Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 024

Tuesday, June 10 2003

• Shavuos and one's Personal Sefira Count
• Tikkun Leil Shavuot materials
• Re: rasha ve ra lo
• Re: "Aseres" hadibros
• Re: "Aseres" hadibros
• Shavuos and one's personal sefira count
• eiruv tavshilin - which spouse?
• Re: Minhagim
• Kiddush Before Ma'ariv
• 1st aliyah, Naso
• Re: eiruv tavshilin - which spouse?
• Re: eiruv tavshilin - which spouse?
• Re: 1st aliyah, Naso
• Re: B-R-CH
• Aliyos in Naso
• Text for Mitzvas Eiruv
• Re: Aliyos in Naso
• Re: "Aseres" hadibros
• Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: Rabbi Schab's article onf Jewish Chronology

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
> On Areivim, R'SBA wrote about someone who went to Australia today,
> by crossing the Date Line in the "wrong" direction, and will be making
> Kiddush on *Thursday* night.

You've somewhat mixed up the yotzros (and it was RSS who started it all -
talking about a friend of mine...)

Travelling from the Land of Oz to the USA, we cross the dateline and have
a repeat of the same day [eg if you leave Melbourne on Tuesday - after
travelling about 15 hours you arrive in LA on Tuesday morning soem hourse
before you left... (That's how we sometimes have 3 days Rosh Chodesh...)
So L Chassidim doing that trip begin their Shovuos a day early.

OTOH coming from the US to Oz - you actually lose a day [ie if you leave
LA Tuesday night, then - after travelling 15 hours or so, you arrive in
Melbourne Thursday morning- notionally about 34 hours later].

Thus, for an LC doing this trip - he is missing one day of the 50 and
so - in accrdance with the LR's shittah, they keep Shovuos this year
on Shabbos/Sunday.

[BTW, what about the rules that YT can't fall certain days etc.?]

> PS: Had it not been Shabbos, with the above visitor put on tefillin on
> the day when others are holding second day Yom Tov?

Yes. AFAIK.

SBA

34 sources on did the Avot keep all the torah including Rabbinic
ordinances. Includes sources of statement, status of avot vis-a-vis
mitzvot, problems and suggested interpretations from Rabbis throughout
the ages.

Hard Copy only (send me a mailing address)

Anyone else get any good material?
KT
Joel Rich

R' Eli Turkel wrote <<< R. Schwab indicates that once a person's income
is decided on Rosh Hashana he cannot increase it by theft. That is the
part I find difficult to believe. It implies that the Mafioso living
high on the barrel had that decreed for them each RH >>>

Let me take this from a purely financial perspective, with no regard to
what happens in olam haba.

My understanding is that "income" in this context actually means "profit",
or perhaps "net income after deducting certain expenses". I have heard,
for example, that if one manages to obtain more money than he was supposed
to get, HaShem will arrange things so that he loses the proper amount
to bring the net total to where it ought to be. Perhaps he will simply
misplace some money, or it may get stolen from him, or an investment
may go bad. Isn't this a common understanding?

If so, then one needs to consider the "business" expenses of these
criminals. Most crimes require certain tools to be purchased beforehand.
There are lawyers fees afterwards. And bodyguards to pay all the while.
Stolen items don't fetch as much on the black market. There are cuts to
be paid to all sorts of middlemen.

The point I'm trying to suggest is that in general, low-level criminals
do *not* "live high on the barrel", but struggle to make ends meet like
everyone else. And the high-level criminals who *do* "live high on the
barrel" often have the skills to succeed in legitimate business as well.
Occasionally a high-level or low-level criminal will do teshuva; sometimes
they'll be better off financially than before and sometimes worse off.

Bottom line: Until HaShem's Accountant does a statistical study of
these cases, and considers all the variable factors involved (such as
level of education, or who was born into a family business) we're all
just guessing. It's all part of HaShem's grand plan not to show His
cards. You know, free will and all that stuff.

