Avodah Mailing List

Volume 39: Number 70

Wed, 11 Aug 2021

• 1. Lace top sheitel thoughts (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Being M'karev ha Geulah (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Diverei Soferim (Jay F. Shachter)
• 4. Re: Should Artscroll Be Worried? (mco...@touchlogic.com)
• 5. re the beginning of a new Shemitah year. (Ari Kahn)

My lace top(vs. high top :)) sheitel thoughts to someone:
When I first heard of the issue I assumed that those who prohibited were
doing it on a meta halachic tzniut basis. I think your correspondence with
Lakewood basically confirms that. I can certainly understand that argument
in a time when the meta-issue of tzniut seems to be one that's constantly
pounded on.
I would however add some food for thought about making a technical argument
that it's not technically prohibited. Some might say we are trying to have
it both ways. When we see a result that we don't like based on a technical
argument that's not prohibited we make the meta argument (e.g. women's
prayer groups) , however when we like the result of the technical we leave
it as is (e.g. lace tops)
bottom line imho - it goes back to whom do you trust as a poseik
KVCT
Joel Rich


THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210810/367de1bf/attachment-0001.html>

At 02:34 PM 8/10/2021, Brent Kaufman wrote:

>However, I very recently read an academic article that discusses the
>disparity between the traditional Torah calenderical chronology putting
>us at the year 5781 and the standard historical chronology which has an
>additional 165 years, which the Jewish calendar does not account for.
>
>The paper (found here:
><https://www.academia.edu/44403580/The_Case_of_the_Missing_165_Years>)
>is based upon the search for these missing years on a long article, or
>paper, written by R. Shimon Schwab ztz"l, in 1962, iirc, that comes to
>the conclusion that Daniel left out the reigns of the last 10 kings of
>Persian, at the beginning of the return to rebuild the Bh"M and Gemara's
>statement about the end of the minyan hashtaros. (Possibly the period
>of the Anshei Kenesses HaGedola, give or take.) This was done to conceal
>the date of the geula, thus making it actually 5946, only 54 years before
>the end of the sixth millenia, and all that that implies.
>
>Soooooo.... in a way, his derech and teachings put us closer to the
>geulah, in an actual way.

Rav Schwab's article on this topic was republished in his book 
Selected Speeches that appeared in 1991 with the title Comparative 
Jewish Chronology?  (He added the question mark to the republished 
article.)  This later article has an epilogue In which  he raises 
questions about his original article that appeared in 1962 in the 
Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer Jubilee Volume with the title Comparative 
Jewish Chronology (no question mark).

YL

>
> MiDivrei Soferim is a subcategory of derabbanan that is effectively
> a middle-ground between regular derabbanan and deOraisa.  The Soferim
> are the generation of Ezra haSofer and the period when rabbis could
> pass a law that the nevi'im tell them Hashem approved.
>

This is misleading.  Different writers use the term differently, and
sometimes the same writer uses the term differently.  You are
describing an idiosyncratic usage that most writers do not follow, and
an idiosyncratic distinction that most writers do not make.  Most
writers who use the term, use it as a synonym for derabbanan, without
making the idiosyncratic distinction that you make.

What is more interesting, as stated above, is that sometimes the same
writer uses the term differently in different places.  Rambam is one.
This is a bold statement to make about a writer who was very careful
with his words.  But take a look at Hilkhoth Evel 2:7, and read the
Kesef Mishneh and the Lexem Mishneh on it (you have to read them
both).  You can also look at Hilkoth Ishuth 1:2, and Hilkhoth `Eduth
13:1, but I think Evel 2:7 is the clearest example.  Make sure you
read both the Kesef Mishneh and the Lexem Mishneh.

(In all fairness to Rambam, there are manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah
in which the term does not appear, in any of those three places.)

                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 North Whipple Street
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784   landline
                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

... The Qetzos? The Chida? We are going to just throw away millennia

I asked RS miller (Toronto) this question several yrs ago

all shas, tosfos, ra eiger, rishonim, rambam etc etc go to genizah!?

He answered that the Torah learning post Mashiach will be on a different
level, and the Torah bp of the past will not be applicable.

I didn't get further details; and I'm unsure how this fits with the rambam's
description of yemos hamashiach. 

mc

The presentation of the laws of Shemitah was highly misleading. Especially
this line "However, the Ramban (Sefer Hazechus ? Gittin 18a) and the Rambam
according to the Kessef Mishnah, (Hilchos Shmita Viyovel 4:25) are of the
opinion that the Halacha does not follow Rebbi, and the Torah obligations
of Shemitah remain in effect even today." 

There are three opinions among the Rishonim regarding Shemitah today:

1. Shemita is a Torah law

2. It is  Rabbinic law. (which is actually the opinion of the Ramban ? see
his commentary to Gitten 36a, and the discussion by the Ramban?s great
great..grandson Rabbi Shlomo ben Rabbi Simeon Duran (Rashbesh siman 258)

3. There is no law of Shemitah today - it is a minhag chasidus (Sefer
Haterumot Shaar 45:4) (according to the Rashbesh one can add Bahag, Rav
Yehudah Abarziloni, Rav Yehudah ben Yakar, and the Baal Haittur,)

One wouldn?t understand from this citation (from the OU) that the Rambam in
multiple places writes explicitly that Shemitah is drabanan, as does the
Kesef Mishna (and it is claimed that this particular Kesef Mishna suffers
from a printing error (RI Korkos says he saw the manuscript and it states
?Drabanan? and the printers made a mistake)

Aside from the evidence from the manuscript - The reason why this is
assumed to be an error is that Rambam is clear in multiple places that
Shemitah is drabbanan. (And the Kesef Mishna/Beit Yosef writes this in
other places)

See:

Rambam Commentary to the Mishna Sheviit 10:3

Mishna Torah Laws of Shemita and Yovel 9:2,3,16

Mishna Torah Laws of Shemita and Yovel 10:8,9

Mishna Torah Laws of Beit Habechira 6:16

Also see Law of Terumot 1:26, and the explanation of Rav Chaim (found in Mishna Torah Laws of Shemita and Yovel 12:16)

 

The Shulchan Oruch HM 67:1 rules that today Shemitah is Drabbanan ? but the
custom is that it doesn?t exist at all. Admittedly, this ruling is
regarding Shemitat Kesafim, however look at the commentaries, (Especially
the S?ma who writes there is no law of shemita regarding agricultural laws
today ? this is also cited by the Be?er Haetev)

see the discussion in the Beit Yosef. However, the Rama cites that we
follow the opinion that there is no Shemitah today, (see the Be?er Hagolah
? who cites the same authorities cited above by the Rashbesh)

And for good measure the Rama adds the opinion that there is doubt regarding which year is the sabbatical year ? which creates a ?safek drabbanan lkulah?.

  

Citing an opinion attributed to the Ramban ? which is countered by the Ramban is unfortunate.

Citing an opinion attributed to the Rambam ? which is countered by the Rambam is unfortunate.

Failing to cite the Shulchan Oruch and commentaries properly is unfortunate.

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210811/177c6424/attachment.html>

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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)