Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 026

Sunday, May 29 2005

• Giving Up Kehuna
• Early Shabbat in EY (was: Swimming pool is a kosher mikveh?)
• Re: Eruvin
• Re: Eruvin
• Re: hashkafa and psak
• RE: hashkafa and psak
• Re: hashkafa and psak
• Re: innocents dying
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: LAG B'OMER "Am Yisroel Chai"
• Re: When does the availes end on Lag B'Omer?
• Re: When does the availes end on Lag B'Omer?
• Re: Sefira question - another 1
• Re: Sefira question - another 1
• shelo asani isha

R' Russell Levy:
>This shul has members who have 'given up' their kehunah to marry a
> someone who would otherwise be assur (gerushah, zona, giyures) l'chatchila
> (from a p'sak from R' Dovid Cohen based on RMF).

I've never heard of this. Is it in Igros Moshe? If not, does anyone have
more details? It seems to me (speaking from a position of ignorance) that
the kids in such a situation will be chalalim no matter what. And, it
seems that it's being oker davar min haTorah b'kum v'asei. So, what gives?

KT,
MYG

RDS wrote:
> Then again, I have trouble finding an early Shabbes minyan, as RYSE
> is against it, and our neighbourhood follows his psak as a rule. I never
> actually asked why he is against it.

Well, I am sure that there are minyanim doing early minchah (1:30 pm)
in your neighborhood. In that case, you can do kabbalat Shabbat on your
own - eh, with your family - be mekaddesh, eat, and once night sets in,
go to daven with the standard minyanim (you may have to look for the
Rabbenu Tam guys, in case your meal takes momre time than between plag
and zeit ha-kokhavim).

Arie Folger

On Sun, 22 May 2005 I wrote:
> The information I stated comes mipi Rav Reuven Feinstein, who, IIRC,
> accompanied his father to the breakfast meeting where the eruv was
> explained to RMF. I must admit, though, that the fact that KGH is muqaf
> me'hitzot being omitted from the tshuvah is strange, indeed.

RSP then asked:
> If there was such an ironclad reason to allow an eruv in KGH why then
> did Rav Reuven claim that his father didn't want to pasken regarding an
> eruv there? Since in RMF's two teshuvos that refer to KGH (Igros Moshe,
> O.C. 4:86 and Addendum to 4:89) there is no mention of mechitzos as a
> heter it must be that this distinction is actually Rav Reuven's himself
> but not his father's.

According to Rav Reauven Feinstein, his father, RMF, didn't like to pasqen
on eiruvin outside his geographical area (the Lower East Side). IIRC, this
was also connected to the fact that he considered his own understanding of
eiruvin to be somewhat at odds with the generally accepted understandings.

RRF also mentioned that, after the Brooklyn (Flatbush?) eiruv
group saw the success of teh KGH eiruv coup, they also invited RMF
to a presentation, and he refused to pasqen. When they pressed him,
believing he'll agree, as he did in KGH, RMF gave his psaq ... but since
he perceived Brooklyn to be different from KGH, he ruled differently,
to the dismay of the organizers.

The story was related to me a few months after I had been learning hilkhos
eiruvin (must have been in 5761 or 2 - I could find out), when I prompted
him on whether RMF would have considered Manhattan to be eiruvable at
all. I then asked him about Queens and Brooklyn. All this happened at
the exit of the Bialystoker shul in the LES.

Arie Folger

R' Arie Folger wrote:
> According to Rav Reuven Feinstein, his father, RMF, didn't like
> to pasqen on eiruvin outside his geographical area (the Lower East
> Side). IIRC, this was also connected to the fact that he considered his
> own understanding of eiruvin to be somewhat at odds with the generally
> accepted understandings.

> RRF also mentioned that, after the Brooklyn (Flatbush?) eiruv group
> saw the success of teh KGH eiruv coup, they also invited RMF to a
> presentation, and he refused to pasqen. When they pressed him, believing
> he'll agree, as he did in KGH, RMF gave his psaq... but since he perceived
> Brooklyn to be different from KGH, he ruled differently, to the dismay
> of the organizers.

