Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 227

Thu, 12 Nov 2009

• 1. Re: yishmael v. the mitzri??? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Birchos haMitzvah on Yom Tov Sheini shel Golios (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Birchos haMitzvah on Yom Tov Sheini shel Golios (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Micha Berger)
• 7. Fwd: Integrity - Wasting Time (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Birchos haMitzvah on Yom Tov Sheini shel Golios (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 11. Re: Birchos haMitzvah on Yom Tov Sheini shel Golios (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: Birchos haMitzvah on Yom Tov Sheini shel Golios (Micha Berger)
• 13. Moda ani (menucha)
• 14. Re: Birchos haMitzvah on Yom Tov Sheini shel Golios (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Moda ani (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Zev Sero)

On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 7:14pm PST, Harvey Benton wrote:
: However we know that by the episode of Moshe we do know that Moshe
: looked forward to see if the Mitzri would have any worthy descendants,
: (he saw none, and then killed the Mitzri)......

Well, let's analyze this case.

If Moshe searched the Mitzri's future and found any additional
descendents, it would be astounding. The man is about to die; Moshe
kills him, no? There were no good or evil descendents in the future for
MRAH to see. And if he were literally looking into the man's future,
Moshe would have known what he's about to decide because he would see
the man's immediate end.

Not to mention the problems of hakol tzadui vehareshus nesunah
which become even more acute when brought from Hashem's Infinite,
incomprehensible and Timeless tzipiyah to a basar vadam's knowledge.

So what exactly was MRAH looking at?

To me it seems obvious that Moshe was looking at ba'asher hu sham,
so that as a chakham, he would "ro'eh es hanolad". IOW, he looked into
the Egyptian's soul to see if any seeds existed within it capable of
producing something positive.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:42pm GMT, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: By Yishma'el:
: Elokim heard Kol hana'ar so Yishmael was granted "ba'asher hu sham"
: because he had davened!
: While the Mitzri didn't daven to be spared and so he got middas haddin
: instead

Koach haTefillah is the power to change baasher hu sham. RYBS says
this about the use of hitpa'el in "lehitpalel", and R Prof YL recently
posted the same idea from RSRH ("Jewish Tefila is Antithetical to
the Common" <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n224.shtml#12>).

The alternative is what... that Hashem gives people something other than
what is best for them and what they deserve if they beg Him enough? He
doesn't know our wants or needs without us telling Him?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Was: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:26pm GMT, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Micha
:> While trying to find an answer, BTW, I found that R' Tam holds that yom
:> tov sheini is actually minhag (in the technical sense), not a taqanah.
:> he uses this on Beitzah 4b as an example of making berakhos on minhagim.

: Correct this is a big machloqes RT and Rambam

"This" being a new topic -- berakhos on minhagim. To close up the previous
topic, do we know that the Rambam's rejection of this raayah is based
on his assuming that yom tov sheini is a derabbanan?

BTW, there is no berakhah on chibut aravah (Sukkah 44b). R' Tam doesn't
discuss this raayah to the Rambam (and Rashi).

Rav Velevel Soloveitchik (on Hil' Berakhos 11:16) therefore argues that
both shitos hold that we make berakhos on minhagim that involve a cheftza
shel mitzvah, and do not make a berakhah if we do not. Leshitaso, the
machloqes between the two WRT Chatzi Hallel is whether it's enough to
qualify for the cheftzah of Hallal, even though some is omitted to avoid
the issur, or not. (Hat tip to RHJachter.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

The way I see things, RRW and RZS take it as obvious that the first to
use any form of fixed calendar was when Hillel Nesi'ah and his Sanhedrin had
to provide for the future impossibility of Sanhedrin convening and
accepting eidim.

I was taught that too. Bar Ilan searching didn't turn up a maqor, so I
asked the chevrah if they had proof. Abayei, who gives the "minhag
avoseihem beyadeihem" statement was niftar in 335 CE, within Hillel
Nesi'ah's leadership -- 330-365. The window is possible, if Abayei was
discussing events he lived through toward the last 5 years of his life.
AND, that Hillel Nesi'ah's Sanhedrin established the calendar during the
first 5 years of its meeting, not the other 30 closer to the crisis
that closed it in 425 (90 years after Abayei's death).

