Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 159

Mon, 01 Dec 2014

• 1. jacobs ladder (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: Non-circumcised Jew at Seder Pesach (Toby Katz)
• 3. Re: Tal UMatar on Dec 4 or 5 (Kenneth Miller)
• 4. Re: Non-circumcised Jew at Seder Pesach (Zev Sero)
• 5. Fwd: Playing Kvitlach on Chanukah (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Re: Fwd: Playing Kvitlach on Chanukah (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Tal UMatar on Dec 4 or 5 (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Two consecutive shva nachs (Avi Goldstein)
• 9. Re: Limited Mabul? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Limited Mabul? (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: listening to the experts on har habayit (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Limited Mabul? ()

> I meant to say Malkhus Yavan is being lumped together with the galiyos,
> even though it was entirely during Bayis Sheini. We debated it a few months
> back, when I insisted that galus and golah are different things, that
> people living in Israel today didn't actually leave galus, even though
> you left the golah. I insisted that galus is a description of a point of
> historical development, and little to do with where you live.

saretcI checked again in the Medrash Tanchuma and it uses the language
"Yavan"
So the language of Galut is not used in this source.

Furthermore I identify galus with a foreign government. So galus yavan is
when Israel is under "Greek" (Syrian or Egyptian) rule while the period of
the Chashmanaim is not galus even though EY had the same population. When
the Romans took over (either Herod or the destruction of the Temple)
a new galus began.

Again if this started with Herod then there was no great change in the
population but the government was no longer Jewish.


-- 
Eli Turkel

From: "Chaim.Tatel via Avodah"  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
> My  friend's grandson did not have a bris. (The boy's mother wants him to 
> decide  when he gets older.)
..
> He asked me in shul last week to research whether or not he could  invite 
> the grandson to his Pesach seder.

My idea is that if the Chief Rabbi can invite goyim to his seder,
it's mutar for the grandfather to have his uncircumcised grandson at
his table. However, when the roasted sheep from the korban Pesach is
served, the boy should not get any. Give him some chicken.


--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> I am not sure if Shemu'el was basing himself on the Julian
> calendar and consequent ease of use to pick a date on it, or
> independently chose what happened to be the same estimate. The
> Julian Calendar went live in 45 BCE, Shemu'el was born around 165
> CE, although within the Sassanid empire, not the Roman one --
> different calendar. And, approximating the solar year as 365-1/4
> days is so straightforward. Last, if he was really going for ease
> of use, why not have it always on Nov 21?

I'm not nearly as conversant as RMB on the history of all this, so I thank
him for this opportunity to clarify my post: It is abundantly clear that
both Shmuel and the Julian calendar follow a year of 365.25 days, and they
both implement it by a cycle of three 365-day years and one 366-day year.
What has always caused me headaches has been my attempts to find some sort
of correspondence between Shmuel's 366 day year and Julian's.

For example, I never liked the instruction to begin Tal uMatar on the later
day "in the year before a leap year", because it sounds (to ME) a bit
ambiguous; using the word "year" twice makes it sound (to ME) like
something that happens about a year before Feb 29, not merely a
quarter-year before. To myself, I've told myself to ignore the idea that
Tal uMatar begins N days after the beginning of autumn; instead, I say we
begin it X days before the beginning of spring. As a result, the presence
or absence of Feb 29 will always show me the correct choice of Dec 4 or 5.
At the same time, though, I do realize that for most people, the common
"year before" instruction is simpler.

So I'm making a bit of progress comparing Shmuel's leap year to the
Julian's, by looking a the spring instead of the autumn. But I was stymied
by the fact that although Shmuel's calendar has seasons, it does not have a
specific beginning for the calendar year. Sure, he can argue about whether
Creation was in Nisan or Tishrei, but unless he assigns numbers to the
years, how can he describe *which* of his four years is the one with the
extra day? Indeed, can he point to any particular day as being the extra
one? Julian can, but as far as I can tell, Shmuel cannot.

> Tequfas Tishrei is always on (alternatively: happens to always
> coincide with) Julian Sep 24, coinciding with Gregorian Oct 7 in
> the years 1800-2099. But the quarter-day means that the tequfah
> cycles between 3am (2012), 9am (2013), 3pm (2014), and 9pm (in
> 2015). 9pm is after sheq'iah, so in 2015, the tequfah is one
> Jewish day later -- our implied leap day. And it occurs when
> computing the start of the tequfah, before the Tal uMatar date,
> unlike Feb 29th which is after. So that one year, even the
> Julian date is one off.

