Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 014

Friday, October 12 2001

• Re: WTC stories, Hashgacha pratis and kiddush HaShem
• Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres
• hefsek
• A world first!!
• Re: Havdala in the Succa
• Hoshanos - choice and order
• Re: etrog of shemitta in US
• arba minim in succah
• Re: Tcheilet
• Re: T'kheles
• Yom Tov Sheini vis-a-vis Yom Kippur
• RE: Yom Tov Sheini vis-a-vis Yom Kippur

On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 04:37:26PM -0400, Jay Lapidus wrote:
: Allowing "not to act" is not God's responsibility.  We do have free
: will and responsibility.  That's what we learn from the sixth day of
: creation.

IOW, as I was arguing, you feel that G-d "stood back" from the situation
because He values free will more than the lives lost.

Hashem could have interrupted the natural order. And, as I was arguing on
another thread, He could have prevented the hijackings /within/ the natural
order. (The rate at which a fuel line cracks is probably non-deterministic.
If not a zillion other things.)

You say that the point of creation is that man ought to have free will and
responsibility, but then isn't that simply an attempt to justify why He'd
consider free will more valuable?

: >If I understand your position correctly, I already stated my problem
: >with it in the paragraph after the one you quote:
: >> One is at first glance left with the conclusion that HKBH values the
: >> bechirah of 19 suicidal individuals over the lives of thousands....

: That did not address my position.  The terrorists had free will to
: act.  The governmental authorities had free will to heed the advice of
: anti-terror experts and to take appropriate measures.  The victims
: themselves had very little choice...

It's still a choice of the free will of the terrorists and authorities
over the lives of the victims.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> Since many of Acheinu B'nei Israel in Chutz HaAretz are Noheg not to
> eat in the Succah on Shmini Atzeres (Sh. A.) despite the clear Halacha
> in the Shulchan Aruch, I think we are required to be MeLamed Zchus for
> them. To that extent I would like to make an attempt to do so.

I think we discussed this matter in length last year (and will probably
do it again next year...).

I may be repeating some of what I wrote then... I was browsing in the
Satmar Machzor Divrei Yoel where it have quite a lengthy piece about
the various minhogim of the late SR z'l. What surprised me was that they
write that his grandfather the Yetev Lev z'l DID eat in the sukka on SA -
until the crowds became so large that they couldn't fit in there and it
became a situation of Mitstaar.

I get the impression that that was the reason for many rebbe's who did
not eat in the Sukka.

OTOH it also mentions the rebbe once receiving a copy of the sefer (I
forget its name) by Rav Tzodok Hakohen z'l where he thoroughly explains
the reasons of those who do not eat in the sukka and (IIRC) went thru
it all in a single sitting and was extremely impressed.

It is quite obvious from there (and other sources) that this machlokes has
been around for a long, long time, well before the Chassidic/Misnagdic
split and certain families - including descendants of Rashi z'l - did
not eat in the sukka.

And may I repeat something which may or may not be an UL - about someone
asking the SR why he changed from his earlier minhag and lately did eat
in the Sukka on SA?

He answered: "Oifen elter darf men zich shoyn fihren lauten Shulchan
Oruch..."

SBA
sba@blaze.net.au

Gershon Dubin wrote:
: I am curious about the nigun many shuls sing during Birchas Kohanim
: before the last word of each beracha.  When did this begin?  Why is this
: neither a hefsek in the beracha itself or in the keria from the sh"tz? 

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> It's there to give the kehillah time to say the tefillos. As to why
> /they/ aren't hefsekim -- I have no idea. 

M'inyan l'inyan...
Chassidim (and some others) don't say the Yotzros between Borchu and ShE -
because they consider it a hefsek. So what about the (sometimes lengthy)
singing that they do during Keil Odon? Isn't that a hefsek as well?

(And aren't Yotzros called so - because they are said after and during
the Yotzer Or tefilos??)

Just wondering.

SBA

On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 08:32:12PM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
:> As I mentioned, our minhag from Suvalk is that one bentches D' Minim in
:> the Succah, before going to shul.

: Do you know of anyone with your minhag who davens vasikin?

