Avodah Mailing List

Volume 22: Number 19

Wed, 27 Dec 2006

• 1. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 2. IVF (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: [Areivim] URL: article about halachic (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: Prophet - mashgiach or godol hador? (David Riceman)
• 5. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (Marty Bluke)
• 6. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: undeserved punishment? (Mordechai Torczyner)
• 8. Re: Prophet - mashgiach or godol hador? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 9. Re: Al petach beito mibachutz (saul mashbaum)
• 10. Re: Shitas R"T (D&E-H Bannett)
• 11. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (Minden)
• 12. Re: Why the woman is makneh herself (Shmuel Weidberg)
• 13. Al petach beito mabachutz (Dov Kay)
• 14. Re: Shitas R"T (Zev Sero)
• 15. zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (Dov Kay)
• 16. Re: History of Havarah (afolger@aishdas.org)
• 17. Al petach beito mabachutz (Dov Kay)
• 18. Re: Al petach beito mabachutz (Zev Sero)
• 19. Re: Why the woman is makneh herself (Chana Luntz)
• 20. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 21. Re: Prophet - mashgiach or godol hador? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 22. Re: Shitas R' Tam (Micha Berger)
• 23. Re: Zmanim (Minden)
• 24. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 25. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 26. Re: Prophet - mashgiach or godol hador? (David Riceman)
• 27. Women/Korim (Rich, Joel)
• 28. Re: Keil melech neeman (Micha Berger)

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 12:00:42PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> : They might have thought that perhaps all of those stars were "kochavim
> : gedolim", and not the three "kochavim beinunim" that are required.

> Define "gadol" and "beinoni" such that "beinoni" refers to the larger
> of the 3% (or 5% or 10%) smallest stars. It's weird to have "beinoni"
> not mean middling (near the mean or median) size...

Well, yes, that's why the shita of 3/4 mil makes more sense. After 3/4
of a mil (in EY, at the equinox), the stars that are visible can easily
be called "beinonim", while the ones that were visible earlier can be
called "gedolim" and those not yet visible can be called "ketanim".

But saying exactly which stars are "gedolim", "beinonim", and "ketanim"
is a job for experts, which is why Chazal gave the shiurim in millin,
which were intended to be easy for people of their day. All someone
had to do was to go out one evening around the equinox, and, as he saw
the sun set, start walking. Once he'd covered the specified distance,
he could see how dark it was, and perhaps pick out some stars that he
would later recognise, and he could know that *those* were the stars
Chazal were talking about.

So it remains theoretically *possible* that the stars visible before
4 millin are all what Chazal called "gedolim", and only the ones that
become visible then are "beinonim", and perhaps the "kochavim ketanim"
are ones that are too small or distant for us *ever* to see with the
naked eye (Chazal knew that there were such stars - see Pesachim 2a); and
therefore the fact that the sky is full of stars long before the shiur
of 4 millin doesn't *prove* RT's shita wrong. It merely makes it less
likely than that of the "geonim", which is why the GRA and AR championed
that shita, and why nowadays most people follow some variant of it.

-- 
Zev Sero

Certainly your post referring to IVF was not along the lines of "well
if you hold that IVF is permitted then ..." - it took the line "given
the existence of IVF..." ie assuming IVF's halachic validity and then
wondering if it was better or worse to utilise IVF than heterim vis a
vis the shiva nekiim. Not that I think this is wrong - I think we as a
society have poskened this way - and certainly Rav Moshe clearly holds
this way. But it is not as axiomatic as all that.>>

I believe that the Tzitz Eliezer was very much against IVF. In the very
various newspaper hespedim they mentioned two great disagreements betwwen
RMF and R. Waldenberg one involving IVF and one involving abortions of
certain fetuses with each posek beginning machmir in one and mekil in the
other. Of course trhere were other lower level disagreements between them

kol tuv
-- 
Eli Turkel

On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 09:42:37AM -0600, JRich@Segalco.com wrote:
: not sure this is true. You iiuc could still being mkayem shevet
: [through IVF -mi]. One could argue similarly by adoptions - where
: just about no one iirc suggests you are being mkayem pru urvu...