I'm just repeating the uncertainty I wrote about on Sep 11th
<http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2009q3/013412.ht
ml>,
before that thread became a discussion of Adar sheini rather than when
was rosh chodesh.

However, I think I found a quote that actually addresses the question,
so that we don't have to rely on our own blank-slate reasoning.

Rabbeinu Bechaye on Shemos 12:2. A teaser, "umeiheikh hay qov'im
chadashim al pi re'iyas halevanan, ela vadai iqar hamitzvah bekasuv al
pi hacheshbon". Or, in case that was too much transliteration to follow,
"and from where [do you know] that they established the months according
to the sighting of the moon; rather certainly the iqar of the mitzvah
in the text is according to the calculation."

Clearly the calculation evolved during the period of Chazal. RRW brought
numerous examples, but I do not recall if they were on-list and just not
in the latest digest yet, or private email. So, I'll give one he didn't.
Megillah niqreis (Megillah 1:1) isn't compatable with "lo bedu Pesach",
since it allows for Purim to fall out on any day of the week.

However, R' Chananel appears to say that some calculation or another was
always the central way of determining Rosh Chodesh, and this is actually
the intent midiOraisa.

This still leaves room for sefeiqa deyoma, as people in Bavel may not
know the latest cheshbon in use, or whether it was changed. A weak
teirutz, but all I have so far.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Micha Berger wrote:
> Was: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash
> 
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:26pm GMT, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> : Micha
> :> While trying to find an answer, BTW, I found that R' Tam holds that yom
> :> tov sheini is actually minhag (in the technical sense), not a taqanah.
> :> he uses this on Beitzah 4b as an example of making berakhos on minhagim.
> 
> : Correct this is a big machloqes RT and Rambam
> 
> "This" being a new topic -- berakhos on minhagim. To close up the previous
> topic, do we know that the Rambam's rejection of this raayah is based
> on his assuming that yom tov sheini is a derabbanan?

Wait a second.  You still haven't shown where it is that RT uses
YT sheni as a proof for his position on brachot.  You said Beitza 4b,
but that was obviously a typo, since the only Tosfos on that page has
nothing to do with this.

 
> BTW, there is no berakhah on chibut aravah (Sukkah 44b). R' Tam
> doesn't discuss this raayah to the Rambam (and Rashi).

On the contrary, it is the basis of his chidush, which is to distinguish
between minhagim of speech and of action.  (And where do you see that
Rashi disagrees?)

 
> Rav Velevel Soloveitchik (on Hil' Berakhos 11:16) therefore argues
> that both shitos hold that we make berakhos on minhagim that involve
> a cheftza shel mitzvah, and do not make a berakhah if we do not.

Why are the aravos not a cheftza shel mitzvah?


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Micha Berger wrote:
> The way I see things, RRW and RZS take it as obvious that the first to
> use any form of fixed calendar was when Hillel Nesi'ah and his Sanhedrin had
> to provide for the future impossibility of Sanhedrin convening and
> accepting eidim.
> 
> I was taught that too. Bar Ilan searching didn't turn up a maqor, so I
> asked the chevrah if they had proof. Abayei, who gives the "minhag
> avoseihem beyadeihem" statement was niftar in 335 CE, within Hillel
> Nesi'ah's leadership -- 330-365. The window is possible, if Abayei was
> discussing events he lived through toward the last 5 years of his life.
> AND, that Hillel Nesi'ah's Sanhedrin established the calendar during the
> first 5 years of its meeting, not the other 30 closer to the crisis
> that closed it in 425 (90 years after Abayei's death).

See Rambam Kiddush Hachodesh 5:3.  "From when did all Israel start to
use this calculation [which was passed down from Moshe miSinai]?  From
the end of chachmei hatalmud, at the time when EY was destroyed and
there was no beis din kavua left there.  But in the days of chachmei
hamishneh, and also in the days of chachmei hatalmud until the days of
Abaye and Rava, they relied on the keviut of EY."

