Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 041

Saturday, May 13 2006

• translation of term
• bar kochvah
• Re: Another one for the historians
• RE: Another one for the historians
• Re: Another one for the historians
• Re: Another one for the historians
• Spilling drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Avodah V17 #37
• RE: Malachim
• Hallel b'Y"H'
• Re: hallel on 16 Nisan
• Re: Avraham recognizing Hashem
• Re: Challah on the table during kiddush
• Re: Challah on the table during kiddush
• Re: Challah on the table during kiddush
• Re: translation of term
• Candles on Shabbat Table
• Re: Candles on Shabbat Table
• Shavuos - Matan Torah?
• Re: hallel on 16 Nisan
• Rambam on variation in length of month of Elul

I came across a term (for details, contact me privately) and I'm hoping
that someone here recognizes it:
    "Shif ***** Shif Nafik".

It's written in Hebrew letters (on a Matzeiva). The missing (****)
word possibly starts with an Ayin (but I'm not sure).

It's possible that it's from Tanya, Zohar or some other Chassidic source.

Thanks for your help.
Shoshana L. Boublil

Heard a shiur on Bar Kochba. The rabbi asked the "obvious" question of
how R. Akivah could think that Bar Kochbah was Moshiach. He did not seem
to be a talmid chacham and was not not doing any of the other things
listen by Rambam. The Yerushalmi tells us that he had 200,000 men cut
off a finger until the Chachamim complained. In the end he killed his
uncle R. Eliezer Modai over a suspsicious act of his uncle which his
uncle denied. Though this happened later it shows the personality of
Bar Kochbah. Also the yerushalmi brings a machloket between R. Akivah
and R. Yochanan ben Torta while the Rambam quotes the story as everyone
agreeing that he was Moshiach.

His answer was that R. Akivah devlared him to be Moshiach be Yosef who
is a secular leader and so need not fulfill all the requirements. Also
R. Yochanan ben Torta was not disagreeing as he only said that Ben Yishai
wont be coming then.

Though convinced of the pshat he found backing for it recently in the
sefer Yeshuot Meshicho (1:4) who also assumes Bar Kochba was (according to
R. Akiva) Moshiach be Yosef though his reasoning was completely different
based on calculations of when the moshiach could come.

 --
Eli Turkel

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:51:30PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>: We know that the talmidei Rabbi Akiva all died between Pesach and Shavuos.
>: Do we know that their deaths were all necessarily in the same year,
>: or possibly between Pesach and Shavuos over the course of several years?

> It was "almost all", leaving 5 critical survivors.

I just saw Rav Shimshon Pincus's sefer where he says explicitly that
NONE of the 24,000 were left. Such is also mashma in the Gemara that
says "vehaya ha'olam shameim at shebah R"A etzel raboseinu shebadarom",
meaning it was not a continuation of the previous talmidim.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On May 12, 2006, Micha Berger wrote:
>On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:51:30PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>: We know that the talmidei Rabbi Akiva all died between Pesach and Shavuos.
>: Do we know that their deaths were all necessarily in the same year,
>: or possibly between Pesach and Shavuos over the course of several years?

> It was "almost all", leaving 5 critical survivors.

Actually, that's not exactly accurate. R' Meir et al were not yet R'
Akiva's talmidim when the original ones died so technically they were
not "survivors". Had they been his talmidim at the time of the gizeira,
they too would have died.

As far as the reason for their deaths, Rav Dessler explains that the
period between Pesach and Shavuos is the time most mesugal for a hachana
for Torah. R' Akiva represented TSBP but because his talmidim were
insufficiently respectful of one another, his hashpa'a was unable to be
consolidated as a unified transmission of TSBP. Therefore, the time which
was most mesugal for a proper hachana for Torah, and yet was ignored by
his talmidim as a spur to solidify the hashpa'a of their great Rebbi by
beginning to respect one another, invariably led to their deaths. There
is a great sakana if one, in Rav Dessler's words, sees the ohr, and yet
is docheh it. Something has to give. Either the ohr is removed, or the
person is. In the case of the Churban haBayis, the ohr was removed. In the
case of R' Akiva's talmidim, they were removed (this last part is mine).

Simcha Coffer

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:51:30PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>> We know that the talmidei Rabbi Akiva all died between Pesach and Shavuos.
>> Do we know that their deaths were all necessarily in the same year,
>> or possibly between Pesach and Shavuos over the course of several years?

> It was "almost all", leaving 5 critical survivors.