Actually, RYBS says there are tvei dinim to piryah verivyah, procreation,
and insuring there are Jews in the next generation. For people incapable
of procreating, adoption does allow one to at least suffer through tza'ar
gidul banim like the rest of us; a qiyum of the one din of PvR they can
do. (Of course, lefum tza'arah agra in this case doesn't only refer to
sechar in olam haba... <g>)

============================================
I agree 100%, he writes about this in riveting prose in Family Redeemed.
My point was though that no one iiuc would say that someone who is
capable of procreation would be "yotze" pru urvu through adoption.

Kt
Joel rich

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
> At first glance the Rambam's introduction does seem to support your point. 
> However, beis din here is not necessarily Sanhedrin. For example Dovid can 
> not be head of Sanhedrin because he was king.

It's true that the Rambam says this in H. Melachim 2:5 about malchei
beith david, but the Kessef Mishna here says unapologetically that David
was a Rosh Sanhedrin. See Hasdei David on Tosefta Sanhedrin 2:8 for a
possible solution.

> The prophets listed were part of the mesorah of the Oral Law. Thus these 
> are the links of receiving and teaching the Oral Law. It is not referring 
> to a judiciary or legislative body.

The Rambam has two lists. I was citing the first list, and everyone I
mentioned is accompanied by the phrase "ubeith dino".

> The Rambam states later "In each generation the head of the then existing 
> court or the prophet wrote down for his private use a memorandum of the 
> traditions which he had heard from his teachers and which he taught orally 
> in public."

But that is later; it may not be relevant to this point.

> At the end he says "All the sages here mentioned were the great men of the 
> successive generations: some of them were presidents of colleges, some 
> exilarchs and some were members of the great Sanhedria... According to 
> your reading he should have said they were all heads of Sanhedrin - when 
> there was a Sanhedrin.

No. Later in the list he also includes colleagues. My claim is that
when he says "X ubeith dino" then X is a Rsoh Sanhedrin. Even if he
was only a haver beith din, however, that's enough to cast doubt on your
claim that a prophet has no political office.

David Riceman

R' Zev Sero wrote:
<They might have thought that perhaps all of those stars were "kochavim
gedolim", and not the three "kochavim beinunim" that are required.

That is hard to imagine. For example, 50 minutes after shkia it is pitch
black outside and you can see countless stars.

<The truth is that something approximating "Laila DeRT" does match a real
phenomenon -- when the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon none of its
light is still in the sky, and it's as dark as it's going to get. This
is what the charts call "astronomical twilight".

However, this does not correspond to 72 minutes.

In NY it varies from approximately 90 - 120 minutes
In Yerushalayim it varies from approximately 80 -100 minutes.
(all times are from http://www.sunrisesunset.com/custom_srss_calendar.asp)

In cities such as Vilna, Moscow, Kovna, etc. in the summer there is no
astronomical twilight.

In any case what we see from here is to say that R"T is a fixed 72
minutes is very very difficult.

Marty Bluke wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
> <They might have thought that perhaps all of those stars were "kochavim 
> gedolim", and not the three "kochavim beinunim" that are required.

> That is hard to imagine. For example, 50 minutes after shkia it is pitch 
> black outside and you can see countless stars.

Nevertheless, they are bigger than the stars that only become visible
at RT's time, and those are bigger than the ones that aren't visible
even then. Therefore, the fact that there are so many of them doesn't
absolutely *prove* RT's shita wrong.

> <The truth is that something approximating "Laila DeRT" does match a 
> real phenomenon -- when the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon none of 
> its light is still in the sky, and it's as dark as it's going to get. 
> This is what the charts call "astronomical twilight".

> However, this does not correspond to 72 minutes.

It does, at the equator. And I doubt that 18 degrees is an exact
shiur, derived from painstaking experimentation that determined that
18 is darker than 17.5, but 18.5 is no darker than 18. The fact that
18 is a nice multiple of 6, and that 6 and 12 degrees are also used as
meaningful stages in the fall of night, is unlikely to be a coincidence.
In other words, 18 is an approximation: at 6 degrees it's dark enough
for ordinary people to call it "night" (which nicely shtims with shitas
hageonim), at 12 degrees it's dark enough to see the stars generally
used for navigation, and at 18 it's about as dark as it's going to get,
and it's time to break out the telescopes and do some serious stargazing.
Which means that there's no reason Chazal's shiur has to come to exactly
18 degrees, any more than the shiur 3/4 mill must be exactly 6 degrees
(though in fact it comes very close).

> In NY it varies from approximately 90 - 120 minutes

Chazal didn't give the shiur in NY

> In Yerushalayim it varies from approximately 80 -100 minutes.