Akiva Miller

From: Gershon Dubin
> R' Seth has for some time made the point that our ta'am ha'elyon divides
> the aseres hadibros into 9 rather than 10. Look at the Rashi in Horiyos,
> daf 8a on top of the left column, where it seems to imply that azoi darf
> zein, i.e., that Anochi and Lo yihyeh are part of one dibur. Comments?

1) I fail to see any implication in the Rashi that they are part of
one dibbur/dibb'rah. He just says they were together, which is only a
little more than the g'moro's statement that B'nei Yisroel heard them
together mippi haG'vurah.

2) According to you, Rashi should have said "tish'as hadibb'ros."
If they were both part of one, you only have 9.

3) My complaint was that the trop printed (up until very recently)
in all Ashk'naz chumoshim gives only 9 according to the ta'am 'elyon,
which is supposed to divide the words into 10 p'suqim. However, that
trop first came into being in the 15th or 16th century. For Rashi to
have known about it would indeed be a miracle, one to be added to the
others of Ma'amad Har Sinai.

4) Up until that time, the only trop known is the one shown in the
Breuer's edition or the Leningrad Ms. or any of the other mss. In that
trop, 'onokhi and lo yihyeh l'kho are indeed part of one posuq: in the
_ta'am tahton_. In the ta'am 'elyon they are separate. So even if
Rashi were claiming that they were together in the same posuq, he could
be referring to the ta'am tahton.

5) The other part of my plaint is that the ta'am 'elyon as printed is
not just unusual, but totally impossible.

a) a segol has to be the first melekh in a posuq; this rule has no
exceptions. Here, however, a zoqef qoton precedes it.

b) the first melekh is always the major mafsiq in the clause. If there
were a zoqef qoton over the third word, then the meaning would be "I am
the Lord your God -- who took you out of the land of Egypt and before
whom you have no other gods." There is not rishon who claims this is
the meaning.

6) The Minchas Shai tries to provide an explanation for it (remember,
the Minchas Shai was written on the Venice edition of the T'NaKh,
which indeed has part of the questionable trop, though not all of it);
but his solution is to have a posuq with two etnahta's, also scarcely
within the realm of possibility.

The rest of the discussion really belongs on Mesorah. However, for
Avodah, the summary is that the way the ta'am 'elyon is commonly printed,
with a zoqef qoton over 'Eloqekho and a r'via' over 'avodim is both a late
invention, patently impossible, and results in the leining only having
9 dibb'ros. The Qoren edition at least printed a note that R. Volf
Heidenheim recommended something different. The edition of R. Breuer
has the original trop, which is attested in all of the manuscripts that
precede the 15th-16th century. (And, although in the manuscripts both
sets of trop are written with each word, it is very easy according to
certain rules to tell them apart.)

Seth Mandel

Posted by: gershon.dubin@juno.com
> R' Seth has for some time made the point that our ta'am ha'elyon divides
> the aseres hadibros into 9 rather than 10. Look at the Rashi in Horiyos,
> daf 8a on top of the left column, where it seems to imply that azoi darf
> zein, i.e., that Anochi and Lo yihyeh are part of one dibur. Comments?

Comment: According to R. Wolf Heidenhim, the first posuk, Anochi,
is read in Taam Tachton. This would eventuate in a change that would
separate out an additional posuk, thus resulting again in 10 dibros.

The entire text of his discussion can be found in Taamei Hamikra
(not Breuers but another, I block the author's name) from his Chumash
on Shemos.

M. Levin

Mention has been made of the opinion by the last Lubavitch Rebbe that
one maintains one's personal sefira count when crossing the secular
International date line (or any date line) and then celebrates Shavuot
in some way on the 50th day according to this personal count. It is
also alleged that Lubavitch shiluchim follow this opinion in practice.
Could someone therefore clarify some points for me?