We have a few chevrah here (in Melbourne - approx 8 hours ahead of EY
and approx 14 ahead of US) who - especially on the 1st day Sukkos -
get up early and 'bench Lulav' as soon as permissible.

They do this in the hope of being the first person in the world to be
mekayem the mitzva for the year.

(They are assuming that the few New Zealanders who have 4-minim - didn't
think of this idea...)

SBA

R' Stuart Klagsbrun wrote <<< The rov I asked holds it is not a chiyuv
to make a brachah when going to sleep in the succah but it not a brachah
l'vatalah either, so he in fact says one. >>>

R' Carl Sherer asked for a source.

Okay, first the sources. [Square brackets are my own additions.]

Mechaber 639:8 -- The minhag is not to make a bracha on the sukkah except
when eating. (And that's the minhag.)

Mishnah Berurah 639:46 -- Even though the halacha of the Gemara,
according to Rishonim, is that if someone made a bracha on the sukkah,
and then left to take care of his things, and not to return immediately,
such that it constitutes a "yetzia gemura", then he has taken his mind
off of the mitzvah, and when he comes back later, he'll have to say the
bracha again -- even a hundred times a day! And when he enters, even
though he is not eating there, he says the bracha becasue the sitting and
the standing there is a mitzvah, because it is "like your residence." ...
Nevertheless, everyone ("kol haolam") has the minhag like the poskim who
do not make the bracha except when eating. Even if sitting in the sukkah
for an hour before eating, they don't make the bracha, because they
hold that the bracha which they say afterward on the eating will cover
everything, for it is the ikar, and it will cover the sleeping, and the
tiyul, and the learning, all of which are tafel to it. Acharonim write
that it is proper to follow the Rishonim as well, and not sit like that
[i.e., for so long] without a bracha. Therefore, as soon as one returns
from shul, he should make a bracha on some mezonos and eat a little more
than a kebaytza, and make a Leyshev BaSukkah, and not say it afterwards
at mealtime.

Mishnah Berurah 639:48 -- One who fasts on Sukkos, or does not plan to
eat pas that day, then l'koolay alma, anytime he leaves [the sukkah] as a
"yetzia gemura", he is chayav to make the bracha [when he returns]. It
is only when one [plans to] eat pas, that those poskim hold to make the
bracha on the ikar chiyuv of sukkah, and cover all the things which are
tafel. But when he is not eating, this does not apply. The Chayei Adam
writes that the same applies when leaving as a "yetzia gemura" after
eating, and then he returns and enters [the sukkah] and will not eat
until evening, and prior to eating he'll have to leave again to go to
shul, that in such a case as well, l'koolay alma he has to say the bracha.

Now for my interpretations:

A simple reading of Mishnah Berurah 48 would appear to refer to one who
goes to learn in the sukkah between mincha and maariv. But it can apply
just as well to one who returns to the sukkah after maariv, and plans
not to eat until after shacharis. In other words, if there is a real
hefsek between dinner (or dessert, or whatever) and bedtime, then one
DOES make a Leyshev Basukkah at bedtime.

Now, before everyone jumps at me about the fact that "everyone knows"
that we do NOT make a bracha on sleeping, or on shehakol foods (to take
just two examples), let me explain that this is NOT a contradiction.

As *I* understand it, there are at least three differences between "making
a bracha on an ikar chiyuv of sukkah", and "making a bracha on a tafel
chiyuv of sukkah", to borrow the MB's terminology. These differences are:

1) If one enters the sukkah now, planning to eat later on, then if the
expected food is an ikar chiyuv, then the Leyshev should wait for the
ikar. But if eating something else, or nothing at all, the Leyshev is
said immediately upon entering the sukkah.

2) The truth is that we do NOT actually say Leyshev on sleeping in the
sukkah, or on drinking a glass of water in the sukkah. Rather, we say the
bracha on the mitzvah of *living* in the sukkah. Therefore, although we
do say Leyshev on pas (and therefore we position it *after* the Hamotzi
(or Mezonos) bracha) we do not allow the Leyshev to come between other
brachos and the eating. Rather, the Layshev is said *before* the bracha
on the food.