While one part of your post, "the fact that he considered his own
understanding of eiruvin to be somewhat at odds with the generally
accepted understandings," states clearly in Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87 the
other part of your post that the rabbanim of Flatbush, "also invited RMF
to a presentation," is in conflict with this teshuvah. Since Rav Moshe
clearly states at the beginning of this teshuvah that the rabbanim of
Flatbush came to him asking for his p'sak concerning an eruv and not
that they invited RMF to a presentation.

Additionally, in this teshuvah RMF does not say that when the rabbanim
of Flatbush came to him, "he refused to pasqen. When they pressed him,
believing he'll agree, as he did in KGH, RMF gave his psaq... but since
he perceived Brooklyn to be different from KGH, he ruled differently,"
RMF only states that he didn't want to join them in the matter, because
there are many opinions on this topic, as we see in the Shulchan Aruch
(as you state in your post). Only when some people misunderstood these
words as somehow supporting the eruv did Rav Moshe feel there was a need
to clarify his personal approach regarding eruvin and so he wrote this
teshuvah (4:87). The sequence of events as you related doesn't correlate
with RMF's teshuvah.

Shmuel Pultman

On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 01:03:34AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
:                                                          ... I would
: certainly drink Micha Berger's wine however, this doesn't detract from
: the fact that both RS and RE pesakim have brought some serious issues
: to the forefront that cannot offhand be imputed to elective hashkafa.

I guess this is the essential point of contention:

I do not believe there is such a thing as a pesaq in aggadita that isn't
about kefirah, apiqursus, or min/meshumad. We've turned up the Rambam
saying that there's no pesaq unless is touches on din, and haven't found
another shitah.

I do not believe that R' Elyashiv really was telling his talmidim not
to drink my wine. I don't believe he was attempting to pasqen. (I /do/
believe the previous sentences say the same thing.) Therefore, there's
no means of terminating an aggadic opinion held by even one baal mesorah
-- and we will agree that significantly more than one held of an old
universe (even if you think that it started in the 19th cent), or that
chazal could get science wrong.

So, unless you can defend the idea that there's something that isn't
elective but isn't part of the definition of one of these categories,
I don't see where your understanding of R' Elyashiv's statement is
coming from.

:-)BBii!
-mi

--
Micha Berger             Today is the 33rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total
Fax: (270) 514-1507               submission to truth, and what results?

On Wed, 25 May 2005 "Rich, Joel" wrote:
>> Well, you know my opinion regarding the Rishonim. There are none that
>> claim that the universe is billions, or even millions of years old.... 

>> As far as the acharonim, there are only a handful... 

> Accepting your approach, do you know of a theory as to why HKB"H created a
> world that appears to be so much older than it actually is?

Your question is predicated on information which I consider either false
or misleading. If you are referring to naturally occurring phenomena
such as coal deposits or starlight, I would respond that the assumption
of the presence of a Creator presupposes a mature, fully functional
creation which, looked upon from the perspective of naturalism, seems
to have evolved over countless eons. (Michtav IV).

If you are referring to other methods of dating such as radiometric
dating, transitional fossils, geologic dating, dendrochronology, stellar
evolution etc., the field is too wide to respond to in one e-mail. Pick
one issue and we can discuss it on Avodah.

Simcha Coffer

On Tue, 17 May 2005 "Gershon Seif" wrote: 
> Simcha Coffer wrote:
>> I would actually be shocked if you could illustrate a case where Chazal
>> paskened l'chumra on a Halacha and the Rambam negated their pesak and
>> paskened l'kula due to his estimation of Chazal's inferior scientific
>> grasp. It flies in the face of what the Rambam states openly in his
>> hakdama to the Yad.

> What about zugos? Aren't there chumros l'halacha that the Gemara Pesachim
> is requiring and the Rambam is saying not to worry about the whole thing?

Where does the Rambam say that we can ignore the whole sugya in Pesachim?

[Email #2. -mi]

On May 27, 2005 Micha Berger wrote: 
> I do not believe that R' Elyashiv really was telling his talmidim not to
> drink my wine.