1. Did the Rebbe write his view of the matter as an academic hakira or
as a practical pesak? If the latter, why choose this issue to deliver a
novel legal decision when he normally avoided voicing halachic decisions?
2. Did the Rebbe really mean to have someone declare his own private
day of Shavuot with Yom Tov davening, etc., or was he only counseling
avoidance of work on the individuals 50th day of sefira reckoning?
3. Is that individual also required to observe Yom Tov fully on the
days celebrated locally? If so, isn't there a "ba'al tosif" problem?
4. Chana Luntz had previously raised the issue of people whose business
travels bring them across the date line several times during the sefira
period. What count do they maintain, and how do they celebrate Shavuot
according to the Rebbe's opinion?
5. What count does the hypothetical frum astronaut maintain while
circling the globe?
6. Did the Rebbe address the question of Shabbat determination for
those who cross the date line; i.e. do they observe Shabbat 7 days after
their last shabbat in addition to the locally celebrated Shabbat?
7. Did the Rebbe discuss the issue of date line determination; i.e. 90,
130, 144, 180, etc. degrees from Yerushalayim vs. the secular date line?

Yitzchok Zlochower

On Areivim, I had asked whether the husband or wife makes the eiruv
tavshilin. (Current responses are running about fity/fifty.)

I'm bringing the discussion to Avodah because of a few posters who offered
specific reasons for their way. R"n Toby Katz wrote <<< ... My husband
does it, my father did it.... Maybe it's because wife owns nothing? >>>

And R' Simcha G expanded on that: <<< i think that's the reason..and it
is based on halacha. the halacha states that before one makes the brocho,
it should given to a godol to be 'koineh' for everybody in the household.
Then it is given back to the one making the Brocho. This can only be
accomplished if the giver owns the food. Therefore, you can derive from
this halocho that the husband makes the 'eiruv'. >>>

My understanding is that this kinyan is done only in the cases where the
eiruv is to be shared between the baal habayis and his *guests*. When
there are no guests, and the eiruv is only for the normal bnei bayis,
they'd be included automatically, and there's no need for such a kinyan.

On the point that the one making the eiruv has to own the food, that's
also true of one who takes challah. But the wife can take challah even
though she doesn't own the dough, because she has implicit reshus from
her husband to be his shaliach for challah. I don't see why the same
wouldn't work for eiruv (though perhaps the reshus should be *ex*plicit
the first time).

Ditto for trumos and maasros: Among our Israeli members where the husband
insists on making the eiruv, does he also insist on taking tru"m? This
refers back to my original reason why my wife is the one to make the
eiruv in our family - she is the Queen of all kitchen-related inyanim.
(Though I must admit that when we were zocheh to live in Bayit Vegan,
I was the one who did the maasering, that was only because I understood
the proccess much better than she.)

There were recently two posts on the minhagim. Impecccably researched and
presented, they nevertheless disturbed me. Both posts, one on the custom
of going to Meron on Lag B'Omer, and the one on milchigs on Shevuos,
demonstrated similarities between the customs of surrounding nations
and these minhagim. Both questioned the propriety of the minhagim.

It seems to me that these posts suffer from an error of anachronism - in
other words, they assume that adoption of minhagim in the past was the
saem as at our times, when each man does what is right in his eyes. IN
fact, however, we live in a"flat" society, whereas our ancestors lived
in a very hierachical one. The minhagim were adopted by the talmidei
chchomim and the elite; what the common people did did not count and
did not persist.

Rav Kook puts forth a Klal: 1. most minhagim are bchezkas kashrus,
2. this appplies to all minhagim that arose before 200 years ago. They
are presumed to be made by a beis din or with tacit approval of beis
din. For the past 200 years, however, with the loss of prestige of beis
din, minhagim do not have the same chazaka.

References: Yam shel shlomo chulin 1, 36
Daas Kohen 18
Daas Kohen 156

M. Levin

I believe it is a machlokes between the Magen Avraham and Gra whether
one can make kiddush before davening ma'ariv (Gra is machmir). The MA
is in 271:5 and the Gra, IIRC, in Ma'aseh Rav.