3) If one eats the ikar chiyuv, he can say hamotzi, eat the
over-a-kebaytzah of pas, bench, and leave. But for other foods, since
the bracha is not on the eating but on *living* in the sukkah, one must
actually spend some time *living* in the sukkah. (More on this in my
final paragraph below.)

It does seem odd, I must admit, that this halacha is buried all the way
at the very end of the siman. Throughout all of Siman 639 we are told
over and over again that we do not say Leyshev on this, and we do not say
Leyshev on that, and then at the very end, this seems to be overturned.

On the other hand, as I tried to explain, we truly do *not* say a bracha
on the acts of eating achilas arai in the sukkah. But rather, we can
say Leyshev on the act of merely living in the sukkah, and it is quite
within the style of the Mishnah Berurah to save "halachos from left field"
for the very last se'if katan of the siman.

Also, a hint to this idea can be found in MB 639:16, where he discusses
whether or not over-a-kebaytza of mezonos gets a Leyshev, specifically
in the cases of breakfast during the week, or kiddush on Shabbos/YomTov
morning. At the very end, he writes that "to avoid a chashash of a
bracha l'vatala, he should be sure *not* to leave immediately after
eating. Rather he should sit there for a while ("zman mah"), and have
kavana that the Leyshev should be on the eating and [also] on the
sitting afterwards." (Just in case that was too subtle, the point is
that spending time in the sukkah resolves the safek bracha l'vatala,
because it entitles one to make a Leyshev even without eating at all.)

Akiva Miller

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
...
>> Parenthetically, according to the GR"A, no hoshannas are said when Sukkos
>> falls on Shabbos, while others say 'om ani chomah'....

> ???? AFAIK everyone says Ohm Netzura on Shabbos of Sukkos regardless of
> when it falls.

I cannnot answer all of the questions of RCS. I was just reporting what
I saw in the siddur/im.

However, regarding the last piece, that minhog haGR"A is not to say
Hoshannas on Shabbos, I can tell you from personal experience, that
this minhog exists. In fact, I myself have davened at a minhag that
follows minhog haGR"A in certain matters, and they did not say Hoshannas
on Shabbos.

If the amazement at that is because RCS didn't see it in EY and he
assumes that the EY Yeshivisher minhog = minhog haGR"A, that is not a
conclusive raya because some EY Ashkenazic minhogim / nuschaos come from
/ were influenced by Sepharadic and / or Hassidic minhogim and are not
purely nusach haGR"A. For examples, see siddur Eizor Eliyohu. Maybe I
can list some of them in a future post, if people are interested.....

Mordechai

On 11 Oct 01, at 12:52, Eli Turkel wrote:
> What is the source of the notice that one is required to ship etrogim
> back to Israel after Succot? Doesn't sound so easy to me.

AFAIK only the Badatz EC printed such a notice on its boxes. There
was a 917 (cellular phone in New York) number to call. I don't have the
information because my older son and I both bought Moroccans and my second
son bought from Rav Karelitz's otzar, which did not have such a notice.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
<<FWIW, Rav Elyashiv comes to the Kotel every day of Chol HaMoed to bentch
arba minim exactly at hanetz (although there are Sukkas available on the
back part of the Kotel plaza), he comes to the back of the front part
of the plaza and bentches and leaves while most of us are still saying
Shmoneh Esrei.>>

I wonder if there is any element of lulav nitel shiva bemikdash
included in this practice.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 07:48:48PM +0000, Seth Mandel wrote:
: This leads me to a general comment. A case where one group of Jews and its
: talmidei hakhomim have preserved a tradition about something ... is,
: to my mind, completely different from a case where NO Jewish group has
: preserved a masorah....

Your argument is interesting, because it answers a question my father
raised over Shemini Atzeres: Would RYBS argue that a kehillah that
couldn't get their hands on an esrog for a couple of generations should
not bench lulav and esrog now that they can?

This point is basically in debate between the Maharil and R' Chaim
Brisker (at least according to RYBS's version of his objection to
Radziner techeiles). Oddly enough, the Maharil, a man often described
here as the paragon of one who only uses texts as secondary to mimetics,
is the one who paskened based on the assumption that techeiles might be
identified any day. Whereas RCB, the textualist fount of Brisker chumros,
concluded that without a mesorah, we can't use science to recreate one.
(IOW, that science isn't sevarah, but an outside chachmah.)