Were they survivors of the 24K? I am somehow under the impression that
after all 24K of his talmidim died, rather than founding another yeshiva
for thousands, R Akiva found 5 new talmidim, and put all his efforts into
them, and that is how he became the "father of the Torah Sheb'al Peh".

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 11:51:07AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Were they survivors of the 24K? I am somehow under the impression that
: after all 24K of his talmidim died, rather than founding another yeshiva
: for thousands, R Akiva found 5 new talmidim, and put all his efforts into
: them, and that is how he became the "father of the Torah Sheb'al Peh".

I didn't think about it much. The gemara struck me as saying that after
the plague or Roman massacre, Rabbi Aqiva went south, where a handful
of his students were safely out of the way among the rabbanim there.

Related would be figuring out when R' Meir switched from tagging along
after acheir to studying under R' Aqiva. Or was it simultaneous? And was
either of his teachers (sorry, calling Acheir "his rebbe" didn't look
right) alive when he lost his children and wife? Were his sons lost in
the same mageifah?

:-)BBii!
-mi

From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
> Wed, 10 May 2006 From: ""Jonathan Baker"" <jjbaker@panix.com>
>> ...for Al Naharos Bavel, the psalmist was in Bavel, we were a conquered
>>people, yearning for revenge. ...Pesach is also about recreating an
>>experience, the experience of Yetzias Mitzrayim. So it's a question -
>>what feelings are we trying to recreate? Sure, in the aftermath of the
>>immediate salvation from the pursuing soldiers, we said Shirah, but do
>>we need to recreate that feeling, of a week later, while recreating the
>>feeling of the moment of Exodus?

> A very interesting approach, introducing the factor the proximity in
> time to the persecutors' acts. But the concept under discussion of
> tempering celebration is based upon the proper reaction demanded of the
> Melachim at the time of the "salvation of the pursuing Egyptians." So,
> unless one introduces another idea, that the conduct expected of Melachim
> somehow relates only/even to the way it should be later on (being that
> Melachim exist outside the barriers of time, perhaps?--are you listening,
> Rabbi Berger? <g>) it would seem to be the same kind of situation as
> in Al Nahros Bavel, wherein Dovid HaMelech prophetically replicated the
> feelings of the nation at the moment of capture.

Whereas, to make your point, you had to introduce the rather controversial
idea that Dovid Hamelech wrote all the tehillim, even those that are
ascribed to people before and after his time. Metzudas Dovid holds your
way, Ibn Ezra legitimizes mine; while in his introduction he says that
he leans towards those who say Dovid composed them all, in his comments
on the beginning of Tehillim 137, he seems to take it at its word,
as if it were written by Leviim in golus Bavel.

Doesn't matter that the malachim are outside of time, if the issue for us
is vihalachta bidrachav, and bechol dor vador chayav adam lirot et atzmo
k'ilu hu yatza mimitzrayim: imitatio dei and recreation of a specific
moment in time, with all of its concomitant emotions. Al Naharos Bavel
evokes the feelings of the immediate golus, which is inappropriate for
Shabbat and Yom Tov, the text of the Seder is meant to evoke the feelings
at the moment of Exodus - hence, ba'avur zeh, when matzot and maror are
in front of you.

They're eating Pesach Mitzrayim, they're having a nice meal, then
at midnight Makat Bechorot, and the cry Go! Go! Go!, and they pack
up and run off, bechipazon. The Egyptians are letting us go! Whee!
And they gave us all their stuff, too! So we can't spare them a little
sympathy for suffering all those plagues, through no fault of their own,
just because Paroh and Hashem were having their power struggle, with no
thought of such on the part of the masses of Egyptian society?

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

RYGB asked:
>>In the Hararei Kedem to Sukkah 7a it is stated that RYBS suggested
>>that lavud only is effective (in creating a wall) horizontally, not
>>vertically. It is very convenient to say so in the sugyah there, but
>>very mechudash. Anyone ever heard such a thing before?

One more source:
 From the gemara in Eiruvin 25b-26a s.v. "Hahi aburvanka dehavah lei
lereish geluta", it seems that lavud includes vertically placed sticks
("azal 'avad kaneh kaneh pa'hot misheloshah".

Gut Shabbos,
Arie Folger

I can think of several examples indicating that malachim are at least
somewhat limited by concepts of time. One example is the famous ma'amar
Chazal that malachim cannot say shira until we do. Another is the famous
Rashi on the pasuk "shalcheini, ki ala ha'shachar" which indicates that
malachim have a specific time when they must say shira. I don't know
how malachim perceive the passage of time (I'm getting a feeling of
deja vu from my old Dessler battles with RMB on Adam haRishon and time)
but it certainly seems that they are at least somewhat connected with
the barriers of time. What sayeth you Zvi (or anyone else)?