Gil Student

Re: Ending of the "first 'aliya by siddur Chabad three sentences before
Tikkun and Artscroll siddur.

As the poster is referring to siddurim, I assume he is talking about
weekday reading. If so, I doubt he means the first 'aliya because that
aliya consists, usually, of only three p'sukim. It would be slightly
difficult to end it three sentences earlier.

Therefore, I think he is referring to the third aliya and not the
first. There is no requirement that the three weekday aliyot end at
sheini. So, as long as there are ten p'sukim, one often finds that the
siddurim show the third aliya ending before sheni. In Naso, I found
many siddurim, including all of the Sefaradi ones, ending four sentences
(not three) before sheni. I don't own an Artscroll or a tikkun that
shows weekday aliyas so they are not included in my minor survey.

Just to make the soup a bit thicker, might I point out that the old
Yemenite (Baladi) custom has sheni where we have sh'lishi.

k"t,
David

Along similar lines:

Given that in most of our homes the vast majority of the cooking is done
by our wives...

Should we say mitzvah bah yoseir mibesheluchah? Or does beiso zu
ishto, particularly in issues of bayis, mitigate that preference?

-mi (eiruv maker)

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On 9 Jun 2003 at 9:29, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> On the point that the one making the eiruv has to own the food, that's
> also true of one who takes challah. But the wife can take challah even
> though she doesn't own the dough, because she has implicit reshus from
> her husband to be his shaliach for challah...
> Ditto for trumos and maasros: Among our Israeli members where the
> husband insists on making the eiruv, does he also insist on taking
> tru"m? ...

One difference between Eruv Tavshilin on the one hand, and Challah
and Trumos u'Ma'aseros on the other hand, is a practical one: the
husband is often not at home when Challah and Trumos u'Ma'aseros are
taken. Therefore, it is not practical to restrict the ability to do so
to the husband in most houses. The husband is almost always home shortly
before the chag, and therefore Eruv Tavshilin is more likely to be done
by the husband. No proof for this, but it seems intuitive.

And yes, I take the Eruv Tavshilin (we both grew up that way), Adina
usually takes the Challah (except from the hand matza on Erev Pesach,
which she insists that I do) and Adina usually takes the Trumos and
Ma'aseros.

-- Carl

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

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 11:29:37PM +0200, D & E-H Bannett wrote:
: Re: Ending of the "first 'aliya by siddur Chabad three sentences before
: Tikkun and Artscroll siddur.

FWIW, at least one edition of the Nusach Ashkenaz Hebrew-English Artscroll
siddur notes both endpoints (with a yeish nohagim lesayeim kan) for the
third aliyah of Shabbos afternoon, Mon and Thurs.

-mi

On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 06:59:52AM -0500, sholom@aishdas.org wrote:
:  From another list I am on, in response:
...
: > Does anyone know whether etymological scholarship supports a connection
: > between any of these three meanings (blessing, pool, knee) of the
: > "b-r-ch" root?

: Thoughts?

1- The coiners of tefillos were masters of derashah. There is no reason
to think the medrashic connotation is any less primary of a basis for
the choice of term than a literal translation. The question itself is
not as significant as it seems.

2- Chazal say that berakhah is a lashon of increase. I don't know where,
I just know that subsequent peirushim (Avudraham, Chizkuni, Radaq, R'
Yonah ibn Janach, Or Zaru'ah, R' Chaim Vilozhiner and RSRH are the ones
I've seen) are choleiq about how ribui can be applied to Hashem; how to
translate "Barukh Atah H'".