See above, but perhaps this shows that, at least according to those who
gave this shiur, a mill is a bit longer than 18 minutes.

> In cities such as Vilna, Moscow, Kovna, etc. in the summer there is no 
> astronomical twilight.

Indeed. Uvechein? In those places there is lechol hadeos no alos
hashar in the summer, and therefore the latest time for sefiras haomer
is midnight. And there are places in the world where even the 3/4 mill
shiur of tzeis hakochavim doesn't exist in the summer -- indeed there are
places where even shkias hachama doesn't happen. This doesn't invalidate
those shiurim. So the existence of places and dates where RT's shiur
is never reached doesn't disprove it. In those places, midnight will
be considered a virtual tzeis hakochavim.

> In any case what we see from here is to say that R"T is a fixed 72 
> minutes is very very difficult.

Oh, that's not difficult, it's impossible.

-- 
Zev Sero

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

From: Micha Berger -
> No one claims to really know tzadiq vera lo, rasha vetov lo. That's also 
> a maamar Chazal. 

Worth noting: The maamar chazal is that Moshe doesn't understand it,
and indeed asks HKBH about it. That's hardly a statement that "no one
really claims to know."

> I posted here in the past (way back) an idea from R' Jack Love (a 
> rebbe in a yeshivah gedolah and a local dayan). Why are there so many 
> reasons given for the death of Nadav vaAvihu, or for what Moshe did 
> that warranted not entering EY, or for churban bayis rishon, or sheini? 
> Because they realized the problem is unsolvable, but against that still 
> needed to fight to find meaning. 

Maybe (and someone makes that point in an article in the most recent
Tradition, on Kol Dodi Dofek) - but there is another way to look at,
when we see the different approaches of Chazal on Tzaddik v'Ra Lo. One
could note that not every answer handles every case. Sometimes it really
is bad mazal (per Netziv on "mipi elyon"), sometimes it's bittul torah,
sometimes it's cheit hatzibbur, sometimes it's hayah b'yadam lmichos,
sometimes it's yisurin shel ahavah, sometimes it's avon nedarim, etc.

> In this case, I would go further and invoke RYBS's advice in Qol Dodi 
> Dofeiq -- any attempt to explain tragedy will be emotionally sterile or 
> intellectually simplistic, and quite probably both. 
...
> I think asserting these maamarei Chazal as though they provided 
> definitive ways of understanding tragic events does come across as RYBS 
> describes. 

I, too, am in favor of following the counsel in Kol Dodi Dofek - but
discussing the approaches of Chazal, and pitting them against each other,
is hardly declaring any of them to be definitive. It's legitimate to
ask why one Tanna or Amora didn't take into consideration the answer
of another.

Be well,
Mordechai
--
Congregation Sons of Israel, 
Allentown, PA 
http://www.sonsofisrael.net 
HaMakor!  http://www.hamakor.org Mareh Mekomos Reference Library 
Webshas!  http://www.webshas.org Index to the Talmud

In a previous post I mistakenly asserted that the Rambam nowhere stated
that prophecy had ceased. He in fact states in Moreh Nevuchim 2:32 and
2:36 that prophecy ceased because of the depression of Exile. He also
states in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 7:4 that prophecy requires simcha.
According to what he says in Moreh Nevuchim this is not obtainable
in Exile. In MN 2:36 he also states that prophecy will return in the
Messianic age.

MN (2:32): ... There were also persons who prophesied for a certain time
and then left off altogether, something occurring that caused them to
discontinue prophesying. The same circumstance, prevalence of sadness
and dulness, was undoubtedly the direct cause of the interruption of
prophecy during the exile: for can there be any greater misfortune for man
than this: to be a slave bought for money in the service of ignorant and
voluptuous masters, and powerless against them as they unite in themselves
the absence of true knowledge and the force of all animal desires? Such
an evil state has been prophesied to us in the words, "They shall run to
and fro to seek the word of God, but shall not find it" (Amos viii. 12);
"Her king and her princes are among the nations, the law is no more,
her prophets also find no vision from the Lord" (Lam. ii. 9). This is
a real fact, and the cause is evident; the pre-requisites [of prophecy]
have been lost. In the Messianic period--may it soon commence--prophecy
will therefore again be in our midst, as has been promised by God.**

> The conjecture of Heschel is rather far fetched - especially since the 
> Rambam relates in Letter to Yemen that he has a family tradition that 
> prophecy will be restored in 1210-1216. That implies that up until that 
> point there is no prophecy. Rambam died in 1204. On the other hand - 
> aside for this mention of family tradition - the Rambam nowhere states 
> prophecy ceased. It is also interesting that the family history the 
> Rambam mentions is actually a Yerushalmi.(Shabbos 6:9)
Daniel Eidensohn

RDS wrote about lighting the menorah outside:

But outdoors it has to be at the door to your house or yard. Is that the
front door, the entrance to the building or the entrance to the courtyard
(we have 8 buildings in a tight square.)