In either case, the Maharil does not take your approach.

Also, is it so clear that the mesorah was entirely lost? Yes, no one
seemed convinced enough to actually act on the idenfication. But as
RBS lists in the reply his web page:
> 7. Equating tekhelet with purpura and the color of purpura.

> The Chavot Ya'ir in his M'kor Chayim ... The Shiltei haGiborim ...
> The Musaf la'Aruch ... Midrash haGadol from Yemen ..., and the Aruch...

The idea that techeiles and royal purple have the same source recurs
throughout the period in which techeiles wasn't worn. One could argue
that at least a theoretical, if not practical, mesorah did exist.

:                                                 The major problem with
: that is that the dye is converted to pure indigo, the same chemical that
: is obtained from the indigofera tinctoria plant. It is obvious that if
: the dyes are chemically the same, then the method the g'moro gives of
: distinguishing them will never work, regardless of the chemical details
: of how the test is supposed to work....

Actually, the dyes are NOT chemically the same.

The particular compound that causes the color is the same. However, the
dye is a mixture, containing numerous other sorts of molecules. AIUI,
the other chemicals are not centrifuged off. Including the bromine that
is taken off of the indigo. Which is why I suggested that it might be the
difference that a fermentation-based test would pick up.

I never checked, though, if a significant amount of the bromine
floating around in the solution ends up on the wool. And also, if that
is necessarily true, or if older ways of applying the dye would hace left
more bromine on the strings, thereby making them more proof to the test.
This last point might end up significant -- it could be that in order
for techeiles to be kosher, it must have some of the bromine left in
to guarantee the right level of colorfastness!

: Now to R. Micha's comments:
...
: <Li nir'eh the list is one of explaining the significant features of the
: chilazon. Not the identifying ones. They therefore need not be unique.>

: I agree. But at least they should match. They match Murex as closely as
: they match cuttlefish or octopodes or Janthina, and match many species
: of fish much better. The only thing special about Murex is that we know
: produces a good dye.

But isn't that alone sufficient proof? (Given what I write below.)

: As I believe R. Singer has since pointed out, you would have to be
: crazy/m'shuggener/a member of xxx [fill in the blanks: MO, RW, L, Tikkun]
: to make fake t'kheles with the Murex, if it indeed is not t'kehles...

And yet, lema'aseh, we find murex shells. Wouldn't this argue in favor
of a strong reason to make such dye, one strong enough to drive people
to mesiras nefesh?

: <This is news to me. I did not see any mention of cycles in Sefunei
: Temunei Chol. Li nir'eh he is saying that usually it's rare, and on
: certain occasions it isn't. "Once in 70 years" is a usual idiom in gemara...>

: Yes, very rare, but not rare in the sense that it is continuously present
: at a low frequency. A Bes Din Qatlonis would not "kill" people by 10%
: continuously every year. Once every 70 years would mean that the hillazon
: is more available at periodic intervals...

Intervals, not necessarily periodic ones. In any case, RBS's web page
addresses this point. It would seem that forever the reason, murex was
farmed by the dying industry at spaced-out intervals. That's what the
mounds of shells look like. His suggestion that the reason is due to
over-harvesting is just a guess, but the maskanah seems to be borne out.

: But they fail to point out that Murex trunculus is not the only source of
: indigo dye. Murex brandaris and Thais haemastoma normally give dibromide
: indigo...

Which simply could mean that "chilazon" refers to more than one species of
that family. I see no reason to assume that a given Hebrew word refers to
a single species, the entire concept of species as used today for taxonomy
isn't muchrach. By parallel, there are numerous species that are kosher
for "aravah"/"hoshanah". I would therefore think that m. brandaris and
th. haesmastoma are equally chilazon, and their dyes are equally kosher.


At this point I'm going to assume that people interested
enough to be following this thread read RBS's full reply at
<http://www.tekhelet.com/ResponseJHCS.htm>. His post here really doesn't
do his arguments justice. If you didn't, you might as well skip the
rest of this email; since the reply is already available electronically,
I am going to comment on the article without posting it in full.