Ditto.

> I don't believe he was attempting to pasqen.

Maybe and maybe not. But it's irrelevant. He was definitely signed on the
ban which means that he was saying that Jews should not read RNS's book

> Therefore, there's
> no means of terminating an aggadic opinion held by even one baal mesorah
> -- and we will agree that significantly more than one held of an
> old universe (even if you think that it started in the 19th cent),
> or that chazal could get science wrong.

I've already mentioned in my "I pledge allegiance to RMB and his wine"
post that there is still not a common consensus amongst the gedolim
rejecting old universe approaches as kefira and thus, you have al mi
lismoch. But this doesn't mean that there are no current day authorities
that hold that this shita is wrong thus effectively "terminating" it
as a viable aggadic approach. Remember, you cannot say eilu v'eilu on
something that is factually exclusive. Either our universe is 6 days
old or six billion...not both.

> So, unless you can defend the idea that there's something that isn't elective
> but isn't part of the definition of one of these categories, I don't see
> where your understanding of R' Elyashiv's statement is coming from.

I've tried my best but my best was not enough...(Isn't that a song
or something...)

[Email #3. -mi]

On 26 May 2005 Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 01:03:34AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
>:               Micha Berger is not a talmid muvhak of RE and thus is not
>: necessarily beholden to his pesak however this doesn't make the issue
>: any less serious.

> .... since it cuts off his talmidim from drinking my wine, eating meat
> from my kehilla's shochetim, etc...

Well, not exactly what I meant...

>: Well, you know my opinion regarding the Rishonim. There are none that
>: claim that the universe is billions, or even millions of years old...

> And I also know that RYGB to REED
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol14/v14n065.shtml#09> points to a very
> different conclusion.

Possibly. But you asked me for my opinion, not RYGB's. BTY, I would
thoroughly enjoy posting a point by point response to RYGB's post but
I understand from you that MB has been discussed to the limit so I
will abstain (unless otherwise requested). Incidentally, if you look at
RYGB'S post (essentially a rehash of the RAK article), you will notice,
as I claimed above, that other than RYDmA, there are no Chazal, Rishonim
or Acharonim that say that the universe is billions or even millions of
years old so you haven't really illustrated anything from his post.

> And there are problems with your blithely dismissing
> acharonim as being influenced by scientific theory.

O.K. Let me quote someone who you respect more than me. 

In attempting to reject the approach that the universe was created with
its "history" as one of its elements (e.g. fossils and ancient looking
rock formations) RAK states as follows:

"But there is an even more serious problem. Nowhere in Torah literature
is their even the barest hint of such an approach. If not for scientific
discoveries, no one would have even thought of presenting such an
argument. Thus, it is both ex post facto and without a basis in
Torah". (pg. 5)

The implications are obvious. Any theory in Torah that is only developed
subsequent to, and as result of scientific discoveries, falls under the
category of ex post facto and is rejected as a truly valid approach for
reconciling Torah and Science by RAK.

> And you ignore the Maharal,

I didn't ignore the Maharal. I outlined, in an exhaustive off-list (or
was it on list?) communication with you, the approach of the Maharal
in detail. At the time you accused me of misrepresenting the Maharal
in order to suit my needs. I assume you haven't changed your mind since
then so it is probably a waste of time to rehash our conversation re the
Maharal. Suffice to say that the Maharal is not referring to the physical
components of MB. Rather, he is referring to their yetziya l'poel from
a prior state of non-existence as he states openly at least twice.

> and feel you understand REED better than his meivi la'or.

Possibly. But so does Rav Dessler's son. And so does Rav Dessler's
greatest talmid alive today, Rav Moshe Shapiro. I've told you on several
occasions before, I am not impressed with name bandying however, if it
is resorted to, I have plenty of my own names to toss around too.

> And
> you know that I feel there is only one rishon who seems to insist on only
> 6 days from yeish mei'ayin to Adam, and even he is explained otherwise
> by REED. So why bring this up yet again?