3- In R' Matisyahu Clark's Hirschian dictionary, this is the entry
for BRK:
    BRK		power growth; spur prosperity
    explanation/commentary:
	1: blessing (Gn 2:3 "vayvareikh E-lokim es yom hashevi'i" also
	   Gn 9:27, 14:19)
	2: bowing (Gn 41:43 "vayiqre'u lefanav avareikh")
	3: kneeling (Gn 24:11 "vayevareikh hagemalim michutz la'ir")
	4: unhindered prosperity (Dt 11:26 "berakhah uqelalah" also
	   Gn 8:21)
	5: knee joint that propels (Dt 28:35 "al habereikhim ve'al
	   hashoqim")
	6: pool; reservoir (Ec 2:6/Soncino Press)
    cognate meaning:	separate and develop
	[phonetic cognates (B40): PRQ divide; PRK separate; BRQ flash light]

4- Brown Driver Briggs has kneel and pool/pond. But it also has "bless"
giving the Aramaic "birkah" as a cognate (and the Aramaic "bereikh"
[praise]), as well as Arabic and Amharic cognates that I can't read.

It has a long list of quotes from chumash where this is clearly the
meaning intended.

Combining 3 and 4, it looks to me like the primary meaning is blessing,
from which we get kneeling, bowing (praying postures), and a pool of
water (a more physical source of prosperity; particularly in semitic
territory). From kneeling, we get the word for "knee".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

I've seen the shorter version in some siddurim, not necessarily Chabad.

Either way is shorter than last Shabbos' mincha keria in the chu"l
minyan in Mir Yerushalayim, where they read ALL of Naso and Beha'alosecha
until sheini!

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Not many siddurim offer a text for all three versions of Mitzvas Eiruv.
Two which do are the various versions of Artscroll, and the Otzar
HaTefilos. (Artscroll places them prior to Yom Tov Kiddush in their
siddurim, and at the beginning of the machzorim. My Otzar HaTefilos puts
the Chatzeiros and Techumin in the middle of the hilchos Shabbos section
before Kabalas Shabbos, and Tavshilin is after Duchaning.)

I was intrigued to find that both of these siddurim treat Eiruvei
Tavshilin and Eruvei Chatzeiros a certain way, and they treat Eiruvei
Techumin a different way:

1) They both begin Eiruvei Tavshilin and Eruvei Chatzeiros with an
Aramaic text ("bahadayn eiruva, yhei shara...") but Eiruvei Techumin
with a Hebrew text ("b'zeh ha'eiruv, yhei mutar...")

2) In Eiruvei Tavshilin and Eruvei Chatzeiros, they both specify that
the eiruv will allow "us" to do certain acts, but in Eiruvei Techumin
they both offer a variety of choices in parentheses.

I found it rather odd that these two siddurim would share such stylistic
quirks while the rest of their text is so different. Not very different
in meaning, but lots of little spelling and grammar changes, and a few
words added or missing here and there. Take a look yourself!

We seem to have a lot of history buffs and siddur mavens on board. Surely
someone has already written a 25K document on "The History Of The Nusach
Of Eiruvin Since 1386" or something like that. Inquiring minds want
to know!

Akiva Miller

On 9 Jun 2003 at 19:56, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> Either way is shorter than last Shabbos' mincha keria in the chu"l
> minyan in Mir Yerushalayim, where they read ALL of Naso and Beha'alosecha
> until sheini!

That's the standard minhag here in all Yom Tov Sheini minyanim other
than Brisk.

When I was a bochur, I was leaving to return to the US for the summer
Motzei Shabbos of Yom Tov Sheini of Shavuos. I asked Rav Nebenzahl if
I had to go to a Yom Tov Sheini minyan for Mincha to hear all of Naso,
since I would hear it the next week in shul. He said that I did have
to go "so if Mashiach comes BE"H you will have one less thing to do to
prepare for him."

The following week, I was at home in Boston and I was asked to leyin.
I asked Rav Mordechai Savitsky zt"l if I was allowed to leyin since I
had heard the parsha already. He said that I could.

