.
Exact to within the unit of measure (the cheileq). Accurate when we
needed the value, not when we first obtained it.

Currently, the molad is around 108 chalaqim off.

And that's just the time between the molads. Then you have to ask
when in the cycle the moon could first be seen. How thin of a sliver
is visible to the typical human eye? And which longitude's clock are
you using?

And we announce the time for this point on the globe using today's hour
naming convension. If you look at (eg) the Rambam, you'd be seeing
a clock which is restarted every day at sunset, making sunset 0:00,
not a number various about 6pm. But that's only something to keep in
mind when looking at older Sepharadi sefarim, and wouldn't impact
understanding what it is we actually announce.

It would seem the molad as we now announce it would be for Kandahar,
Afghanistan. But that must be due to slippage because the molad is
too long. If we go back to the 4th or 5th cent CE, the molad is being
announced given the time around midway between the Nile and the far
(south-east) end of the Euphrates, which would have been around the
middle of Jewish settlement at the time.

In any case, calling is Jerusalem Time is a misnomer.

Anyway, because we don't know for sure what location on the globe
the molad was defined for, and how much of the current location is
due to slippage during centuries of molads growing ever longer, we
cannot definitively translate molad time to your local standard time.
We simply do not know the starting lattitude to convert from.

Bottom line, no one knows what the molad we're announcing really means.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

On 05/18/2015 11:40 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Bottom line, no one knows what the molad we're announcing really means.

Sure we do.   It's the motion of an "averaged moon" that orbits the earth
in a perfect circle, and that, however fictional, forms the basis of our
calendar.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:53:42AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: On 05/18/2015 11:40 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
: >Bottom line, no one knows what the molad we're announcing really means.

: Sure we do.   It's the motion of an "averaged moon" that orbits the earth
: in a perfect circle, and that, however fictional, forms the basis of our
: calendar.

Except we don't know how much of an idealized moon is supposed to be
showing and where between the latitudes of Alexandria and Sura it would
have been showing.

IOW, we don't know when in the moon's cycle the molad is an idealization
of.

Note, though, that Rabban Gamliel quotes a mesorah from R' Gamliel
haZaqein ("mibeis avi abba) that the molad varies. And in a second quote,
that it will never be "less than" 29-1/2d 2/3h 73 chalaqim. (Shabbos 25a)
And he uses this to question eidim, so this is a mesorah he accepts for
re'iyah, not just computation.

Redoing R' Gamaliel's fractions, and converting 73c = 4m 1c, we get
29d 4 hr, 44m, 1 c. Our molad.

So Rabban Gamliel held our molad was a lower limit, not an average!?
And recall, we'e talking re'iyah (see the sugya) and the actual lunation
could be over 6hr easlier than the average.

What am I missing?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

It should be borne in mind that there are still countries (including ones
with substantial Jewish communities) where the need for pidyon is at least
as common now as it probably was in Chazal's day.  Also that while in many
countries paying ransoms may be technically illegal, hardly anybody who is
r"l in that situation cares about this.


-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

RMB:

<<OTOH, pasqening for oneself has a major problem that one doesn't face 
when answering others' questions -- vested interest vs objectivity. 
Listen to R Jonathan Ziring's shiur on the topic at 
<http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/826651>. In particular, his 
very first source (see link to mar'eh meqomos sheet) Nissah 20b. Yalta, 
"Rebbetzin Nachman", asks her mar'os questions of Rabbah bar bar Chanah 
and Rabbi Yitzchaq bereih deR' Yehudah, not her husband. Similarly 
mishnah Nega'im 2:5 saying you can't pasen nega'im even of relatives, 
Bekhoros 31a about judging one's own bekhoros.>>

The standard hiluq is is'hazek issura or not.  See, e.g., Hochmas Adam 
H. Shechitah 1:10, Binas Adam ad. loc., and HA H. Nidah 109:6 and BA ad. 
loc.  I think the issue is that hora'ah in the presence of hezkas issur 
is considered eidus.

The argument of self interest raises some problems:

1. Do you know of cases where rabbis have referred questions about 
communal matters to experts elsewhere because they are self interested 
since they live in the community? For example, do Hachmai EY refer 
questions about communal safety (e.g., military matters) to rabbis in 
Hutz LaAretz because they are self interested?

2.  Why shouldn't self interest be a psul in the absence of hezkas 
issur? I know people on this list have cited it to me in the case of 
restaurants certifying their own products.

David Riceman

On 05/18/2015 12:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> What am I missing?

That what we announce is *not* anything to do with the actual moon, which
the eidim in RG's time would have claimed to have seen, but the notional
averaged moon on which *our* calendar is based.   The *real* molad, i.e.
conjunction of moon and sun, does vary, because the real moon does not
orbit the earth in a perfect circle; the notional molad on which we base
our calendar, and which we announce every month (except, ironically, the
one month when it actually matters), is perfectly regular.   And "molad"
does seem to mean the conjunction, not the moment when the first sliver
is visible, because the gemara in RH seems to say that the first possible
sighting of the new moon is six hours *after* the molad.

So we do know exactly what we are announcing: the number on which the
calendar is based.  Given this Shabbos's announcement, one can easily
calculate that next Rosh Hashana will be on a Monday, exactly as it
should be.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

At 11:40 AM 5/18/2015, Micha Berger wrote:
>Bottom line, no one knows what the molad we're announcing really means.