Are you implying that since you feel that there is only one Rishon
that insists on 6 days, this automatically precludes me from debating
your position? Surely not (I assume). But there is even a bigger issue
here. I haven't "brought this up yet again". You did. I was *responding*
to your following comment in the recent Avodah Digest #22:

"And if no one believes R' Elyashiv is really taking that step, then in
what way is this a matter for pesaq? And then how can one write out the
chiyuv to learn the position of numerous rishonim and acharonim? (Even
if they're not to be embraced.)"

I simply responded that I felt that there are no Rishonim to "write
out" and the acharonim are marginal constituting a shita dechuya. You
are certainly entitled to disagree with me but at the same time, I am
entitled to my opinion. BTY, the Radak and the Rashbam both say the same
as the Ramban so now we're at three Rishonim, not one.

> Is R' Elyashiv actually pasqening that it's kefirah? Should I assume
> his talmidim must treat me as a tinoq shenishba (at best)?

> Or is it not really pesaq in halakhah? In which case, what's the maqor
> for ruling out positions of aggadita?

I don't understand you. Do you actually think that the dozens of
gedoley Torah, Roshei Yeshivos and Rabbanim that all signed on the ban
were yingelach? Or that they were close-minded politically animated
extremists that know nothing about the difference between pesak and
aggadita? RE is one of the gedoley hador. If he signed on the ban,
it means that he felt that RNS's book has questionable material and
thus should not be read. Period. Who cares if his opinion is pesak,
aggadita or whatever? You're getting caught up in technicalities that
misdirect the focus from where it needs to be.

Personally, I don't believe that R' Elyashiv would tell his congregants
that it is assur to drink your wine but that doesn't detract from his
responsibility as a gadol to protest, in the strongest terms possible,
what he sees as a pirtza in our messora. As an intellectually honest
yorei shamaim, you are obviously experiencing feelings of cognitive
dissonance reconciling your shita with one of the gedoley hador's
categorical rejection of it. If this is so, why don't you simply call
him to discuss it? (not sarcastic)

Simcha Coffer

>The gemara in Taanit 5b states that Shmuel died before his time because
>it was time for David to become King. The gemara asks if it is possible
>for someone to die because of another even though he is "innocent"
>and the gemara answers that this is indeed possible.

How does this jibe with the gemara in Brachos that explains (according
to one answer, IIRC) that the reason the girls answered Shaul (not yet
melech) in such a long winded fashion (Shmuel I, 9:12-13) was in order
to delay him so that Shmuel would get every second of the malchus he
deserved.

 - Danny, working from memory
   doniels@gmail.com

On May 22, 2005 David Riceman wrote: 
>> Yes, but where do you see that "the Rambam holds that saying tehilim
>> doesn't help"?

> The Rambam says:
> 1. lahash doesn't work.
> 2. divrei torah heal the soul but not the body.
> If saying tehillim heals through a third unmentioned mechanism haser
> ikkar min hasefer.

The Rambam doesn't mean that divrei torah are only capable of healing
the soul not the body for if so, what's the issur of uttering pesukim
to try and heal someone? It can't be the issur of lechisha because
lechisha is a subset of chover and chover is defined by the Rambam as
words that are not part of any language and don't have any intrinsic
meaning i.e. mumbo jumbo.

Therefore, he must mean that it is assur to do because divrei torah are
not to be misused in this fashion. Divrei Torah are supposed to be a
panacea for the soul; by using them to expedite ones recovery from a
makah, he is being michalel the Torah...that's why the Rambam calls him
a kofer batorah.

Simcha
> Good question. I don't have a perfectly satisfactory answer for you but I
> can definitely prove to you that doing something partially wrong can help.
> My proof is from Eliezer eved Avraham who was minachesh and despite the fact
> that it was improper, Hashem gave him hatzlachah.

David 
> See peirush R. Avraham ben HaRambam on Breishis 24:12.  He says explicitly
> that this was not nahash, and he generally was meticulous about following
> his father's opinions.

Well, apparently he wasn't meticulous enough this time as the Rambam
states openly that what Eliezer did was nechisha and assur (halachah
dalet).