> Dr. Singer ...                  states that "the strongest criteria for
> identifying the chilazon come from the Gemara Menachot" and specifically
> from the braita found in Menachot 44a. This assertion is very difficult
> to reconcile with the fact that most rishonim, in their discussion of the
> topic, do not quote this braita....

This is a stronger form of the same argument that I brought. The criterion
given are not a halachic definition that uniquely identify the chilazon,
but rather an aggadic discourse on the meaning of chilazon-ness.

But then RBS writes:
>                                         As mentioned, the braita provides
> general descriptive information regarding the chilazon. It would make most
> sense to describe the outward appearance of the organism before going on
> to its internal appearance, especially given that internal examination
> requires painstaking procedures...

This paragraph assumes that the the gemara /is/ out to identify the
chilazon for pragmatic purposes. I think the original comment is sufficient
to address the point of whether the description need be taken to be that of
the chilazon's body rather than a non-unique aspect of its shell. Taking this
tack is inconsistent.

The following line about shell fouling is IMHO very important, as it shows a
makor for this peshat in the gemara:
>                Indeed, this interpretation is not new; the commentary
> on the Sefer Yitzirah attributed to the Raavad similarly understands
> this passage.

The fact that it's not unique to any particular snail plays into how I
understood the gemara when I first looked at it.

> 2. The murex Trunculus is not a fish.
...
> The Oxford dictionary in the first entry under Fish defines it:

Usage of the English word fish is totally irrelevent.

But to get back to RMES's point:

First, a limited definition of the word dag would be a setirah with
the description of it having a nartiq.

OTOH, it would make sense to spell out the fact that the snail in question
is a sea creature, dag in the broader sense. Since there are also land and
amphibious snails. In fact the identification with "sefunei temunei chol"
might otherwise lead one to believe the chilazon is amphibious.

> 5. The chemical tests to determine true tekhelet.

>           .... One thing is clear though: a sample subjected to the
> described procedures that does not fade, passes the tekhelet test...

Is it so clear? I thought this was a da'as yachid found by the Tif'eres
Yisrael, that any sky-blue colorfast dye was kosher.

> The fact is, however, that indigo (kala ilan) dyed wool also passed
> the chemical tests. To reiterate, this is not a problem as far as murex
> tekhelet is concerned, but rather an academic problem in understanding the
> Rambam and the Gemara....

Much like the gemara's hard-to-understand discussion of how to test for
besulim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

I wish to address here some of R. Sterman's and R. Micha's points; I will
cover some of the P'til Tekhelet's response to R. Mendel Singer later.
P'til's response congratulates R. Singer and the Journal of Halakha and
CS for publishing his article and their response, since it indicates that
"the awareness [of t'khelet] within the halakhic community has grown,
and that... tekhelet [is] an issue to be addressed."

I can assure R. Sterman and the P'til Society that in this forum,
at least, everybody takes their mitzvos seriously, and many/most of us
are as concerned with the mitzvos that we don't do as with the mitzvos
that we do; we are known for being mahmir on mitzvos kallos, such as
denigrating [MO/YU/RW/Lakewood] as well as mitzvos hamuros.

I wrote: <if you are wearing the wrong color, you have lost the mitzva of
lovon. There are two shittos among the rishonim about what lovon is. The
Rambam says it is the exact color of the garment on which the tzitzis
are to be hung. Ashk'nazi rishonim say it is colorless: undyed wool...>

R. Micha responded: <The machlokes isn't over being /yotzei/ lavan, but
in the /ideal/ lavan. So, to rephrase your question: Does the chance of
being yotzei techeiles outweigh the loss of hiddur?>

I really don't know why you state this as a given. Indeed, P'til and the
Radzyner Rebbe claimed this, but this is NOT what the sources say. R.
Sterman quotes R. Shmuel Ariel as saying the same: "in case B [that murex
dye is safek tekhelet], it is better to wear murex tekhelet as you have
nothing to lose." This is simply not true.