He doesn't name Hillel; perhaps Hillel's predecessor instituted a
formula based on the Halacha Lemoshe Misinai, and Hillel refined it?
Whatever the exact date on which this started, though, it's crystal
clear that it was after the churban, and after R Gamliel, and after
Rebbi.   And therefore that it can't have affected the olei regel.


> Rabbeinu Bechaye on Shemos 12:2.

Who is quoting Rabbenu Chananel.

> A teaser, "umeiheikh hay qov'im
> chadashim al pi re'iyas halevanan, ela vadai iqar hamitzvah bekasuv al
> pi hacheshbon". Or, in case that was too much transliteration to follow,
> "and from where [do you know] that they established the months according
> to the sighting of the moon; rather certainly the iqar of the mitzvah
> in the text is according to the calculation."

It's not "umeiheikh hay" but "umeiheikhan hayu"; he's talking about
the dor hamidbar, who could not have seen the moon through the ananei
hakavod and the amud eish, "so from where did they establish...?"
They couldn't possibly have done it through seeing the moon, so they
must have done it by calculation.

Interesting.  And he explains R Gamliel; but how does he deal with
R Yehoshua not knowing this?  Was the true mesorah a closely held
secret that not even the chachamim could know?  And how could the
Leviyim have sung the wrong song, if the BD knew all along that
that day would be rosh chodesh?  And what about Rebbi, who made
nine 29-day months in the same year?  How could he have done that,
if the cheshbon is the ikkar, and why was he astounded when Elul
also turned out to have 29 days?  It sounds from the story of Rebbi
that he hadn't been keeping track of the cheshbon at all, until Rosh
Hashana came around and he looked back and realised something was
strange.  And most of all, according to this why was there ever a
sfeka deyoma?  Why didn't they just let the Bnei Bavel know in advance
when they planned to make yomtov?

As for his proof from the dor hamidbar, they weren't prisoners inside
the clouds; witnesses could have gone out every month to see the moon,
just as they left in order to obtain arba minim, etc.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 06:06:33PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: See Rambam Kiddush Hachodesh 5:3.  "From when did all Israel start to
: use this calculation [which was passed down from Moshe miSinai]?  From
: the end of chachmei hatalmud, at the time when EY was destroyed and
: there was no beis din kavua left there.  But in the days of chachmei
: hamishneh, and also in the days of chachmei hatalmud until the days of
: Abaye and Rava, they relied on the keviut of EY."

: He doesn't name Hillel; perhaps Hillel's predecessor instituted a
: formula based on the Halacha Lemoshe Misinai, and Hillel refined it?

Or until Abayei veRava, being the cutoff named in the next line. The
qevi'us of EY was until them, at which point "hischilu kol Yisrael
lechasheiv cheibon zeh".

This is also the period in which Bar Hedyah and Ravin show that lo
adu rosh was in play, but still under debate. (As I noted then, BH
was poteir chalomos for Abayei and Rava, Ravin was a son of R' Adda,
making him Rabbah and Kaylil's brother, and thus Abayei [ben Kaylil,
raised by Rabbah]'s uncle.)

A more relevant quote of the Rambam probably 5:2, "This matter is halakhah
leMoshe miSinai: when there is a Sanhderin, qov'in al pi re'iyyah, and
when there is no Sanhedrin there, qov'in al cheshbon zeh". He then denies
the possibility that every re'iyah was actually on the calculated day.

Moreinu haRav Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk (as my grandfather a"h
consistently called him with such awe and reverence) writes on 5:3.
The OS ties the Rambam to RH 21a (Rava fasts for 2 days, and one time
they made a full Elul -- proving his precaution), Sanhedrin 12a
(Rava is told that the nasi wanted to add an Adar), and Taanis 29b
(Abayei had a Friday 9 beAv).

So I would think we now have two shitos:

R' Chananeil / R' Bachayei: we used an algorithm from day 1, this being
    the essence of the mitzvah
Rambam: Until Abayei veRava, which could be as late as Hillel Nesi'ah,
    if they set the calendar up toward the beginning of his nesi'us.
    However, the Rambam might have held that Rav Ashi veRavina closed
    the Sanhedrin, not R' Gamliel IV.