David
>> In fact the heter according to the Shulhan Arukh seems to be predicated on
>> the magical efficacy of lahash.

Simcha
> <How do you see this? The SA states openly that lichisha is eino moel klum
> (halachah 6)>

David 
> This is a good question.  The source for the heter of pikuah nefesh is the
> Tosafos in Shvuos, who did believe in the efficacy of lahash.

Tosfos doesn't believe in the efficacy of lachash. He believes in the
efficacy of divrei torah.

>  The naive
> reading of the Shulhan Arukh is that he paskened two halachos based on
> majority opinions even though their motivating reasons were contradictory

I don't believe so for the very reason I supplied which is that there is a
difference between lechisha and uttering pesukim. Some (e.g. Rashi) learn
the Gemara in shevuos that RYBL assured lechisha using pesukim however
the SA (halacha ches) clearly understands them as two separate phenomenon.

> (I'm sure you're familiar with Arrow's theorem).  This is a known, though
> disturbing, phenomenon in the SA.

Arrow's theorem is irrelevant as the Michaber was an authority on his own
and had a right to conclude his halachos based on a mixture of different
shittos (although I concede that he rarely did so). I have no problem
with this. However, as I mentioned above, I don't think there is an eiruv
parshios here. The SA could be going like Tosfos that pesukim are moil
however they can only be used during times of a sakana and the Rambam
would (or might) agree.

>   OTOH it's always nicer to have a consistent reading of the SA.  I doubt,
> however, that any reading you come up with will also fit the Rambam's
> opinions.

I believe I've achieved a consistency and a "fitting". (I doubt I've
convinced you though :-)

[Email #2. -mi

On Mon, 23 May 2005 Micha Berger wrote: 
> The bottom line question, which no one else seems to be directly
> addressing (and I only ask without having an answer) is knowing how the
> Rambam distinguishes between lechishah and tefillah.

> Lechishah is very distinctly described in the gemara as including
> reciting pesuqim.

Not necessarily. I contend that the Rambam, and for sure the SA,
understood them as two distinct phenomena. See my post to David
Riceman. The Gemara (RYBL in Shevuos and R' Akiva in Sanhedrin) can be
understood as uttering pesukim *in addition* to lechisha. IIRC Kesef
Mishna understands the Rambam in that fashion too.

> I suggested that the difference is that lechishah would be thaumaturgy,
> the desire to manipulate reality through metaphysical forces. I asked
> how that's different than kemei'os or other practices common in many
> kehillos. (Of course, who said they need to hold like the Rambam?)

The difference is that lechisha really doesn't work. It's just uttering
mumbo jumbo as opposed to certain sanctioned segulos such as kemios that
really do work. Lechisha is not thaumaturgy in the strictest sense because
lechisha is incapable of manipulating the forces of nature in any way. The
Rambam calls it sichlus...foolishness and says that it is eino moil klum.

> The other problem with my suggestion is that the hamon am do tend to
> see these things in thaumaturgical terms. Segulos, Mi Shebeirach's,
> Tehillim, tzedaqah besheim R' Meir Baal haNeis, etc... People do slip into
> metaphysical mechanistic peceptions of these things. Even learning Hil'
> Shemiras haLashon has taken on this charateristic in the last decade. (A
> tzarah in the community? All the women should learn Chafeitz Chaim!)

I don't see any problem with any of the above activity. The Gemara states
openly (RYBL in Shevuos) that doing certain spiritual things has the power
of protecting you on a physical plane. In addition, the Torah tells us
in several instances, that doing certain aveiros causes certain onshim
to come. For instance, lashon harah brings on tzaraas. Not keeping
sheveeis properly brings on aneeyus etc. What's wrong with learning
Shemiras halashon to address tzaros in the community? I think it's a
wonderful thing.

> So I ask for a definition of lechishah, not necessarily the Rambam's
> but some mesoretically based one, that doesn't condemn the majority of
> the actual hamon am as practitioners of it?