Let's start with Rashi. On Menahot 41b (all caps mine) the g'moro
says "talet shekullah t'khelet kol mine tziv'onin potrin bah." Rashi:
"l'shum lavan d'kevan D'MIN KANAF LEKA l'qayyome bah, ein lakh l'hazzer
ahar lavan." I.e. you use other colors, not "lavan," on an all-t'khelet
talet, since you can't have min kanaf. The g'moro then asks "talet ein
poter bah ella minah." Rashi has the girsa "ein potrin bah l'shem lavan
ella minah," and says: "im aduma hi, yatil bah shnei hutin adumim ushnei
hutim t'kehlet v'khen sh'ar g'vanim." I.e. ONLY red tzitzis can serve
as lavan for a red talet, because we require "min kanaf."

The Rambam follows the same tradition (with the exception, of course, of
the number of t'khelet threads, which is a mahloqet). In Hilkhot Tzitzit
1:1 he says " 'anaf she'osin 'al kanaf habeged MIMMIN HABEGED hu haniqra
tzitzit... v'zeh he'anaf hu haniqra lavan, she'ein anu m'tzuvvin l'tzov'o"
(the fringe that we make at the edge of clothing OF THE KIND of the
clothing... is called lavan because we are not commanded to color it). In
1:8 he says "talet shehi kullah aduma o y'ruqa o mish'ar tziv'onin, 'oseh
hutei lavan shelah k'ein tziv'ah, im y'ruqa y'ruqin v'im aduma adumin"
(a tallit that is all red or green or other colors, you make its lavan
the same color as it, green if green and red if red). It seems clear
that the Rambam's source is the same a Rashi's: a tradition that "min
kanaf" not only specifies the material, but also the color. Otherwise,
where do they get this idea from that the color of the lavan has to be
red or green or whatever, depending on the color of the clothing?

Tosafot, indeed, doesn't know where the idea comes from, and suggests
that maybe such a requirement is just "zeh Keli v'anvehu." But the lashon
of Rashi is clear that it is more than that, and it is pretty clear from
the Rambam as well.

Now one could argue that this is only l'khathilla and not b'dieved, even
though Rashi's loshon of "ein potrin bah l'shem lavan ella minah" seems to
indicate that it is even b'dieved. But what I am showing is not whether
it is m'aqqev or not, but rather that both the Rambam and Rashi consider
that this color requirement is basic to the commandment of tzitzit.

So I said "if you are wearing the wrong color, you have lost the mitzva
of lovon." This is exactly what the Rambam and Rashi are saying. It may
or may not be kosher b'dieved, but you have not fulfilled the mitzva of
lavan as the mitzva intends.

But now let us ignore me (much preferable anyway, since CQs are not so
pretty to consider) and go to the FACTS of the matter. Incontravertible
facts (the best kind, no?), that none of the g'dolim at the time of
the Radzyner started wearing the Radzyner t'kheles. And let me remind
people of something which some parties in argument ignore: before Rav
Kook made his discovery that the Radzyner t'khelet was Prussian blue,
approximately 25 years had passed. During that period, the situation was
EXACTLY as it is now: the Radzyner Rebbe claimed that the cuttlefish
could fit in with the description of the g'moro (which indeed it can
as well as Murex can), and he produced a fast, dark-blue dye from the
secretions of the cuttlefish. None of the g'dolim at the time knew or
could have known that the blue dye was not really a direct product of
the cuttlefish ink. This is EXACTLY equivalent to the current situation:
the P'til T'khelet society claims that they have a blue dye that comes
from a marine organism that could fit in with the description in the
g'moro. P'til argues that at the very least it is a safeq, and what
do you lose by wearing it? But the g'dolim did not, and I have not yet
seen a plausible explanation of why whatever reasons they had would not
apply now. This is why the statement, as quoted by R. Sterman in the
name of R. Ariel, that "it is better NOT TO WEAR TSITSIT at al" [caps in
original] in the case of having a safeq t'kheles is simply ludicrous..
The g'dolim at the end of the 19th century lived in a period of safeq
t'kehles, and they all wore tzitzis.

Now P'til is right that its dye is produced directly from the Murex,
unlike the Radzyner Prussian blue, but the g'dolim did not know that. And
P'til has evidence that a large industry existed to produce dye from
Murex, but there is no proof that that industry existed for any other
purpose than to produce royal purple and other purple/blue dyes for
non-Jewish uses.

