Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 185

Fri, 11 Sep 2009

• 1. Re: YT Sheini Shell Golah and the Internet (Micha Berger)
• 2. tzaddik (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: reading thermometers on shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: [Areivim] RHS and dairy (Daniel Israel)
• 5. R.Hirsch and CR Hertz (martin brody)
• 6. Re: who is to blame??; re:moshe rabeinu and Eretz Yisrael???? (T613K@aol.com)
• 7. Re: who is to blame??; re:moshe rabeinu and Eretz Yisrael???? (Harvey Benton)
• 8. Re: reading thermometers on shabbos (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Adam HaRishon (Cantor Wolberg)
• 10. Re: tzaddik (David Riceman)
• 11. Re: YT Sheni (Zev Sero)
• 12. Lo Plog & YT Sheini - 1 (Marty Bluke)
• 13. Re: YT Sheini Vs. YT Rishon (Simon Montagu)
• 14. YT Sheni (Marty Bluke)
• 15. Re: YT Sheini Vs. YT Rishon (T6...@aol.com)
• 16. Re: YT Sheini Shell Golah and the Internet (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: YT Sheini Shell Golah and the Internet (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: YT Sheini Shell Golah and the Internet (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 03:21:04PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: So what will we do when Pesach rotates out of the aviv?

See http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n040.shtml#03 by R Saul
Stokar:
> As stated, it stems from a 6.5 minute inaccuracy of the length of the
> solar year used in calendrical calculations.

And he writes "2215 Pesach will begin on April 25th."

There are 27 days, or 38,800 minutes from April 25th to June 21st.
That is the slippage of 5,802 years AFTER 2215, and since we're talking
about averages, it's a rough estimate of being a problem in the 81st
cent CE. Although in 8107, which is the Shanah me'uberes 11867, and still
Pesach is still in late May, so my math may be off.

In any case, you're talking about something that won't happen until
humanity is more than twice as old as it is already. I'm unable to get
worried about it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

: In hilchot teshuva the Rambam defines Tzaddik, Rasha and Benoni in simple
: arithmetic terms, more, less or equal mitzvot to averot (suitably weighted
: but that doesnt affect our analysis)...

This is problematic to understand in and of itself, since the Rambam in
the Moreh tells us that mitzvos "only" exist to provide opportunities
for yedi'ah. If so, then how can someone who does more total mitzvos but
never gets that yedi'ah be more of a tzadiq than someone who koneh olamo
besha'ah achas -- despite being further from nevu'ah, leihanos miziv
hashechinah (which according to the Rambam does NOT have a capitalized
"S") and olam haba? >>

There are many differences between the Moreh and Yad Chazakah.
As Micha points out one is in the definition of tzaddik.
Similarly in the rationale behind tekiat shofar etc.

RYBS gnerally seemed to prefer the reasons mentioned in the Yad over
that of the Moreh.
He mentions it explicitly for shofar

-- 
Eli Turkel

T6...@aol.com wrote:

> The question was, could you take your temperature on Shabbos?  Missing 
> one day would ruin the usefulness of the graph.  The answer we were 
> given was that yes, I could take my temp on Shabbos (recording it on the 
> graph could wait till after Shabbos of course).

That makes sense; it's an open mishna at the end of Shabbos that
measuring is allowed for a mitzvah, and Pru Urvu is certainly a mitzvah.


>  We were using an 
> old-fashioned mercury thermometer.  Those are hard to come by these 
> days.  I don't know what would be the psak with a new-fangled 
> battery-operated thermometer with an LED display and a beep-beep signal.

I imagine the psak would be to find a mercury thermometer on e-bay
or a second-hand shop.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:12:09 -0600 martin brody 
<martinlbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I don't know if anybody answered this yet, but it is my 
understanding that
>RHS considers cows as suffeik treifas, and rejects rov as measured 
at
>slaughter. As we mostly slaughter steers for meat, maybe he thinks 
milking
>cows are subject to some sort of problem that increases the 
likelihood of
>being trefiot

So, what can we do about this?