Yet it says in the siddurim that it should be announced so people 
know when it is!

My understanding is that what is announced is Jerusalem solar time 
and this is different from Jerusalem local time.  YL


llev...@stevens.edu

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 01:03:32PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 05/18/2015 12:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
: >What am I missing?
: 
: That what we announce is *not* anything to do with the actual moon, which
: the eidim in RG's time would have claimed to have seen, but the notional
: averaged moon on which *our* calendar is based...

First, as Zev noted to me in private, I meant RH 25a (not Mes' Shabbos).

But the point I asked "what am I missing?" about was Rabbi Gamliel
questioning what people thought they saw, not the average. In R'
Gamliel's day, the length of the molad was pretty close to exact; even
today it's closer than they had any way to measure. But that's still an
average. And real values can be more than 6 hr earlier. So, how can R'
Gamliel question someone's observation for being less than a molad, when
in half of all months re'iyah will be early -- and many 5 or 6 hr early.

: So we do know exactly what we are announcing: the number on which the
: calendar is based.  Given this Shabbos's announcement, one can easily
: calculate that next Rosh Hashana will be on a Monday, exactly as it
: should be.

As I said in my previous post... Yes, that explans the length of the
molad, but not the point in the idealized cycle. How much moon must be
visible for it to be a new moon? Or more accurately, what was visible
when the molad was al pi re'iyah that we are now using a simplified
model to approximate? And we can't just calculate what it is the molad
is approximating, because we don't know what clock to use.

It looks to me like Hillel was using a point halfway between EY and
Bavel, somewhere in the center of the contiguous Jewish settlement. But
that's largely guesswork.

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 01:49:49PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: My understanding is that what is announced is Jerusalem solar time
: and this is different from Jerusalem local time.

Which is why I left out the word standard, writing "Jerusalem Time"
rather than Israel Standard Time.

But as I wrote above, it's not. See also my first post (for Avodah) on
this thread for more detail.

In 1999, R Yisrael Medad posted something about this on MJ, after
having R/Prof Ely Merbach, R/Prof Yaakov Loewinger and the Bar Ilan
astronomy dept bad the question around. See
<http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v29/mj_v29i58.html#CPG>

They assume Jerusalem Mean Time, but they make the fundamental error of
discussing mean conjunction -- no moon -- not the first sliver.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 02:24:32PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: >Yes, that explans the length of the molad, but not the point in the
: >idealized cycle. How much moon must be visible for it to be a new
: >moon? [...] they make the fundamental error of discussing mean
: >conjunction -- no moon -- not the first sliver.
: 
: I don't think they made an error at all. The molad is the conjunction;
: the earliest time at which the moon can be seen is six hours after
: the molad.

How do you know this? The Rambam (Qiddush Levana 6:1) appears to say
it's the average of the first time the moon could be seen "kedei leida im
yeira'eh hayarei'ach of lo yeira'eh.... bemahalakhtam ha'emtza'i,
who haniqra 'molad'".

And my whole point was that we didn't know how big of a sliver is
"yeira'eh", but I'm willing to entertain the possibility that we announce
when it cannot be seen, as a way of knowing by deduction when it could. I
just can't see it as a given.

Combining not knowing how much -- if any -- after the conjunction
the molad is with not knowing which lattitude's clock is being used
was the not knowing what the molad really means. You could move
the lattitude by changing the size sliver.

As for why we announce the molad... The Yerei'im gives the answer Zev
did. The MA quotes the Yerei'im and says that mevorkhim hachodesh is
lezeikher the real qiddush hachodesh by Sanhedrin. Which is why we stand.
RMF (IM OC 1:142) says this is in imitation of the qehillah who
would stand when answering "Mequdash! Mequdash!"

I find the MA's answer more compelling, because it unlikely that it
is to know when Rosh Chodesh should be, when the one RC that most
depends on the molad isn't announced -- Tishrei.

It also adds resonence for me when saying "Mi sheAsah Nissim", that
before the chazan announces ther month, we ask for a return of the
qiddush hachodesh being commemorated. And if truly "chaverim kol
Yisrael" and we acted it, we would have a Sanhedrin.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

On 05/18/2015 01:49 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> At 11:40 AM 5/18/2015, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Bottom line, no one knows what the molad we're announcing really means.

> Yet it says in the siddurim that it should be announced so people know
> when it is!

It's the number used for calculating the calendar. That's all people
need to know.

> My understanding is that what is announced is Jerusalem solar time
> and this is different from Jerusalem local time.

No, it's different from J'm *standard* time, i.e. the modern time system
invented by the railroads, which of course we take no notice of.


On 05/18/2015 02:47 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> But the point I asked "what am I missing?" about was Rabbi Gamliel
> questioning what people thought they saw, not the average.

Why are you discussing that?  The topic is the announcement in shul,
which relates entirely to our calculated system, not to RG's system.
You wrote that nobody knows what it is that's being announced, and I
dispute that.  RG is entirely irrelevant, since he was dealing with the
actual moon, not the notional moon that our system deals with.

> Yes, that explans the length of the molad, but not the point in the
> idealized cycle. How much moon must be visible for it to be a new
> moon? [...] they make the fundamental error of discussing mean
> conjunction -- no moon -- not the first sliver.

I don't think they made an error at all. The molad is the conjunction;
the earliest time at which the moon can be seen is six hours after
the molad.

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


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



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


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


**************************************

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.)