Kabbalistically, Melachim stem from the world of Beriyah but are active
in Yetsirah. As such they are subject to time which begins below the
world of Atsilus.

  M. Levin

Re your: <<if one does not hold that Binfol oyivcha is operative and
there is a positive mitzvah to say shira on the downfallof enemies, one
would fall into the full hallel on Yom Hatzmaut camp (is there anybody
out there who does that - I am aware of people who say half hallel with
a brocha, but full hallel?)>>

For the past 57 years OF YH"' in Israel, I have almost always heard full
hallel in shaharit with or without a b'rakha on both Yom ha''Atzmaut and
(for 39 yrs) on Yom Yerushalayim. At ma'ariv I have usually heard full
w/o b'rakha. In Rav Goren's time the evening too was often with a brakha
(which I didn't say)_ I don't remember ever hearing half hallel morning
or evening but am certain that, if I did, it was w/o berakha as otherwise
it would have surprised me and be remembered.

b'rakha v'khol tov,
David

From: "reuven koss" <kmr5@zahav.net.il>
> because the omer is not associated with pesach whereas the mussaf is
> associated with pesach.

Why isn't the omer, even without Pesah, sufficient reason to say hallel?
Please reread my original post.

David Riceman 

From: "CBK" <fallingstar613@hotmail.com>
> Can anyone tell me where is the source for Avraham's realization that
> God exists?

See H. Avodah Zara 1:3, Rabad and Kessef Mishna and Frankel's notes
ad. loc. In addition to the (many) midrashim Frankel cites see Sefer
Yetzira 6:4.

David Riceman 

R' Gershon Dubin wrote:
> You're missing the point of the discussion, which revolves/d
> around NOT bringing food to the table until after kiddush ("ki
> heichi deleisi seudasa liykara deshabata"), as a second reason
> for covering challos in addition to shelo yir'eh hapas boshto.
> This second reason applies even to, yes, fish.

I too missed that whole idea. More precisely, I did see the words "ki
heichi deleisi seudasa liykara deshabata", but I do not understand the
concept. Could someone flesh it out a bit, or at least give some good
mareh m'komos?

It has always seemed to me that the more ready-to-use the table is, the
more kavod Shabbos it shows, and so bringing stuff to the table after
kiddush or after hamotzi introduces an unnecessary delay, which is not
kavoddik. (In fact, I'd think it ideal to have the able fully set before
Shabbos even begins -- including whatever food will be served for the
first courses -- except that we'd want the hot to stay hot and the cold
to stay cold for as long as possible.)

Akiva Miller

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> But one more question: What's so terrible if the table is muqtzah? On
> how many Shabbasos do you move the table? A basis ledavar ha'asur isn't
> asur behan'ah, only betiltul, no?

It's not terrible at all, you could still eat at the table even if it
is Muqtzah, but it's still bad practice to allow the table to become
Muqtzah, as it is assur b'tiltul bein l'tzorekh Gufo or M'qomo.

On another note, another reason why the Challos presence on the table
prevents the table from becoming a basis l'davar muqtzah is not becuase of
the monetary value it represents, or the spiritual value it may represent,
but rather because it is the Iqar Seudas Shabbos, and therefore the table
is basis for the "seudah" that lays on it rather than the candles. IOW,
the Hashivus of the Challah is not spiritual per se, but rather its role
and how it defines the role of the table during Bein Hashmashos.

Jacob Farkas

R' Dov Kay wrote:
>> Reversing this question, why would anyone do that  ("pre-slicing")? ...
> The Rema can be found in OC 167:1, to the effect that the challos on
> Shabbos should not be cut (the term "lachtoch" is used) so that they
> remain whole for the purposes of lechem mishne. ....
> ... It is clear from Tosfos that during the week, one should cut the
> bread to the point where it will still hold together (as RZL pointed
> out), make hamotzi, and then tear the bread apart ....

....I am baffled by this Maharshal  (and the prevalent
custom). Picking up the knife to finish the cut is the  very thing that
we are trying to avoid, as it constitutes a hefsek of  sorts....<<

According to my husband, the reason to make a siman/slight cut on the
challah on Shabbos is this: you have two different halachos:
A. minimize hefsek between cutting and the bracha by cutting bread most
of the way first (like peeling orange first, then making bracha but
B. you don't want to risk losing the wholeness of your lechem mishna on
Shabbos by an unfortunate slip of the hand.