-- Carl

RMLevin wrote:
> I recently came across an interesting site
> (http://chaver.com/Articles/TenWrd1.html) that claims a totally different
> arrangement than Chazal's for the 10 commandments on the luchos. To the
> question of why had the Chazal not learned that way, it gave the answer:
> because they were trying to hide from the minim the tri-partite structure
> imbedded into its text. I think that we should labor to understand Chazal,
> not to dispose of their words by such means.

Well, don't dismiss this theory out of hand. It uses some of the same
arguments as Abravanel against the Mekhilta's interpretation, and somehow
I doubt you will give the same cold shoulder to RDYA.

Arie Folger

RCS:
> On 9 Jun 2003 at 23:06, SBA wrote:
>> From: "Ira L. Jacobson" <laser@ieee.org>

>>> I came across the following claim, which on the face of it seems
>>> outrageous.
>>> "Rabbi Bin Nun states as a p'sak that women today are required to wear
>>> T'fillin and T'zitzit. The psak (ruling) was given privately to some
>>> women over a period of several years. The women were not permitted to
>>> publicize the source of the psak."

>> "Outrageous" !? What are you, some RW fanatic?

> I guess Reb Ira is coming out of the closet :-) 
> See the Ramo in OH 38:3.

I know that Ramo. It's of a piece with the Ramo in OH 88:1. I wonder
if R' Bin-Nun is influenced by R' D. Sperber's (unpublished, but
described in lectures) research on the origin of the Ashkenazi customs
of women's avoiding contact with Sifre Torah and Tefillin, now largely
(increasingly?) in abeyance.

First off, the Ramo cites these ideas in the name of "yesh omrim" or
"yesh cotvim", but doesn't say what the real origin is. Ramo and Mishna
Brura argue against the halachic-ness of these things, and Rishonim
(Rashi, Tosfos) are cited in opposition to these customs.

R' Sperber spoke of a book (Sefer haNidot, I think), which has recently
come to light, which may well be the origin of these customs. It seems
to date from the 700s, about the beginning of, or before the beginning
of, the Karaite movement. The interesting thing about it, aside from
its being the earliest source of these customs, is that it also quotes
the story of Eilu v'Eilu and the bat kol, concluding "...and the halacha
follows Beit Shammai". Not Beit Hillel, as in our version. This marks
it off as a sectarian text. On that basis, R' Sperber feels, esp. since
these customs are already falling away, the restrictions should be re-
examined.

And yes, Sephardim also follow these, but the texts show that they got
it from us, in the last few centuries, rather than being an independent
development.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

On 10 Jun 2003 at 10:00, Jonathan Baker wrote:
> RCS:
>> On 9 Jun 2003 at 23:06, SBA wrote:
>>> From: "Ira L. Jacobson" <laser@ieee.org>
>> See the Ramo in OH 38:3.

> I know that Ramo.  It's of a piece with the Ramo in OH 88:1.  I wonder
> if R' Bin-Nun is influenced by R' D. Sperber's (unpublished, but
> described in lectures) research on the origin of the Ashkenazi customs
> of women's avoiding contact with Sifre Torah and Tefillin, now largely
> (increasingly?) in abeyance.

> First off, the Ramo cites these ideas in the name of "yesh omrim" or
> "yesh cotvim", 

Not in my Mishna Brura (I haven't looked at it in the SA). He cites it
in the name of the Kol Bo. The MB there (12) brings a "Tosfos Shabbos"
who says the opposite, but based on what he says in s"k 13, I don't
think he's paskening like that Tosfos Shabbos, but rather like the Ramo
and the Kol Bo.

> but doesn't say what the real origin is.  Ramo and
> Mishna Brura argue against the halachic-ness of these things, and
> Rishonim (Rashi, Tosfos) are cited in opposition to these customs.

I don't see a cite there to Rashi. Or to Tosfos. The Ramo in 88 brings a
Rashi in Nida, but he's referring to a menstruating woman attending shul
and touching a Sefer Torah (something which - IIRC - we have discussed
before). But he's not referring to Tefillin there - they're discussed
in 38. The MB in 88:7 also does not refer to Tefillin.

