Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 043

Tuesday, May 16 2000

• Re: Avodah V5 #42-ayin tachas ayin
• Re: Calendar Controversy Article
• Re: Calendar Controversy Article
• Sources on each word divine
• Re: Sources on each word divine
• Hacarat hatov
• Re: What constitutes a zibbur

In a message dated 00-05-14 11:33:29 EDT, you write:

<<   As the Torah is 
 read the listener hears the words "eye for an eye" and concludes that if I 
 remove the eye of another, the crime is so heinous it is deserving of my eye 
 being removed.  In the words of Ha-ketav Ve-ha-Kabalah "the Torah mentions 
here 
 only what punishment the perpetrator of bodily injuries deserves." >>
Rav Ahron Soloveicek said that this is the meaning of what the Rambam says in 
the Moreh Nevochim, when he explains that ayin tachas ayin is midah keneged 
midah,and that even though Chazal say it means 'mamom velo mamash,' he-the 
Rambam-is coming to explain the words of the written Torah ,not the divrei 
Chazal. What the Rambam meant, R.Ahron explained, is that the person deserves 
to be punished ayin tachas ayin in a literal sense because of midah kenged 
midah, but the Torah deflected from strict justice and only exacted monetary 
payment.. R.Ahron further said that the Rov told this pshat of his in the 
Rambam to R.Chaim Heller,who liked it very much and said that it is the 
correct pshat.  

What is the precise requirement of chodesh ha-aviv?

The rambam in hilkhos kidush hachodesh states plainly that one of the
reasons to be me'aber the shana is if the tekufa fell out after 16 nissan.
see http://www.snunit.k12.il/kodesh/mtr/kidu004.html

If so, pesach needs to be after the equinox, so where does the chodesh come
into play?  It does not suffice that the tekufa occurs in nissan, it must
occur in the first half of nissan.  And if the tekufa fell out on the 16th,
we would add another month, so the tekufa actually fell in Adar? 

Could it be that pesach (or the 16th of nissan) must fall out within the
first 30 days after the vernal equinox?

I was never clear on this.

Even with this, there were other reasons that B"D could be me'aber the shana
that have nothing to do the seasons or the tekufa, what about chodesh
ha'aviv then?

Moshe

==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mark Rayman
Lehman Brothers  - GIS Market Data
mrayman@lehman.com
212 526 1336
==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:04:32AM -0400, Rayman, Mark wrote:
: The rambam in hilkhos kidush hachodesh states plainly that one of the
: reasons to be me'aber the shana is if the tekufa fell out after 16 nissan.
...
: If so, pesach needs to be after the equinox, so where does the chodesh come
: into play?  It does not suffice that the tekufa occurs in nissan, it must
: occur in the first half of nissan.  And if the tekufa fell out on the 16th,
: we would add another month, so the tekufa actually fell in Adar? 

I assumed that in a "working calendar", the equinox is on or before the 16th.
IOW, that the bit about tekufos (ibid 4:2) had to do with computing
the real calendar, not with defining the ideal.

This would mean that failure is if Pesach started before the 21st or 22nd of
March (depending upon the Gregorian leap year cycle) on the Gregorian calendar.

Similarly, if we are to define "chodesh ha'aviv" as the first such month, an
instance of having a single Adar and Shushan Purim was on or after the 21st of
March would also be a failure.

: Even with this, there were other reasons that B"D could be me'aber the shana
: that have nothing to do the seasons or the tekufa, what about chodesh
: ha'aviv then?

Actually, of the other two reasons, one has to do with the seasons. In 4:3 the
Rambam speaks of Pesach not only being in the astronomical spring, but also
in a time that things are growing as in spring. (But not the weather, it can
be cold and snow in "aviv", see 4:6.) While this can be an issue for B"D, I
don't see how it can be predicted centuries in advance for a computed calendar.

The third issue, mentioned in 4:5, is accomodating aliyas haregel -- are the
paths and bridges passable. Also not precomputable, nor an issue bizman hazeh.
(Except possibly Pesach l'fi those who believe we have techeiles...)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 15-May-00: Levi, Behar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 6b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

I had intended to send a missive on this thread last week, but it was lost
in the ether.  Most of my points have already been made; here's the last
one:

The theory of divine dictation of the Torah has been attributed to Rambam
in the initial post in this thread.  If you read the Rambam's Eighth
Principle in the original in perek Chelek, you will see that the Rambam,
surprisingly, does *not* hold by divine dictation.  Rather, he holds that
God transmitted to Moshe a series of precise images, descriptions of
which were written down by Moshe.  Moshe's prophecy was greater than that 
of all other prophets in that a) these images were received while awake,
and b) they held precise ideational content; they were not metaphorical.
What is metaphorical is anthropomorphism: God said, God spoke, etc.

         Jonathan Baker     |  Daffynition: Omernasolaryngologist:
         jjbaker@panix.com  |  Iyar, nose & throat doctor.
    Web page update: Teachings of the Rav http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/

On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 12:41:18PM -0400, jjbaker@panix.com wrote:
:                                      If you read the Rambam's Eighth
: Principle in the original in perek Chelek, you will see that the Rambam,
: surprisingly, does *not* hold by divine dictation.  Rather, he holds that
: God transmitted to Moshe a series of precise images, descriptions of
: which were written down by Moshe.

That would answer a question I asked a while ago, about the Maharal's first
introduction to Gevuros Hashem. In it he talks about nevu'ah being limited
to that which we can experience, or at least experience a metaphor for.
His argument was that nevu'ah is a "chazon", a vision or image. Therefore,
"chochmah univu'ah, chochmah adif" since the latter includes extrapolation.
The Maharal applies this concept to ma'aseh bireishis, explaining that
since the act of creation is totally uncomparable to anything in human
experience, nevu'ah can not grasp ma'aseh bereishis. (Neither can chochmah,
BTW.)

I had asked how this concept of chazon applied to Moshe Rabbeinu's nevu'ah.
Thank you for providing an explanation.

How then does one explain derashos? Doesn't that require divine word choice?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 15-May-00: Levi, Behar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 6b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

We've seen lots of calls for "hacarat hatov" in the charedi-chiloni
culture war, especially in its Arevim manifestation.  I've got a 
general question:

What *is* hacarat hatov? 
Having a Hebrew term for it suggests a religious origin.

What are its sources and parameters? 

Who says we should recognize the good that others do, particularly
  those other with whom we disagree on other things? 

Which goods should be recognized? 
By whom, to whom? 

When must/should/may/ should-not/must-not such a good be recognized? 

Who discusses this?  Where?

True. times have changed.

The tzibbur is defined today as the collection of followers of sets of
minhagim. There is no other definition that can fit today.

This is a return to the definition of tzibbur that was used to define such
things as whether nispashta takkana, etc.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Shinnar, Meir <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 3:39 PM
Subject: FW: What constitutes a zibbur


> RYGB has suggested that zibbur is a purely religious rather than political
> grouping.  Bimhilat kvod torato, I find this an amazing statement, and
would
> request sources.  Even the establishment of two different minhagim in a
> single geographic community was viewed as splitting the community, and my
> understanding is that it dates as a common phenomenon only from the
> beginning of gerush sefarad.  The separation of the religious from the
> public and political seems to be late, as most early sources (IMHO) don't
> separate the  two.
>
> Meir Shinnar
>

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]