Aha! Thank you for these calculations. I see now that Shmuel does not have
any specific leap day, only an "implied" leap day (as you wrote) which is a
result of tying Tal Umatar to Tekufas Tishrei, and it is a mere
"coincidence" that the odd year is during a Jewish year divisible by 4. If
Chazal had chosen to begin Tal uMatar 31 days before Tekufas Teves, it
might have worked out a bit differently.

Specifically: The upcoming Tekufas Teves is at 10:30 pm on Jan 6 2015
(according to the Ezras Torah luach). Then it would cycle to 4:30 am, 10:30
am, and 4:30 pm. Hmmm... The same autumn/winter has Tekufas Tishrei after
shkiah (as RMB showed) and Tekufas Teves after shkiah (as I just showed).
If so, then it seems to me that there would be no practical difference
between (a) beginning Tal uMatar 60 days after Tekufas Tishrei, and (b)
beginning it 31 days before Tekufas Teves. I wonder why they chose the
larger number over the smaller number. (I suppose it could be because it is
easier to count after a date than before a date. Like Shavuos after Pesach,
as opposed to Purim prior to Pesach.)

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
What's your flood risk?
Find flood maps, interactive tools, FAQs, and agents in your area.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/547b5c27207255c272d45st04vuc

On 11/29/2014 10:37 PM, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote:

> My idea is that if the Chief Rabbi can invite goyim to his seder,
> it's mutar for the grandfather to have his uncircumcised grandson at
> his table. However, when the roasted sheep from the korban Pesach is
> served, the boy should not get any. Give him some chicken.

What the Chief Rabbi does is not a valid proof, because he has obligations
that fall under shtadlonus, for which there are very broad heterim.  A
shtadlan may do many things that an ordinary person may not.  But in this
case I don't think we need to rely on the Chief Rabbi for anything; it
seems obvious to me that there is no problem at all with having a Jewish
orel at the seder, even if there is a korban pesach, let alone if there is not.

Halacha For Today:

Sunday
8 Kislev, 5775
November 30, 2014

CURRENT TOPIC:
REVIEW OF HALACHOS OF CHANUKAH

1) Many otherwise righteous Jews have a "custom" to play "Kvitlach",
a gambling card game on Chanukah (a poker type game).

It isn't clear exactly where this minhag came from or how it developed,
but it isn't a Minhag Tov, rather a sinful expression of "empty partying"
that has replaced the "Shiros V'Tishbachos, praising of Hashem that used
to (and still should) characterize Chanukah celebrations, and one who
values his/her soul should avoid these card games at all costs. (Biur
Halacha Siman 670)

2) Those who play "Kvitlach"on Chanukah will be punished severely in
the next world, as many other Aveiros, sins, are inevitably involved
whenever these card games take place (gambling, stealing, Nivul Peh,
Bitul Torah, Prikus Ol, Lashon Hara, [as well as lack of Tzniyus,
Histaklus B'Arayos etc. when there are men and women involved in the
same game, Chas V'Shalom] just to name a few).

One who has the capacity to stop these games from taking place and
discontinue this sinful practice will be greatly rewarded in the next
world (Aruch HaShulchan Siman 670:9. See also Yesod V'Shoresh Ha'Avodah
Sha'ar 12: end of Perek 1)

If you have been invited to participate in such a game, it would be best
to cancel and let them know that you won't be attending.

Although this may be a difficult decision and one that may cause you
embarrassment and "hard feelings", it is the right decision and one that
a G-d fearing Jew must make.

The Mishna in Pirkei Avos teaches us that "L'Fum Tzaarah Agrah- the more
painful a [right] decision is to make, the greater the heavenly rewards"

--


Halacha for Today.

YL

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 01:04:12PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
: Halacha For Today:
...
: 1) Many otherwise righteous Jews have a "custom" to play "Kvitlach",
: a gambling card game on Chanukah (a poker type game).

Actually, kvitlach is closer to Black Jack, but do to a seeming minor
variation in rules, requires more forethought and strategy.

: It isn't clear exactly where this minhag came from or how it developed,
: but it isn't a Minhag Tov, rather a sinful expression of "empty partying"
...

You mean like that older Chanukah game, dreidl, which is simply the
non-Jewish teetotum with our own letters on the sides?

From wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teetotum>:
    In its earliest form the body was square (in some cases via a stick
    through a regular six-sided die [1]), marked on the four sides by
    the letters A (Lat. aufer, take) indicating that the player takes
    one from the pool, D (Lat. depone, put down) when a fine has to be
    paid, N (Lat. nihil, nothing), and T (Lat. totum, all), when the
    whole pool is to be taken.