That is, it seems to me impossible to say that the Torah intended 
that their be a time when dairy products are impossible to obtain 
in a kosher manner.  Furthermore, it seems clear that those who 
hold this way (AFAIK RHS is not the only one) have to be relying on 
more than simple safek, because it has always been true that some 
cows turn out to be treif, and, again AFAIK, we never see this 
chashash in the Gemara or rishonim.

So I must assume that there is some way the problem could be 
avoided, it is just that whatever the necessary steps are, they 
aren't being taken.  Now, given that this is a very minority 
opinion, it may be perfectly reasonable that they aren't being 
taken.  But I would be very interested to know what, at least in 
theory, would have to be done to avoid this problem according to 
this opinion.

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

"You segued rather confusingly from Rav Samson Rafael Hirsch to Rabbi  Dr.
J. H. Hertz.  These two individuals are NOT philosophically
interchangeable.
Toby  Katz"

Seem pretty philosophically close to me, although CR Hertz was an unabashed
Zionist.
Hope you weren't trying to put the heterodox pin on him. That mistake has
been made often, and I'm not sure why. CR Hertz fought Reform and was a
passionate spokesman for Orthodoxy. Enlightened Orthodoxy as he called it.
Spend some time reading his essays at the end of each Chumash and you can
get his philosophy. But that's only part of it. Suggested reading.
Sermons,Addresses and Studies. It will open your eyes(and minds).
And he made the LBD into the force it is today.

And CR Hertz succeeded Dr.Hermann Adler, R.Nathan Marcus's son.


Martin Brody
310 474 1856
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090910/3c87c952/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 182 dated 9/9/2009

From:  Harvey Benton <harveyben...@yahoo.com>



>>  When Moshe hit the rock twice, Hashem told him explicitly that he would 
not  enter eretz yisrael because he failed to Glorify Hashem through his  
actions.

However, later on, in Devarim, Moshe blames Bnei Yisrael for  Moshe's not 
going into Eretz Yisrael.?? Why the change in explanation???   <<
 
>>>>>
It was B'Y's fault that Moshe lost his temper.  If they hadn't  provoked 
him he never would have hit the rock.
 
 
--Toby  Katz
==========



_____________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090911/cd62beb6/attachment-0001.htm>

rtk: It was B'Y's fault that Moshe lost his temper.? If they hadn't 
provoked him he never would have hit the rock.

Hb:yet why did moshe make a complete distinction from what Hashem had told him was the explicit reason Moshe couldn't enter EYisrael?????????

We are called anshei emes, a leader like moshe (of a nation called
anshei emes) shouldn't change what Hashem explicity told him (unless
Hashem agreed to the second version that we have in Dvarim)??? 

On the topic of changes..... we are also told also that Moshe changed a
large aleph to a small one....against Hashem's will.........hb_____________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090910/2e50ccea/attachment-0001.htm>

In a message dated 9/10/2009 8:49:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
gershons...@yahoo.com writes:

Is  reading the temperature part of the issur of measuring? That would have 
 nothing to do with reading a clock. 
 
>>>>>
I just don't see passive reading as part of any  issur.  You did the 
measuring, in effect, when you first put up the  thermometer -- before Shabbos.  
It's no more assur to read the thermometer  that you set up before Shabbos 
than it is to drink the tea that you boiled  before Shabbos.  That's how it 
seems to me, anyway.
 
Let's take a somewhat different, but pretty common (in Florida anyway)  
scenario.  It starts to get hot in the house and you go over to the  thermostat 
that controls the A/C.  You see that it is 85 degrees in your  house even 
though the thermostat is set at 70.  You say Drat, the A/C is on  the fritz 
again. I never ever heard anyone suggest that it was wrong to go  have a look 
and see just how hot it is in the house!
 
Well OK enough mimetics, now somebody else has to chime in with  text.....
 
 
--Toby  Katz
==========



_____________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090911/9c55c0f4/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha wrote:
"Adam could simply have been misled because he didn't know
what a lie was -- the possibility never crossed his mind. Naivite,
not ignorance or moral failing."