Also, it appears that R Bachayei can't presume we were given a particular
algorithm. Because if we already used it since miSinai, how do we have
mishnayos and gemaros that don't assume lo ad"u rosh? However, the Rambam
says "cheshbon zeh" is miSinai, which he can because those shitos could
have been for al pi re'iyah periods.

Which also mitigates the Ohr Samei'ach's proof, since it shows that the
current cheshbon wasn't used in the days of Abayei veRava, not that NO
cheshbon was.

Also, according to the Rambam, there was no taqanah at the end of the
Sanhedrin, so the Sanhedrin that returns to al pi re'iyah only needs to
be capable of receiving eidim, and no issue of whether it must be gadol
mimenu bechokhmah uveminyan to end the previous taqanah. In fact, this
is preferable to falling back to calculation.

Whereas R' Bachaye would require al pi re'iyah as a pro-forma on the
computed date for Rosh Chodesh, and a beis din gadol mimenu bechokhmah
uveminyan to produce a more precise calculation and fix the drift
of Pesach.

I am glad I didn't let the topic close with your and RRW's assumption that
"common knowledge" was necessarily correct. This is far more interesting.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

Integrity
Rabbi Daniel Travis
gene...@torah.org

Wasting Time

"Please go ahead of me, my lord. I will lead my group
slowly..." (Bereshith 33:14)

Yaakov said this as a sign of respect to show that he was concerned
that he should not waste Esav's time because of his family's slow
pace. (Seforno on Bereshith 33:14) One must be extremely careful not to
waste other people's time, a precious and irreplaceable commodity. There
are occasions when it is theft to waste someone else's time, such as
an employee whose time belongs to his boss. In other settings it is
not considered stealing to infringe on someone else's time, however
it is included under the Torah injunction, "You shall not cheat your
friend." (Vayikra 25:17)

A prevalent example of this is "butting" ahead of someone else in
line. The halachah recognizes the right of someone to maintain his
position in line, and by going in front of him or asking someone
else on line to take care of something for you, you are infringing on
that right. If however, the person has some extenuating circumstance,
e.g. he is an ill or elderly person, or he will incur a large loss of
money because of the wait, it is proper to let him go to the front of
the line, although one is not obligated to do so. (Meiri on Sanhedrin 32b)

Similarly, it is permitted to ask someone else to take care of an errand
before that person gets in line. Since there is no set rule about how
long each person is allotted, he is not considered to have infringed on
anyone's rights. However even this has its limits, and one should not
take up an unreasonable amount of time. It is unfair for other people
in the line to have to wait while one person takes care of the needs of
numerous people. (Mishpatei HaTorah 1:84)

Countless opportunities arise each day in which people can show that
they value their friend's time. If a person makes an appointment with
someone else, it is a true sign of concern for them to show up at the
scheduled time. The Chazon Ish once disbanded a minyan when he heard
that it would cause one of the members of the minyan to be late for an
appointment. (Brought in MiDevar Sheker Tirchak 143.) Another common
situation is returning an item to its proper place, especially when it
concerns books of Torah in a Beith Medrash. (Kriana D'Igrassa 2:59) The
principle to remember in every situation is that if it would bother you
to have to spend your time in such a way, you should not expect others
to have to do so. (Pithchei Choshen 9:13:30)

I wrote:

> Wait a second.  You still haven't shown where it is that RT uses
> YT sheni as a proof for his position on brachot.  You said Beitza 4b,
> but that was obviously a typo, since the only Tosfos on that page has
> nothing to do with this.

OK, I found it.  Brachos 14a.