The explanation given by the MB in 38:13 is that women are not capable
of keeping a "guf naki." This is clearly NOT a reference to menstruation;
otherwise how would the concept apply to men? From SA 38:1-2 and MB 38:4,
it is clear that "guf naki" does apply to men and that it refers to the
ability to control flatulation.

Now if you ask me WHY the poskim hold that men can control flatulation
and women cannot (or even whether that is physiologically correct based
on the science known to us today), I cannot tell you. But it is clear
from the MB in 38:13 that he took women's lack of control over flatulation
as a given.

-- Carl

RDE wrote:
> A formal retraction of his "coverup theory"
> appeared in his volumes of "Selected Writings" - but he insisted that
> even though the explanation was not tenable the problem remained.

As I posted a few digests ago, in a private conversation with the dayaon
of the 'Hareidi community of Basel, RSS stated, to his host's suprise,
that the retraction carried no weight, he merely included it because he
was under tremendous pressure to retract. Anybody who reads the essay
and the retraction will readily see that the retraction doesn't sound
as credible in RSS's eyes as his actual essay on the topic.

Somehow the better argument, coupled with the eyewitness account from
someone more likely to want RSS to retract, is much more convincing than
the retraction itself.

IOW, RSS didn't retract, he merely published a pacifier to his critics. (I
guess he didn't want to end up like the author of TMOAG ;-))

[Email #2. -mi]

On Friday 30 May 2003 01:26, Avodah wrote:
> Just mentioned this assertion to a serious talmid chachom who is married
> to R' Schwab's granddaughter. He said he never heard R' Schwab make such
> an assertion concerning the gemora AZ 9. He said R' Schwab's attitude
> was that it was necessary to honestly ask questions and if a genuine
> answer could not be found to live with the question. He said that R'
> Schab said that this was the approach found in the Rishonim.

> It is quite obvious in his article that chazal are meant to be understood
> literally.The problem is the consequence that secular chronology is also
> meant to be understood literally. Since they contradict each other one
> of them is wrong. His original hypothesis was that the secular dates
> were correct and that Chazal had covered up this reality by deliberately
> making misleading statement to conceal how close the final redemption
> is. His final position was that at the present time the contradiction
> has not been resolved.

In another post, today, I indentified the source of my statement. Note
that an eyewitness account, party to a private conversation, is expected
to be more accurate than a granddaughter's husband. BTW, the said party,
the dayan of the 'Hareidi community of Basel, is also a relative, housed
RSS at his home, as is definitely a major TC.

RSS felt that AZ9 was not literal, because of whatever reason, and he
came up with the cover up theory. I once heard an opinion accepting his
theory but not the reason for the cover up. Instead, my interlocutor
maintained that the reason was that in that period - that of anshei
knesset hagedolah - the AKhG were fighting for survival of the Jewish
people. This is reflected in their mantra as recorded in the beginning
of mass. Avot, to have many disciples, make a fence around the Torah
and to be excessively careful in din.

According to this interpretatino, that period was so bad that 'Hazal
preferred to erase it from history, lest its recollection weaken the
Jewish people in the near future (as in, two hundred years ago our
forebears didn't buy that daat Torah stuff, let's go back, disbelief,
and eat swine, too).

At any rate, RSS's reinterpretation of AZ9 is not a negation of his
belief in 'Hazal. If anything, he credited them with an elaborate plan
to save the Jewish people even when it required doctoring the calendar
... and they were successful.

[Email #3. -mi]

RAA wrote:
> If 165 years were "hidden", doesn't that mean that the year is actually
> 5928?

Yes, except that 165 is not an exact number. In fact, IIRC, RSS suggests
167, so we're in 5930. So what? (If one aggadeta is aggadeta, so is
the other)

Arie Folger
-- 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent out of one's own accord, unless he shall 
bring clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabby Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

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


[ 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         ]