However, what is relevant here is that doubts about these factors were
not the reasons that the g'dolim of the time did not adopt the Radzyne
t'kheles. Some of the g'dolim may not have put on the Radzyne t'kheles
because "chodosh osur min haTorah": they would not do anything their
grandfather didn't do. Some chasidishe Rebbeim may have not adopted it
because of some element of qin'as sofrim that existed among the rebbes
in the chasidic world (just as the other talmidim of the Mezritcher
Maggid did not adopt the nusach of the Ari redacted by the Alter Rebbe
of Lyubavitch, which he did for the benefit of ALL the follower of the
Besh't, not just his followers). Others may have not adopted it because
the Zohar implies that t'kheles will come back at the time of the Moshiah,
and they did not think that was the time. The Beis HaLevi may not have
adopted it because of his Torah about how a masora can not be reinstated
by s'voro. We can term all of these the rejectionist front: they would
not have adopted t'kheles no matter what proofs were brought.

But, Rabbosai, there were many other g'dolim who did listen to arguments
and were not opposed on the grounds of principal to any new innovations. I
could point to half a dozen Litvishe g'dolim, at least, who, although they
opposed changing minhogim, did countenance new ideas with solid arguments
behind them. And yet not a one started wearing t'kheles. Even blowing
shofar on Rosh HaShono on Shabbos in Jerusalem gained some support. But
not qorbonos and not t'kheles. That is fact.

Again, to quote myself, "I do not claim to know their reasons." Maybe I
was m'khavven to something they held in my argument about lavan; maybe
not. But at the very least, they were waiting for something that wasn't
there at the time.

Something that is still not there.

(And this is said with all due respect to Murex trunculus, against whom
I hold no animus. I think the mollusc is rather cute [in CQ terms],
expecially the expression on its face as it happily slithers along the
sea floor looking for comestibles. I also hold no animus to those who
use it for dye, even though the innocent molluscs surely deserve a better
fate than having their glands ripped out while they are still alive.)

Seth Mandel

OK, this is a simple obvious question -- but I've never seen it
specifically addressed.

In the days when Yom Tov Sheini was actually needed, because there
really _was_ uncertainty (a place in Galus where the messengers from
Y'lem have not yet arrived) presumably Yom Kippur was observed 9 days
after the first day of Rosh HaShana. So far so good.

But what if, say, three days after that, the messenger arrived and it
was discovered, retroactively, that Yom Kippur had been observed by that
community on Tishrei 9?

-- Eric

On Friday, October 12, 2001 8:16 AM, Eric Simon [SMTP:erics@radix.net] wrote:
> But what if, say, three days after that, the messenger arrived and it was
> discovered, retroactively, that Yom Kippur had been observed by that
> community on Tishrei 9?

From 'the man in my backyard':

The question, I believe is asked by the Minchas Chinuch ( it's been a
while). The answer be'H is that since the declaration of Rosh Chodesh
is actually dependent on the actual declaration of Rosh Chodesh by the
Beit Din (i.e. Beit Din doesn't notify of Rosh Chodesh, it creates it),
therefore the "l'mafrea" status of the declaration is only vis a vis
mikahn ulhaba. This theory of l'mafrea (as opposed to "iglai milta
l'mafrea" were the subsequent finding is merely a proof of the status
ab initio) is a creation of R' Chaim Brisker z"l and can be found in
Chidushei R' Chaim Halevi on hilchos naara hameurata in referrence to
miyun. It works beautifully, be'H to answer the present question.

kol tuv.
jbl

[In a 2nd email: -mi]

Further from 'the man in my backyard':

-----Original Message-----
From:	Rablov1@aol.com [SMTP:Rablov1@aol.com]
Sent:	Friday, October 12, 2001 10:30 AM

Continued:
By the way, your question applies, in reverse, in Yerushalayim according
to Rambam z"l who believes that witnesses can come and make a chodesh
ibur into a chodesh bizmano retroactively up to the fifteenth of any
month including Tishrei. It is here that the MC asks his question and I
gave my answer. I mistakenly misread your question to be this one. Sorry,
in your case everyone in galus would be chayav a korban chatat. Pardon
the error.

jbl

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


[ 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         ]