Rav Asher Weiss in his public shiurim , although not entirely negating
the custom in EY to light in the entrance to an apartment building,
questioned this practice. He said that from the sources we can see that
there should be a connection between the menora and the house; an observer
should be able to see from the position of the menora whose house the
menora belongs to. Clearly, this is not the case when the menora is lit
in the entrance to an apartment building.

Saul Mashbaum

Re: <<All that matters is that the earth is in fact a globe. Which was
known in Chazal's time, and certainly in that of the rishonim.>>

I once had a list of sources which show chazal's knowledge of the earth
being a ball. When I went through them carefully, I felt that, in many
of them, we are being influenced by our own knowledge to interpret their
remarks as being clear statements of the earth being a ball when they
reaslly aren't

David. 

I'm afraid I didin't have the time to read all the interesting posts on
this topic in depth, but if you're really interested in the matter and
aren't satisfied with second hand ideas of what the XYer Rebbe said the
Mogen Avrohm said, I strongly recommend Rav Yehudah (prof. Leo) Levi's
very illuminating maamar in his "Halachic Times".

Lipman Phillip Minden
http://lipmans.blogspot.com

On 12/24/06, Chana Luntz <chana@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:

> As I have mentioned when the use of this phrase came up previously, it
> is very rash to take a rabbinic concept which has a particular
> application, and apply it more generally, especially in a Torah
> shebiktav context in situations where chazal and the rishonim/achronim
> never applied the concept.

If a concept is valid, then whether it has been explicitly expressed
previously, should not matter. The concept would have been made use of
because it is true.

You say that the concept was specifically applied to yichud, but if you
are willing to try to understand the underlying reasoning behind it,
it would make sense to apply it to marriage as well.

-Shmuel

<<Not all of the minhagim practiced by the Prushim in Eretz Yisrael stem
from the Gr"a.>>

Rav Sternbuch in Moadim Uz'manim expressly states that the Gra held
that one should light inside, not outside, so I can only assume (if he
is right) that the minhag hap'rushim has other origins.

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

D&E-H Bannett wrote:
>> All that matters is that the earth is in fact a globe.  Which
>> was known in Chazal's time, and certainly in that of the rishonim.

> I once had a list of sources which show chazal's knowledge 
> of the earth being a ball.  When I went through them 
> carefully, I felt that, in many of them, we are being 
> influenced by our own knowledge to interpret their remarks 
> as being clear statements of the earth being a ball when 
> they reaslly aren't

This is true. Many references to "kadur" can be understood to mean
a disc. If it were the case that the Earth's shape and size was not
generally known, and various references were adduced to show that Chazal
did know it, with the object of demonstrating that Chazal were either
unusually well educated, or had access to Other sources of knowledge
(i.e. "istakel be'oraita uvera alma", and/or "sod Hashem liyre'av"),
then those references would have to be viewed sceptically.

But in fact that the Earth's shape and size were well known in Chazal's
day, and therefore it is to be expected that at least the more educated
among them, especially those in EY, knew this. Since it is the
expected result, references that may indicate such knowledge need not
be treated with undue scepticism. OTOH it's not surprising that some
of the Bavli amoraim may not have had this knowledge; they may even have
seen references to "kadur", by which the original writer meant a globe,
and misunderstood them to mean a disc.

-- 
Zev Sero

>>>You are right. The Gr"o himself makes this point, that the zman daled mil 
>>>is only in Bavel/EY. However he is a daas yochid in this point.

This is not the case. Besides the Baal HaTanya, the Minchas Cohen (Maamar
2, Ch. 3) considers the question whether the 4 mil that Rabbi Yehudah
refers to vary according to the place (ie latitude). He concludes that
it clearly does, based on sevara, nisayon and the perush of the Rambam
to the effect that the 72 minutes between alos hashachar and hanetz
hachama is calculated using sha'os z'manios.