For that matter, Teetotum playing was associated in England with
Xmas in particular.

And the same heterim -- playing a penny ante game where each bet is less
than a shaveh perutah, or designating the pot as owned by the players
beshituf (Taamei haMinhagim #859) would apply no less to kvitlach.

Overdoing gamling is unhealthy, gambling for a profession can pasl one
from being an eid. But it's REALLY hard to argue, as this anonymous
blogger does, that there is no source for a minhag of gambling on
Chanukah.

The AhS 670:9 writes "hamesacheiq bekelafim, onshan rav". Says the spread
is a "nega tzara'as" that spread "ba'avonoseinu harabbim", not to mention
"kamah minei aveiros teluyos bazeh"!

But given the AhS's own predeliction for justifying minhag, I choose to
presume he is against the spread of kvitlach to Litta and other places
where it is not the minhag because the people who were importing the
minhag were simply interested in gambling and the other sins common
among moshavei leitzim. And not against the minhag in places where it
is indeed followed as minhag.

(A similar distinction I would make WRT drinking on Simchas Torah.
Yes, Jews did drink to celebrate, and that would include ST -- but not
specifically so. Still, since we find people making ST all about their
license to get drunk, I would also diatribe against it.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 11/30/2014 01:03 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
> For example, I never liked the instruction to begin Tal uMatar on the later day
> "in the year before a leap year", because it sounds (to ME) a bit ambiguous;
> using the word "year" twice makes it sound (to ME) like something that happens
> about a year before Feb 29, not merely a quarter-year before.

How about "if there's a leap year coming up", or "if February is going to have
an extra day".

Many comments have posted regarding the twin shvas. Permit me to add my
thoughts.

The rule of the double shva is that in the middle of a word, the first shva
is nach (closing the syllable) and the second shva is na.

When two shvas occur at the beginning of a word, the first shva converts to
a tenuah ketanah. For example, in Shma, the word ?kanfei? should actually
have a shva under the kaf along with the shva that appears under the nun.
Because we cannot have consecutive shvas at the beginning of a word, the
shva under the kaf converts to a patach (a tenuah ketanah). Ditto a word
like ?bigdei,? which should have a shva under the beis; that shva becomes a
chirik kattan.

Someone mentioned that there is a rule that there cannot be a shva nach at
the start of a word, the exception being the word ?shtei.? I beg to differ.
There is no ?rule? that a shva at the start of a word is na; rather it is a
reality. The fact is that one cannot pronounce a shva nach without there
being a sound that precedes it. As for ?shtei,? if one does not add a sound
before the shin, that shva is also na. There is, however, an opinion that
the word is actually pronounced ?ashtei? or ?eshtei,? adding an unseen
aleph sound with a tenuah ketanah. In that case, the shva under the shin
would be nach. If one does not add the aleph sound, the shva of ?shtei? is
na, not nach. ( cannot recall where I saw the "ashtei" form; I would
appreciate it if someone would supply the source.)

A significant issue occurs when the last two letters of a word each have a
shva. In that instance, the commonly accepted view is that both shvas are
nach. This creates a difficult pronunciational situation. Certain words are
relatively easy to pronounce (e.g., ?amart,? ?gazalt?), although there
remains the open issue of whether one can truly pronounce a shva nach after
another nach has already closed the syllable. Other words, however, pose a
seemingly insurmountable problem, e.g., ?bagadt,? where a dalet with a shva
is followed by a tav with a shva. It seems impossible to pronounce the
dalet with a nach! Indeed, I know a ba?al keriah who, in such situations,
pronounces the dalet like a Sephardi would, sounding the dalet like an
Ashkenazic zayin. I do not have a good answer regarding how to resolve this
issue.

However, there is an opinion that holds that in certain cases, the second
shva, the one under the word?s last letter, is na, not nach. This opinion,
brought by the Radak, is found on page 52 of the Michlol, in the name of R'
Yehuda HaMedakdek. He writes that, for example, the second shva in
"va'yishb" and "va'yeisht" is a shva na. I don't fully understand what he
is saying, but this seems to be his view. If he is correct (and certainly
the minhag is not like R' Yehuda), the pronunciation of the double shva at
the end of a word is no different than the pronunciation in the middle of a
word.