The definition of lechisha is uttering sounds that have no meaning and
are not part of any language and imagining (or attempting to cause
others to imagine) that your "words" have thaumaturgical powers. A
Shaman leading a tribe of half-naked American Indians in a ceremonial
rain dance immediately springs to mind.

[Email #3. -mi]

On Wed, 25 May 2005 "Micha Berger" wrote:
> Not what I said. I said a desire to manipulate reality through
> metaphysical forces. A definition which would include many qabbalistically
> derived practices. The gemara explicitly talks about "lachash" as a way
> of compelling G-d, such as daring Him to fulfil a havtachah.

I think you're confusing lachash with nachash, two different
things. Daring Hashem to fulfil a havtachah is nachash, not lachash.

> This definition would brand many O Jews who rely on segulos as well as
> many who say tehillim, Mi sheBeirach or learn hilkhos LH reflexively
> as koferim.
> ...       How often does it generate the impetus for tefillah and teshuvah
> vs just being done because it works metaphysically, somehow?

If a minhag yisroel has a good taam to it and one happens not to be aware
of the taam, I don't think the Rambam would say that its practitioner
is a kofer.

> I am seeking a definition that doesn't condemn what I fear is the majority
> of O Jews as "koferim". I assume my proposed definition is incorrect if
> it leads to such a conclusion. Otherwise, I would have noticed I preceded
> my question with its answer.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the definition would include
uttering mumbo jumbo that has no taam, no usefulness etc. and attributing
metaphysical powers to this ritual.

[Email #4. -mi

On Wed, 25 May 2005 "David Riceman" wrote:
> I haven't answered this since I don't have an answer either. The problem,
> however, is worse than that, since most (but by no means all) of O Jews I
> know buy into modern science. As the Ramban understands it the efficacy
> of l'hisha is an empirical fact, denied only by Aristotelians who are
> blinded by theory. For a modern Jew how can l'hisha work?

Where does the Ramban say that lichisha works?

> In addition, I don't know of a developed theory of Judaism which can
> justify the popular belief in transactional zechuyoth (i.e., that I can
> trade my zechuyoth for your benefit). Sociologically I think what we see
> is popular belief in meaningless ritual, already condemned by Yishayahu.
> As far as I know it crosses the line into kefirah only when the ritual
> uses Biblical texts, and only according to the Rambam. It does, however,
> demonstrate that the modern flowering of Jewish literacy does not include
> knowledge of ikkarei hadas [not roots of myrtles!].

Other than the clever play on words, I find the above paragraph
problematic. The Torah is full of transactional zechuyot. Bra mizakeh
l'aba, the idea that a son's good deeds redounds to his fathers benefit,
is one. Zechus avos (openly discussed in the Torah) is another. A
Yissocher and Zevulun arrangement, a transaction where the zechus of
Yissachar redounds to the benefit of Zevulun is yet another. (although
Zevulun is paying for the zchus, we see the machinations of transactional
zechuyot in action)

Even tefila is essentially a transactional zechus. If lets say a person
was ordained to die lo'a, and someone was mispalel for him and he lived,
this is essentially a transactional zechus for if he really deserved to
die, how can tefila help? The reason it helps is because now this person
becomes automatically elevated from his former status (of an absolute lack
of sufficient zechusim to save him from death) to a level where he now
becomes a medium for the spiritual elevation of another (the mispalel)
who is now closer to Hashem as a result of his tefila. (culled from
Michtav Me'eliyahu)

There are many stories in the Gemara of transactional zechuyot. For
instance, Acher finally got into gan eden through the transactional
zechuyot of R' Yochanan and his chabura. This "popular belief" is far from
"meaningless" and has solid foundations in classical Judaism.

Simcha Coffer

From: "Cantor Wolberg" <cantorwolberg@cox.net>
>The 33rd day of the Omer is a minor holiday commemorating a break in the
>plague. This day is observed as a day of rejoicing because on this day,
>the students of Rabbi Akiva did not die...