Kol tuv
Dov

RMB wrote: <<1- Sounds dropped because they do not exist in the local
language, or mutated to the nearest equivalent in the local language. The
American qamatz, cholamand reish leap to mind.>>

While the mechanism you propose is sound, I wonder, VOS IZ SCHLECHT MIT
DER AMERIKANISCHE OHSSPRACHE fin choilem in raish?! Actually, some argue
that they are superior. The American reish may be a reish refuya.

Kol tuv,
Arie Folger [not an American]
--
check out my web site http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

<<Do you really mean galus, or golah? One is only in the golah in chu"l,
but one can be in galus in EY as well. Galus Yavan was entirely within
the bayis sheini period.

I ask because if RMS means that the "she'as shakanah" is galus, then
the sevara should apply in pre mashiach EY as well. Whereas if he means
that the sakanah is being a minority in a country ruled by non-Jews,
it wouldn't.>>

I hope that I have not misrepresented RMS's position. RMS gives two
reasons why most acharonim hold that we should nowadays light inside.
First, that the "sha'as sakana" method of lighting inside was "instituted"
because there would be times when lighting outside would be dangerous.
We therefore all light inside so as to avoid the occurrence of dangers
in those situations (and compares this to R. Y Salanter's ruling
that everyone should eat on YK during the cholera epidemic in Vilna).
The second explanation, which he seems to favour, is that the poskim
were worried that non-Jews would extinguish the lights left outside.

He was not making any comment on our state of "golah" or "golus".
That was my contribution. RMS does not really distinguish between EY
and chutz la'aretz, although he praises the custom of the p'rushim
of Yerushalayim. From my own perspective, I do not have the same
problem with outdoor tallis-wearing or chanuka lighting in EY as in
chutz la'aretz. So I suppose that I should have used the term "golah".

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

Dov Kay wrote:
> I hope that I have not misrepresented RMS's position.  RMS gives two reasons 
> why most acharonim hold that we should nowadays light inside.  First, that 
> the "sha'as sakana" method of lighting inside was "instituted" because there 
> would be times when lighting outside would be dangerous.  We therefore all 
> light inside so as to avoid the occurrence of dangers in those situations 
> (and compares this to R. Y Salanter's ruling that everyone should eat on YK 
> during the cholera epidemic in Vilna).

She'elas tam: Who, exactly, "instituted" this? Where, and how long ago?
Where is this "institution" recorded? Because the Shulchan Aruch seems
never to have heard of it. He says to light outside, or in the window
if this is impractical, except "bish'as hasakana". No mention of an
"institution" that we should always behave as if there were a sakana.
The Rema simply notes "bizman hazeh shekulanu madlikin bifnim", without
mentioning any "institution" mandating this practise, or indeed giving
any reason at all.

RSW wrties:
> On 12/24/06, Chana Luntz <chana@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
> > As I have mentioned when the use of this phrase came up previously, it
> > is very rash to take a rabbinic concept which has a particular
> > application, and apply it more generally, especially in a Torah
> > shebiktav context in situations where chazal and the rishonim/achronim
> > never applied the concept.

> If a concept is valid, then whether it has been explicitly expressed
> previously, should not matter. The concept would have been made use of
> because it is true.

That is assuming that you indeed understand the concept. But if the
rishonim and achronim don't generally refer to the concept and utilise
it in the way that you assume they should understanding the concept as
you do, then it suggests that in fact you do not understand the concept.

You are assuming that you know what nashim datan kalos means. Based on
your understanding of what it means, you then explain a Torah halacha.
But if the rishonim and achronim do not use the concept in the way you
wish to do it, then it suggests that in fact you do not understand the
concept. Try and think about it in a case with less emotive conatations.
Think of a rabbinic concept (I dunno, chazaka, safek d'rabbanan l'kula -
I may not have thought of the best examples here) and where it is used.
Would you then feel confident in explaining a torah halacha based on a
rabbinical concept such as these

> You say that the concept was specifically applied to yichud, but if
> you are willing to try to understand the underlying reasoning behind
> it, it would make sense to apply it to marriage as well.

That is assuming your understanding of the underlying reasoning is
correct. As I pointed out, in the very case of yichud, the rules are
*more relaxed* (at least according to tosphos and the Shulchan Aruch)
vis a vis marriage than not - which would seem proof positive that in
fact, whatever the concept means, one should not apply it to marriage.