I still haven't found where Rashi says not to make a bracha, but the
Beis Yosef says that's his opinion so it must be somewhere.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> RZS:
>> You have it backwards.  RT doesn't start with a premise that one can
>> say a bracha on a minhag, and "leverage" that to allow the bracha on
>> Hallel.  He *starts* with the gemara about Hallel, which strongly
>> implies that they did say a bracha on it, and *concludes* that one
>> says a bracha on something that is said because of a minhag, but not
>> on an action that is done because of minhag.
> 
> Actually Rashi specifically argues
> "NO brachah on minhag!"
> 
> His source?
> Shas says minhag nevi'im does NOT trigger a bracha! It's quoted iirc
> in Sefer Haprdes etc. RT is mechaddesh otherwise. Not mechaddesh the
> brachah per se, but the general principle.

RT is not mechadesh against an explicit gemara; no need for the Sefer
Hapardes, RT quotes it himself. His whole point is that there are two
gemaras that have to be reconciled, and he does so by distinguishing
between action and speech.  A minhag to say something gets a bracha,
a minhag to do something doesn't.



> FWIW RT and Tosafos proof is weak re: Hallel on Rosh Hodesh because
> the brachah on Hallel probably came later than Rav in the
> aforementioned story. Tosafos pre-supposes the brachah existed
> during Rav's time.  This is speculative.

Do you mean to suggest that in Rav's time they *never* said a bracha
on Hallel, even when it's definitely an obligation?  How could they
*not* say a bracha on it then?


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Micha:
> Rabban Gamliel insisted on a particular date for Yom Kippur

RZS:
> No, he didn't.  Where do you get the idea that he had any preference
> for one date over another?  He was mekadesh the month according to
> the eidim that came before him, because he believed they were telling
> the truth.

Bartenura RH 2:8

> Ela sheyada Rabban Gamliel becheshbono sheb'oso halaylah she'amru
> ho'eidim shrau'ha... Lefichach qibbeil Eidussan"

Mashma he would have NOT been meqabbel sans the Cheshbon
I assume Bartenura culled this from Shas


RZS:
> Do you mean to suggest that in Rav's time they *never* said a bracha
> on Hallel, even when it's definitely an obligation? How could they
> *not* say a bracha on it then?

Too long for a post.
Many brachos on Mitzvos were late

In fact the bracha ligmor es hahallel pre-supposes the pre-existence of
an incomplete Hallel! [Except as per shibolei haleqet's ambiguity here]

So the only logical sequence must be
[At least as per sephardic tradition and their nusach of the brachah
found in shas]

Full Hallel
Hallel bedillug
Followed by
Brachah ONLY on Full Hallel viz. LIGMOR

If hallel as full with a brachah on day one the nusach "ligmor" is kinda
meaningless. What other Hallel was there before Rav coming to Bavel?

Unless you say there WAS an older nusach that morphed

Point? The existence of a brachah on Hallel in Rav's story is
speculation. Tosafos and RT are presuming it. Take out that presumption
and hltheir rayos fall flat


And If RT's raya was slam dunk brachah for Hallel on Rosh Chodesh,
why does Minhag Chabad hedge and have Shatz say brachah for others?
[Which matches AhS's position]

Even Rema hedges when a person is alone to get at least one more person.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RZS:
> I still haven't found where Rashi says not to make a bracha, but the
> Beis Yosef says that's his opinion so it must be somewhere.

IIRC Siddur Rashi or Sefer haPardeis

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 01:43:59AM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: RZS:
:> I still haven't found where Rashi says not to make a bracha, but the
:> Beis Yosef says that's his opinion so it must be somewhere.

: IIRC Siddur Rashi or Sefer haPardeis

R' Jachter cites Machzor Vitri.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

I am wondering about the various women's nuschaot of moda vs. modeh 
ani.  I was quite surprised to see that in the Artscroll women's siddur 
it said Modeh. 
thanks
menucha

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 01:43:59AM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> : RZS:
> :> I still haven't found where Rashi says not to make a bracha, but the
> :> Beis Yosef says that's his opinion so it must be somewhere.
> 
> : IIRC Siddur Rashi or Sefer haPardeis
> 
> R' Jachter cites Machzor Vitri.

As does Tosfos (Brachos 14a), but Machzor Vitri was not written by Rashi,
and surely if he attributed this to Rashi then Tosfos would have said so.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 06:45:29AM +0200, menucha wrote:
: I am wondering about the various women's nuschaot of moda vs. modeh 
: ani.  I was quite surprised to see that in the Artscroll women's siddur 
: it said Modeh. 