I recall that the MB refers to a Tosephos that says that the students of
Rebbe Akiva did not die on any day that Tachanun was not said. The days
listed are 7 days of Pesach, 6 Shabbosim, 2 days Rosh Chodosh Iyar and
one day Rosh Chodosh Sivan. According to this, the days on which they
died were not consecutive, and they did die on Lag B'Omer. This Tosephos
obviously does not agree with what you wrote.

Yitzchok Levine

R' Yitzchok Levine asked:
> I do not understand how they can be listening to music on the night of
> Lag B'Omer. I know that the availes of Shiva ends on the morning of the
> 7th day, not on the night of the seventh day. I would have thought the
> same concept applied to Lag B'Omer.

The minhag is that for 33 of the days of Sefira, we observe certain
aspects of aveilus.

But there are many different methods of counting those 33 days. At one
extreme is that which people popularly call "the first 33 days", and
at the other extreme is that which people popularly call "the last 33
days". But I think most people never get around to looking at a calendar
and seeing exactly which 33 days they are observing.

It turns out that I once posted (to Mail Jewish) a chart of ten distinct
ways of counting these days.

In 2 of them, simcha is allowed on Lag BaOmer, both at night and the
following day
In 2 of them, simcha is avoided on Lag BaOmer, both at night and the
following day
In 6 of them, simcha is avoided on Lag BaOmer at night, but allowed on
the following day

This chart was posted in Mail Jewish 19:39, and can be found at
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v19/mj_v19i39.html

(The text there talks about eleven different methods, but the chart
shows only ten. The eleventh is described there in footnote A.)

Akiva Miller

Yitzchok Levine wrote:
> Someone just sent me the link <mms://stream.netro.ca/videoeden> You can
> watch them dancing to music in Meron. However, I do not understand how
> they can be listening to music on the night of Lag B'Omer. I know that
> the availes of Shiva ends on the morning of the 7th day, not on the
> night of the seventh day. I would have thought the same concept applied
> to Lag B'Omer.

Someone (from among the list-members :-) ) tried to explain to me why the
local Lubavitcher could make a party on Thursday (32 bo-oumer) afternoon.
It was very much al regel aches, and I couldn't even hear it well, so -
is there a hetterel, maybe connected to Lag on Erev Shabbes?

ELPh Minden

In  Avodah V15 #25 dated 5/27/2005 TK writes:
> I am no grammarian but it seems to me the answer to your  question
> is right there in your question: "THINGS THAT COME IN PAIRS" have  the
> "-ayim" plural.....But when there are two years,
> or two books, or  two houses (things which don't come in pairs but can
> come in any number)  then its shanos, sefarim, batim.

I didn't realize when I sent the above to Mesorah that Avodah was
also on the cc list. Anyway, it has been pointed out to me that you
do indeed find "shenatayim" or "yomayim" so the idea that the "-ayim"
ending is used only for things that come in pairs is, simply, wrong.

Also the plural of shana is not shanos but shanim.

The one accurate statement was this: >>I am no grammarian <<

 -Toby  Katz
=============

Simon Montagu wrote:
> Should we also say "halayla haze pa'amayim" in the Mah Nishtana?

No, we shouldn't. This is the language of chazal, not of mikro.

Lipman Phillip Minden

On Wed, 25 May 2005 T613K@aol.com wrote
> this is terrible,
> all my metaphors are getting mixed up....well what do you want from
> me? Nashim da'atan kalos. Probably that's the reason men make a bracha
> "shelo asani isha." They are so grateful that they can read every issue
> of Avodah including all the Goldberg variations, and still pay attention.

Although I am eminently tempted to agree with the aforementioned analysis,
(I am always highlighting my wife's lack of focus, and she is always
pointing out her superior multi-tasking abilities), nashim da'atan kalos
has nothing to do with a lack of acumen, focus, or any other capacity
related to intelligence. It has to do with personality. What it means is
that woman, by nature, do not have strong personalities...they are not
as adamant about things as men. Thus, it is not difficult to convince a
woman to do something or to change her mind about something. Actually,
the halachah the Gemara uses it for is not the most flattering for women
however middos per se are not good or bad. Thus, a daiya kala can be a
very advantageous quality depending on the circumstance.

Simcha

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


[ 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         ]