Regards
Chana

R' Marty Bluke said (and lots of others seem to feel similarly):
> In any case what we see from here is to say that R"T is a fixed
> 72 minutes is very very difficult.

And I tend to feel that way too. But a thought just occurred to me:
For purposes of Tal UMatar, we hold a solar year to be exactly 365.25
days, even though Chazal knew it to be inaccurate. We use the inaccurate
calculation for very practical reasons, to make it easy for people to
calculate it. Perhaps this is also RT's reasoning?

For the great majority of the world, and for the great majority of the
year, 72 clock minutes is more than enough time to insure that Tzeis
has passed, so we use it in all cases for simplicity's sake.

Just a thought to think about...

Akiva Miller

R' David Riceman wrote:
> From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
>> At first glance the Rambam's introduction does seem to support your 
>> point. However, beis din here is not necessarily Sanhedrin. For 
>> example Dovid can not be head of Sanhedrin because he was king.
> It's true that the Rambam says this in H. Melachim 2:5 about malchei 
> beith david, but the Kessef Mishna here says unapologetically that 
> David was a Rosh Sanhedrin.  See Hasdei David on Tosefta Sanhedrin 2:8 
> for a possible solution.
The Kesef Mishna is not saying that the **Rambam** holds Dovid was the
head of Sanhedrin - and we are concerned with the Rambam's view not the
Kesef Mishna. Furthermore I could find no source that says that Dovid
was the head of Sanhedrin. It also contradicts Berachos 3b which states
that Benaiah and Jehoiada were the heads of Sanhedrin in the time of
Dovid. We are faced with the problem of what the Rambam meant by the
prophet's beis din. There is apparently no source in Tanach or Chazal
for such a statement. The parallel text in Avos (1:1) makes no menion
of beis din. Furthermore he clearly said that a king from beis Dovid
could not be a member of Sanhedrin. It is also unclear what the Rambam
(Commentary to Sanhedrin 2:2) that Dovid was included in the Sanhedrin.
R' Kapach cites Sanhedrin (107a) that the Sanhedrin separated from him
for 6 months when he sinned. Maharal to Sanhedrin explains that Dovid
was rejected by the elite of the society because of his sins. It doesn't
seem to mean that Dovid was a judge in the Sanhedrin.

I'll stick with my view that the Rambam is describing the links in
teaching Oral Torah and was not describing Sanhedrin at all. However there
doesn't seem to be any hard data which would resolve our disagreement.

Daniel Eidensohn

On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 05:27:09PM +0200, Ptolmey dictated to RDBannett:
: Of  course it is possible and quite logical.  Your error is
: that you labor under the misconception so common today that
: the earth is a ball rotating around itself and also around
: the sun.  If you go back to our ancient and well proven
: tradition of a flat earth with the sun going around it, the
: light disappears all over at the same time.
...
: Claudius Ptolemaeus

But in the Ptolmeic universe, the earth is a sphere and everything
orbits around it. Then they added epicycles, orbits within the orbits,
getting ever closer to the true path of the planets in the sky though
what would later be called Fourier analysis.

Having a single sunset across the whole earth requires flatness,
not Ptolmey.

But in any case, I argued a while back ('99, ie the first vol 2) that
Chazal's astronomy evolved with the conservative side of contemporary
theory. And thus R' Yehoshua's notion (1st cent CE) of the sun going
behind a flat sky was far from their last word on the subject.

By Rebbe's day (100 and change years later) Ptolmey's cocentric spheres
won the Jewish thoughtspace; in between, it became the leading theory
among the Hellenes as well. The only difference was that they believed
the stars were embedded in the sphere and thus moved it, and we had
a machloqes about whether they moved around on the sphere. With one
exception: I think it looks like R' Chiya thought the sun orbited a
flat earth. That would explain his comment about it warming the pools
at night from below.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n183.shtml#11>.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
micha@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

R'  Tzvi Stein wrote about Kabbolas Shabbes after tzeis hakkouchovem:
> Oh, it's allowed all right. Kabbalas Shabbos is similar to kiddush
> halachically, in that just as you can make kiddush either before sunset
> (common in the summer months) or after sunset, you can also say Kabbalas
> Shabbos before or after sunset.