So if that were the case, then how can naivite be a sin?
Also, regarding his wanting a moral choice, that is similar to
what I remember some d'rash which pointed out that man needed
a choice and that eating from the eitz hada'as was necessary. That
explanation is really not satisfying.

Eli Turkel wrote:
> There are many differences between the Moreh and Yad Chazakah.
> <snip>
> RYBS gnerally seemed to prefer the reasons mentioned in the Yad over
> that of the Moreh.
>   
IIRC Rabbi Twersky (from Harvard) said that the reasons in the MN are 
teleological, whereas the reasons in the MT are motivational.

David Riceman

Kohn, Shalom wrote:

> It is worth commenting on the very odd and obscure statement in
> the gemara Beizah about YT sheni generally, that once it was enacted
> by a beit din, even if the rationale for rule does not apply (given
> that we are now familiar with "keviah d'yarcha" (the lunar cycles),
> we are not empowered to change the edict unless a superior Sanhedrin
> is convened.  

Sorry, that is a complete misreading of the gemara.  This statement of
R Yosef is *not* about YT sheni generally, but about whether an egg
laid on the first day can be eaten on the second.  And the reason it
ought to be permitted (and indeed is permitted by Rabah) is *not*
because the calendar is now calculated and we no longer have sfeka
deyoma; but on the contrary: because, after a period in which there was
(occasionally) no sfeka, and during which that gezera had been made,
R Yochanan ben Zakai had restored the sfeka.

There are not two, but four periods to be considered:

1. The original situation: on the 30th of Tishri everyone would
observe yomtov on spec, and as soon as it got light the BD would sit
until eidim showed up.  If eidim showed up they would declare that
day to have been the true RH, and in Y'm that night would be chol,
and messengers would go out to tell the rest of the world about it.
If eidim didn't show up by dark, the BD would be mekadesh the 31st
day, and the 30th would be retroactively declared to have been chol.
Thus there was a sfeka deyoma, and each day was only kodesh if the
other was not.  Therefore an egg laid on the first day was permitted
on the second, mima nafshach.

2. The BD began closing at noon.  If eidim hadn't arrived by then,
they would declare that the 30th was a yomtov midrabanan, and the
31st would be RH de'oraita.  Let me repeat that, because it's the
most important part of this: the first day, which was by then *known*
to be the 30th of Elul and not the 1st of Tishri, was officially
declared to be a yomtov midrabanan.  Thus, when and if this happened
there was no sfeka deyoma; both days were vadai kodesh, and an egg
laid on the first would therefore be forbidden on the second.
In fact this never happened; not once in all the years that the
BD observed noon closing did the eidim fail to show up before noon.

But nobody could know in advance that it wouldn't happen that year;
therefore (R Yosef supposes) the Sanhedrin voted, as part of the
takana, that these eggs would henceforth be forbidden.  Abaye
refutes R Yosef by pointing out that there is no record of any such
clause having been included in the vote, and it makes no sense that
it should have been, since during this period the eggs would be
forbidden anyway, vote or no vote.


3. R Yochanan ben Zakai restored the BD to full yomtov hours; they
were once again open until either the eidim showed up or the sun set.
Therefore situation #1 was restored: once again there could only be
one day of kodesh; if the second day was kodesh it could only be
because the first day had turned out to be chol after all.  There was
no possibility of the first day being declared "the rabbinic feast of
the 30th of Elul".  Thus, the original mima nafshach was restored;
an egg laid on the first day ought to be permitted on the second.
However, in R Yosef's supposition, it was still forbidden, because
when RYBZ's BD voted on this resolution they forgot to include a
clause permitting the eggs.

4. Hillel II enacted the fixed calendar.  There is no longer sfeka
deyoma.  We know for sure that the first day of every yomtov is
the yomtov de'oraita, and the second day is a yomtov by rabbinic
decree.  Therefore both days are vadai kodesh, and in principle an
egg laid on the first day of every yomtov should be forbidden on the
second day, as it was in period #2.  However, the letter decreeing
this second day of yomtov specifically provided that it should be
observed as it had been during period #3.  Thus, even though there's
no sfeka deyoma, we act as though there was one (except on RH,
either because of R Ada and R Salman's reason, or because of Rava's
reason).