I'm not, since they're lower-case-c conservative.

Modeh Ani post-dates the rishonim. They said E-lokai Netzor when waking
up (usually after Asher Yatzar), and many explain it not beginning
with "Barukh" by holding that it's semuchah lechaverta with Hamapil.
When we moved E-lokai Netzor to later in the day, we came up with some
other way of thanking G-d upon waking up. IOW, Modeh Ani replaces saying
the second half of that berakhah first thing upon waking.

It is hard to call a tefillah written 400 years ago or so a matbei'ah
so fixed that women should violate grammar to preserve it. (Regardless
of whether she later says "shelo asani shifchah", as "shelo asani eved"
dates back to the tannaim.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:

> Also, it appears that R Bachayei can't presume we were given a particular
> algorithm. Because if we already used it since miSinai, how do we have
> mishnayos and gemaros that don't assume lo ad"u rosh? However, the Rambam
> says "cheshbon zeh" is miSinai, which he can because those shitos could
> have been for al pi re'iyah periods.

I don't think "cheshbon zeh" can mean the exact system with all its
rules, including "lo adu rosh".  The reason RH can't be on a Sunday
is to strengthen the minhag nevi'im of chibut aravah; therefore the
rule can't predate the minhag.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Micha:
>> Rabban Gamliel insisted on a particular date for Yom Kippur
> 
> RZS:
>> No, he didn't.  Where do you get the idea that he had any preference
>> for one date over another?  He was mekadesh the month according to
>> the eidim that came before him, because he believed they were telling
>> the truth.

> Bartenura RH 2:8

In that case, please read it again.  He doesn't say anything like
that.  In fact he says exactly what I did, which isn't surprising
since that's where I looked before I wrote the post to which you
are responding.


>> Ela sheyada Rabban Gamliel becheshbono sheb'oso halaylah she'amru
>> ho'eidim shrau'ha... Lefichach qibbeil Eidussan"
> 
> Mashma he would have NOT been meqabbel sans the Cheshbon
> I assume Bartenura culled this from Shas

Yes.  Had his cheshbon shown that the eidim must be lying, he
wouldn't have accepted them; since he believed it was possible that
they were telling the truth, and he had no reason to suspect them
of lying, he accepted them.  This shows that he did *not* have a
preference for a particular outcome, but rather he was following
the evidence wherever it took him, and indeed felt obliged to do so.


> RZS:
>> Do you mean to suggest that in Rav's time they *never* said a bracha
>> on Hallel, even when it's definitely an obligation? How could they
>> *not* say a bracha on it then?
> 
> Too long for a post.  Many brachos on Mitzvos were late

Such as?  And what is the evidence for that?  Surely the brochos were
instituted by Anshei Knesses Hagedoloh, weren't they?


> In fact the bracha ligmor es hahallel pre-supposes the pre-existence of
> an incomplete Hallel! [Except as per shibolei haleqet's ambiguity here]
> [...]
> If hallel as full with a brachah on day one the nusach "ligmor" is kinda
> meaningless. What other Hallel was there before Rav coming to Bavel?
> 
> Unless you say there WAS an older nusach that morphed

"Ligmor" as opposed to "likro" is a minhag; everyone agrees that one
is yotzei with "likro", which is why we Ashkenazim say it all the time.
Therefore what makes most sense to me is that the original bracha was
"likro", but later a minhag developed to say "ligmor" when full hallel
is said in order to distinguish it from the occasions when only half
hallel is said.


> And If RT's raya was slam dunk brachah for Hallel on Rosh Chodesh,
> why does Minhag Chabad hedge and have Shatz say brachah for others?
> [Which matches AhS's position]
> Even Rema hedges when a person is alone to get at least one more person.

Because the story in Taanis is with a tzibbur; there's no indication
whether a yachid should also say a bracha, and indeed the RIF says that
he shouldn't.  (I haven't seen this RIF inside, but I saw it quoted
somewhere.)


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 227
***************************************

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..."