You can make kiddesh before or after shkie and nacht, but kiddesh is the
"sanctification" (or: declaration of the distinctiveness) of Shabbes,
while Kabbolas Shabbes is explicitly the reception and acceptance of
Shabbes as of now, originally in the fields and all that jazz. I don't
see how you can be mekabbel Shabbes after the shkie.

> You may be even more surprised to learn that, although not commonly
> done, it is allowed to daven the Motzei Shabbos maariv (including "atah
> chanantanu") and say Havdala over a cup of wine, on Shabbos afternoon
> after Plag HaMincha (omitting the flame). This is only allowed in cases
> where you would not otherwise be able to daven or make havdala (i.e. you
> have to depart on a long trip the instant that Shabbos is over). We are
> also not concerned here that people will think Shabbos is over.

I'm not surprised as in "hadn't known", but the concept of making
Havdole is indeed difficult, as opposed to saying Maaref before the end
of Shabbes, but without Atto chounantonu.

> I guess the overall reason for this lack of concern in halacha is that
> it is assumed that everyone knows that Shabbos is governed by the sun,
> so they will not get confused by seeing kiddush, kabalas Shabbos, or
> havdala done at "less than ideal" times.

This danger of confusion I mentioned is only a side aspects maybe. What's
really hard to understand is the explicitly pre-Shabbes addition and
explicitly being mekabbel Shabbes only in mitten Shabbes.

Lipman Phillip Minden
http://lipmans.blogspot.com

     Re the discussion about 3 kochavim beinonim: When I learned in 
Ponevez, I heard b'shem the Chazon Ish (who was still alive at the 
time) that when one sees ten stars, it means that there are three 
beinonim.

     As for the comment that "there are places where even shkias 
hachama doesn't happen," it depends on how one looks at it. At the 
pole, in summer, the sun rises in the sky until it reaches a high 
point, then starts setting until it reaches a low point, twenty-four 
hours after the rise began, then starts rising again.  Though the sun 
is always in the sky, it might be justified to consider as sh'kias 
hachama the moment when the setting ends and the rising begins.  
Certainly, it would seem that that is the moment the date changes.  I 
don't know what the metzius is during the six-month night.

EMT

Elazar M. Teitz wrote:

>      As for the comment that "there are places where even shkias 
> hachama doesn't happen," it depends on how one looks at it. At the 
> pole, in summer, the sun rises in the sky until it reaches a high 
> point, then starts setting until it reaches a low point, twenty-four 
> hours after the rise began, then starts rising again.  Though the sun 
> is always in the sky, it might be justified to consider as sh'kias 
> hachama the moment when the setting ends and the rising begins.  

Of course one does.  But that's completely irrelevant to the point
being made, which was that there's no actual sunset, and this lack
doesn't invalidate the shita that bein hashmashot begins at sunset.
Therefore the fact that there are places and dates when it never
gets dark enough for RT to consider it night doesn't invalidate his
shita either.

> Certainly, it would seem that that is the moment the date changes.  I 
> don't know what the metzius is during the six-month night.

The exact opposite.  The sun begins to rise, but never quite makes it
over the horizon.  Noon is its high point, when it comes closest to
the horizon, so that is when we must count a notional sunrise and sunset
and change the date, just as we do in summer at midnight.

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
> We are faced with the problem of what the Rambam meant by the prophet's 
> beis din. <snip> I'll stick with my view that the Rambam is describing the 
> links in teaching Oral Torah and was not describing Sanhedrin at all. 
> However there doesn't seem to be any hard data which would resolve our 
> disagreement.

See H. Issurei Biah 22:3 "gazar David ubeith dino ..."

David Riceman 

R'YBS was known to feel that women should not go korim on Y"K since it
was not done in the women's area of the  bet mikdash when the avodah was
done. Does anyone know of a source that says women should/could do this
today?
KT
Joel Rich

On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 09:11:38PM +0200, David E Cohen wrote:
: The old minhag Ashkenaz was to always say "keil melekh ne'eman," even
: be-tzibbur. This was one of the minhagim that the talmidim of the Ramban
: took issue with when the came to Provence, since they held that it was
: a hefseik.

This is how the Mei'ri describes it (Magein Avos 1 "Minhagei qodem").