On Shabbos B applies -- but you make a slight siman so as not to  forget or 
entirely ignore the fact that the halacha is really  normally A.

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

"Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> I came across a term (for details, contact me privately) and I'm hoping
> that someone here recognizes it:
>     "Shif ***** Shif Nafik".

Shiyef v'eal, shiyef venafak, velo machzik tivusa lenafshei.

Sanhedrin 88b:
"Eizehu ben ha'olam haba, invesan, ushefal berech, shiyef v'eal, shiyef
venafak, velo machzik tivusa lenafshei"

Rashi:  he bends over as he comes in and as he goes out.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

R. Micha wrote:
> But one more question: What's so terrible if the table is muqtzah? On
> how many Shabbasos do you move the table? A basis ledavar ha'asur isn't
> asur behan'ah, only betiltul, no?

Doesn't tiltul include touching the table, even if it actually isn't
being moved? For example, do you think we can touch pencils, money,
etc. apart where tiltul is permitted -- or rather, isn't that included
in the gezairah of tiltul?

Shalom L. Kohn 

On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 06:17:38PM +0000, Kohn, Shalom wrote:
: Doesn't tiltul include touching the table, even if it actually isn't
: being moved? For example, do you think we can touch pencils, money,
: etc. apart where tiltul is permitted -- or rather, isn't that included
: in the gezairah of tiltul?

Bemechilas kevod Torasah, Morah Miriam got this one wrong. One is allowed
to touch muqtzah. Maybe not pens and pencils, which are very hard to
touch without moving, but the touching itself is not inherently a problem.

Gut Voch!
 -mi

The Torah makes no mention of Shavuos as the time of giving the Torah -
but rather it is connected to the harvest.

The Magen Avraham( #494) asks the question why we assert that Shavuos
is the time of Matan Torah?

I just came across Rivash (#96) which states that there was no link
between Shavuos and Matan Torah until the calendar was fixed. Until
that time there was no necessity that Shavuos would happen on the sixth
of Sivan.

Daniel Eidensohn

From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
> From: "reuven koss" <kmr5@zahav.net.il>
>> because the omer is not associated with pesach whereas the mussaf is
>> associated with pesach.

> Why isn't the omer, even without Pesah, sufficient reason to say hallel? 
> Please reread my original post.

there are two reasons why one says hallel, 1. nes i.e. chanukah or 2.
regel.
the gemara then establishes that on a regel the chiyuv of hallel is the
mussaf of the regel.
i did a bit of looking on shabbos, without success, but will continue
bl"n, for a reason that the parsha of omer is brought davka in parshas
hamoadim.

reuven

HI,

I would appreciate an explanation of a Rambam in Pirush Hamishnayos in
Rosh Hashana on the Mishna "Al shisha hadashim hashluchin yotzim..." (daf
18.) The Rambam states that "Elul al harov esrim vetisha yom..." that
mostly, Elul has 29 days (when the shluchin went out, not in our current
calendar).

My meager knowledge of astronomy does not provide a ready explanation
to this Rambam. The commonly accepted value for the length of the
synodic (from new moon to new moon) month to two decimal points is 29.53
days. This is an average value and any particular synodic month can vary
as much as plus or minus 6 or 7 hours. Thus (to one decimal) the synodic
month varies from 29.2 to 29.8 days. This problem is a 3 body problem
and the perturbations due to the sun and the elliptical orbits of the
sun and moon cause the variations of the synodic month as well as the
complication in the calculation of the theoretical values. One of the
simpler descriptions of this phenomenon (the variation of the length of
the synodic month) is as follows:

"As you know, the movement of the Earth around the Sun causes the new
moon to come roughly after 29.5 days even though the Moon goes around the
Earth once in 27.3 days. In addition, the slight variation of the speed
of the Moon due to its elliptical orbit gives rise to the period between
two successive new moons to be slightly different from 29.5 days. If the
next location of the new moon occurs closer to the pericenter, then the
next new moon will occur in slightly less than 29.5 days. Conversely,
if the next location of the new moon takes it further away from the
pericenter, then the next new moon will occur slightly after 29.5
days..." <http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=343>

Thus for Elul to be 29 days al pi rov, Elul would mostly have to
occur in a reasonably consistent position on average relative to the
pericenter? What would cause this to happen.? I would imagine this would
change with time as the calendar progresses and would not favor Elul or
any particular lunar month.

Can anyone explain the Rambam's assertion and the underlying astronomy?

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

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


[ 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         ]