Avi Goldstein
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141130/dc1f88fb/attachment-0001.htm>

Reopening this perenniel because RYGB offers a new data point (or at
least, one I don't recall)
<http://rygb.blogspot.com/2014/11/dvar-hashem-meyerushalmi-limited-
mabul.html>:
-- Sheqalim 6:2 (vilna 26a), and...

    ... The parallel Midrash Rabba, end of Parasha 23:
        'He calleth for the waters of the sea is written twice,
        corresponding to the two times that the sea came up and inundated
        the world. How far did it come up on the first occasion and
        how far on the second? R. Judan, R. Abbahu, and R. Eleazar
        in R. Chanina's name said: On the first it came up as far as
        Acco and Jaffa, while on the second it came up as far as the
        coasts of Barbary. R. Huna and R. Aha in R. Chanina's name said:
        On the first, as far as the coasts of Barbary; on the second,
        as far as Acco and Jaffa, as it is written, And said: Thus far
        ('ad poh) shalt thou come, but no further, etc. (Job xxxviii, n):
        'Thus far ('ad poh) shalt thou come' means as far as Acco: And
        here shall thy proud waves be stayed (u-foh yashith) intimates
        as far as Jaffa (Yaffa). R. Eleazar said: At the first, as far
        as Calabria; at the second, as far as the coasts of Barbary.

    The commentary on the Midrash ascribed to Rashi states that these
    parallel passages have nothing to do with the Mabul. But the Rashash in
    his commentary to the Midrash asserts that the reference to the second
    flood in Dor Haflagah is to the Mabul. In evidence, he cites a prior
    Midrash Rabba, in Parasha 5:

        R. Eleazar said: From the very beginning of the world's creation the
        Holy One, blessed be He, issued a decree, saying, 'Let the waters
        under the heaven be gathered together unto one place J Wherefore
        then [is it written], That calleth for the waters of the sea, and
        poureth them out upon the face of the earthy twice? Once was in
        the generation of Enosh, and a second time in the generation of the
        Separation [of races]. And God hath so made it (Eccl. in, 14): all
        that He has done is in order That men should fear before Him (ib.).

    See also the Radal to the first Midrash for geographical analysis.

So, the Calabria and Barbary coast references are intriguing. And I'm ot
clear where that last quotes makes room for the Mabul, if we aren't
holding like the Rashash.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 12/1/2014 9:20 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> So, the Calabria and Barbary coast references are intriguing. And I'm ot
> clear where that last quotes makes room for the Mabul, if we aren't
> holding like the Rashash.

I don't see the Rashash's point.  Two floods where the ocean rose up, 
and one Mabul between them, where that's not how the flood happened at all.

On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 1:08pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote on Areivim:
: One can be machalel shabbat to treat a nonJew because of eivah, ie not
: treating the nonJew may cause injury to another Jew someone in the world
: because he hears Jews dont treat nonJews on shabbat.

It's not clear that's all mishum eivah means. As discussed on Avodah.
There is also the more idealistic idea that eivah is simply something
we shouldn't want to be making more of in this world.

: It would seem evident that one cannot go to Har haBayit (which is certainly
: not a mitzva today and is forbidden by many poskim) if that would cause
: injury to Jews around the world.

There are other reasons for that too.

See RAZZ at
http://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_har_habayit

RYBS was so concerned about qedushas Har haBayis possibly including the
kotel ad ve'ad bichlal, he advised on more than one occasion that anyone
who felt a need to insert a kvitl into the wall should do so using a pen
cap. (Not that he shared such a desire, of course.) That putting one's
finger into the crack while tamei could be an issur qareis!

While Herod's plaza is bigger than the original, wasn't it too qidsha
le'asid lavo?

And aside from tum'ah, the Rambam holds that entering the Har haBayis for
anything short of a devar mitzvah is a violation of mora miqdash. (Hil'
BhB 7:2)

AIUI, the Rabbanut argues that entering the BhB even betahara (eg a
tevul yom, thus insuring one is not a ba'al qeri) even the outer 14'
(to be machmir on the size of the cheil), even to go, daven and leave,
it would be a problem of both lifnei iveir and mora hamiqdash because
one is setting an example for those who won't take such precautions.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar

On 2014-12-01 11:31, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
> I don't see the Rashash's point.  Two floods where the ocean rose up,
> and one Mabul between them, where that's not how the flood happened 
> at
> all.

The Rashash is saying that since Parasha 5 only speaks of two floods in 
history, the second flood of dor haflaga must be the mabul, and dor 
haflaga is lav davka.

KT,
YGB



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



_______________________________________________
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.)