Aside from the Rokei'ach's (and the Kolbo's) "amein" defense, the Ramban's
objection doesn't appear to me to be that strong. (I wonder if the power
of the Rokei'ach's answer won the day because the talmidim of the Ramban
would be likely to accept his rebbe's sevarah.) It's based on his shitah
that birkhas ahavah is a birkhas hamitzvah and therefore must be said
oveir la'asiyasan. But as there is no "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav",
it's non-trivial to insist it's a birkhas hamitzvah rather than shevach.
The berakhah's content is shevach as well.

Not that this would make ahavah unique. Birkhas haTorah raises the same
machloqes. But certainly this doesn't make the Ramban's shitah muchrach.
And in fact, the Y-mi Berakhos 1:3 says the kohenim made birkhas haTorah
before saying Shema. And if you said ahavah, R' Yehudah besheim Shemu'el
(Berakhos 11b) says you can skip haTorah. So maybe it's the same
she'eilah ("shailah").

If we treat it as shevach, then the problem of hefseiq between ahavah
and shema is only in terms of (1) breaking the matbei'ah of the siddur;
and (2) hesekh hada'as -- neither would apply.

So I'm kind of surprise with the Me'iri's "I don't know why it's okay but
since it has been approved of for centuries it must be." I don't know why
so many have a problem with it. Just join those who are choleqin with the
Ramban on the nature of birkhas ahavah.

A second problem -- the gemara (11b, ibid) doesn't require a particular
order to the berakhos. So the entire birkhas yetzirah (yotzeir or) can be
said between ahavah and shema!

...
: The first mention of the chazzan's repeating "Hashem Elokeikhem Emes" is
: in the Zohar Chadash (*). Prof. Ta-Shma surmises that this is an attempt
: to reconcile the desire to reach [2]48 words (an idea that was imported
: from Provence)...

That is the reason given in the Kolbo (9, "Umaschilin Q"Sh). To fulfill "Kol
atzmosai tomarnah". In the name of the Rosh he mentioned using "Keil Melekh
Ne'eman" in particular to complete the count, and says it's a shemirah for
the Rama"ch eivarim.

How can the Prof attribute it to the Zohar Chadash (published to include
material found in Tzafas)? It's already in the Machzor Viri (89, "Barukh
Atah" tr. mine):
And he says Q"Sh with care (diqduq) in its letters and words. And he must
have kavanah to their heart (libum, not libo) to finish the words
corresponding to the rama"ch eivarim. ... And he should put space between
the attachable: Keil Melekekh Ne'eman. Shema Yisrael ... and thereby he will
complete the 248 words. Therefore do not stop between "E-lokeikhem" and
"Emes".

Also, the Avudraham (ad loc) mentions both solutions to the 248 word problem,
he's 14th cent.

(I ellided the material not about KMN except for the last phrase. I do not
understand it. If someone can explain how not stopping helps complete 248
words if one already said KMN, I would appreciate it.)

I have the following from Buber's Medrash Agadah (Devayim 5:11 "Lo sisa")
tr. mine:
And know that the Aseres haDevarim have in them 613 mitzvos, and Qeri'as
Shema has in them 613 mitzvos. But when you cound them [together] there
are 610 words. Therefore tiqnu that before one says shema one says three
words -- and they are "Keil Melekh Ne'eman" -- in order to complete 613
words corresponding to the 613 mitzvos.

So it would seem that KMN is far older than the idea of doing it for
the 248 words. But we don't know how old, since it's unclear that the
manuscript in Aram Tzovah that Buber chose to call "Medrash Agadah"
actually is tanaitic. In any case, we do know it's well before the
rabbanim in this machloqes.

BTW, the davening by the kohanim in bayish sheini is described (same inyan
as in the Y-mi above) as being centered on the Aseres haDiberos and Shema.
Thus justifying the desire to complete their combined count (if you too
were saying the diberos).

On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 12:18:48PM +0100, Minden wrote:
: isn't this whole capitalisation a decidedly Christian thing anyway? Are
: there any tshuves about it, other than those about writing God's name
: in non-Hebrew letters and the like?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Xian" beyond simply that the languaage
in question was invented by and for Xians.

All nouns used to be capitalized. When English shifted to only
capitalizing proper names, references to G-d were left as-is out of
respect. (And "I" stayed capital for narcissistic reasons, I guess.)

It's not about the word, and whether the word should be used as a name
of G-d. We do it for King, Him, (or the "One" on the next line) etc...
when speaking of G-d. It's respect for the One being named, which I
can't see being more Xian than Jewish.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 5, Issue 19
*************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."