To repeat, in case it got lost amid all that, R Yosef's statement
to which you refer is about period #3, not #4.  Kidush Hachodesh was
going on every month in EY, and YT Sheni was in full force in Bavel
because they couldn't possibly know when the real yomtov was.  The
decree that R Yosef said had to be obeyed even though its reason no
longer applied was the one about the egg, which was forbidden as
though there were no sfeka deyoma, even though in fact there was one.


> This type of adherence to earlier rulings is at best an exception.
> (For example, we do not observe the prohibition on uncovered water
> because snakes are not prevalent, per Rabbeinu Tam, and prohibitions
> rooted in magic (keshafim) equally are unobserved).

Those were not davar shebeminyan.  If they were, we would be bound
to keep them regardless of changing circumstances.


> Another example is the changing rules on tumat keri re: studying
> Torah.

That was specifically permitted beminyan.  Until the vote permitting
it it remained forbidden.  And indeed the reason for the original
prohibition never went away; rather, a later BD decided that it was
doing more harm than good, and voted to repeal it.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

R' Wolpoe asked:
<The Rambam Pasqens that Shavuos has YT sheini for no intrinsic reason
- rather as a Lo Plog. Still looking for Mar'eh Maqom

There is no Makor, it is a simple sevara. Shavuos is not based on a
calendar date, rather it is 49 days after the second day of Pesach.
Since the shluchim went out already on Rosh Chodesh Nisan it gave them
over 2 months to tell everyone. Therefore no one in Galus ever had a
safek when Shavuos was as there was enough time for everyone to find
out. Given that, there was no reason to keep 2 days misafek when they
were mekadesh al pi har'iya. If so the only explanation for 2 days
today is lo plug.

The Chasam Sofer (Orach Chaim Siman 148) has an interesting conclusion
based on this. He claims that since Shavuos was never a safek it is
more chamur then regular Yom Yov Sheni and has the same din as Rosh
Hashana that it is kedusha achas.

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:09 PM, <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> There is an early source allowing for dancing on Simchas Torah - davka
> because it is ONLY YT Sheini [IIRC this is Rav Hai Gaon]


So is there any source allowing for dancing on ST in EY when it's YT Rishon,
and in many years including this year Shabbat to boot? I have never been a
big fan of the literally endless dancing that goes on in most batei
kenesset, and I would be overjoyed to find a solid halachic basis from which
to object rather than the "Bah, Humbug!" for which my only source is Even
Ha`Ezer Scrooge ;-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090910/b8b3237b/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Kohn writes:
<It is worth commenting on the very odd and obscure statement in the
gemara Beizah about YT sheni generally, that once it was enacted by a
beit din, even if the rationale for rule does not apply (given that we
are now familiar with "keviah d'yarcha" (the lunar cycles), we are not
empowered to change the edict unless a superior Sanhedrin is convened.

<This type of adherence to earlier rulings is at best an exception.

I believe it is just the opposite. The general rule is that gezeros
are lo plug. In limited situations Chazal made a gezera that is not lo
plug.

RHS explains that just like we are not darshinan taama dikra, even if
the reason for the mitzva doesn't apply the mitzva still applies on a
torah level. K'eyn dorayasa tiknu and the same applies to gezeros
d'rabbanan, we are not doresh the taam of the gezera and it applies lo
plug. However, just like on a level of d'oraysa when the Torah writes
the reason in the chumash the mitzva is regulated by that reason, so
too by gezeros d'rabbanan if the reason is written into the gezera
(which is rare) it only applies when the reason doesn't apply.

Also note, the Rambam writes (Mamrim 2:3) that gezeros d'rabanan that
were made as a s'yag so that people should not violate an issur
d'oraysa can NEVER be repealed even by a beis din that is greater
b'chochma u'bminyan. This means that according to the Rambam when
moshiach comes little will  change. We still have to observe ALL of
the s'yagim d'rabanan even if the reasons don't apply.

In Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 181 dated 9/8/2009 

From:  Allan Engel _allan.engel@gmail.com_ (mailto:allan.en...@gmail.com) 

Sefardi  poskim hold that the first day of aveilus is Mide'oraiso, so if a
levayo is  held on Yom Tov Sheni, the mourning of the aveilim would override
the Yom  Tov which is Miderabonnon.


R' Wolpoe asked:
> <Anyone have  more resources re: when YT sheini behaves diffrently than
> YT  Rishon?
 
>>>>>
Taking medicine.
 
 
--Toby  Katz
==========



_____________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090911/f0c69791/attachment-0001.htm>

Rich, Joel wrote:
> Micha Berger wrote:

>> I was taught as a child that YTSSG was about knowing what to do when 
>> we go back to al pi re'iyah.
 
>> Ah, that explains it.  I believe you were taught incorrectly. The
>> reason is explicitly given in the letter itself, which is quoted in
>> Beitza 4b.  "Sometimes the government might make a decree, and you
>> will come to get confused", i.e. if Torah is suppressed everyone who
>> is capable of doing his own calculations will have to do so, and
>> someone might make a mistake.

> So what will we do when Pesach rotates out of the aviv?

Sorry, you've lost me.  How does that question follow from anything
said before?  Or is it just a random question, since we're talking
about the fixed calendar?  If so, if it ever ch"v becomes a problem
we'll have to deal with it.  I assume the resolution, should it ch"v
be necessary, will be that this is the day that the Sanhedrin decreed
will be Rosh Chodesh, and whether they were wise to have done so is
irrelevant.  "Atem afilu mezidim".

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 07:07:23PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Sorry, you've lost me.  How does that question follow from anything
: said before? ...

I thought RJR's question was connected to the assertion that a taqanas
BD must be observed even as the reality it assumes has changed.

:                          ... I assume the resolution, should it ch"v
: be necessary, will be that this is the day that the Sanhedrin decreed
: will be Rosh Chodesh, and whether they were wise to have done so is
: irrelevant.  "Atem afilu mezidim".

But this isn't as much a question of when is Rosh Chodesh as much as
which chodesh it's the rosh of.  Is there a maqor that beis din can
be meizidim on ibbur hashanah too? It is all one thing -- BD is
meqadeish a particular month (month 13 or month 1)?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

RZS
> in Beitza 4b.  "Sometimes the government might make a decree, and
> you will come to get confused", i.e. if Torah is suppressed everyone
> who is capable of doing his own calculations will have to do so, and
> someone might make a mistake.

This begs the question:

Why can't a mistake be made in EY itself?
And therefore why not 2 days there?

Not that the above quote is inaccurate, it's simply not the complete story.

RMBluke:
> There is a machlokes rishonim whether the second day of yom yov is aminhag
> or a real din d'rabanan. If the latter, then according to thisRambam it
> cannot be repealed, and will apply even after moshiach

Lav davka
The p'saq afaik was predicated upon Hillel II's calculations. When that
system goes away so might the gzeira.

[Aside from the fact that a new Sanhedrin may not be bound by any
precedent anymore, just core TSBK and TSBP. All post-Sinai legislation,
p'saq, etc. could be subject to review.]


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



AIUI Pashut: Here are several apporaches

Was the psaq to keep minhag avoseichem bideichem
+ A an official approval to continue a minhag
+ B an official p'saq -- but having the properties of the pre-exisitng Minhag
+ C an official p'saq -- but having the properties of a brand new derabbanan

The Rambam chose C

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


See the machlokes Rashi and Rambam in the last mishnah of pereq gid hanaseh
re: the development of mitzvos - IOW Taryag

Rambam: 613 in 1 fell swoop @ Sinai. Any Earlier mitzvos were repealed
and re-issued anew. IOW abrupt break with the past.

Rashi: Mitzvos were in the process of being accumulated before Sinai -
and many were kept as is.

The Rambam's C matches his thinking that an act of Beis Din starts a brand
new era

Most Ashkenazim follow traditonalism and see this as a continuation of
pre-existing practice. Thus, either A or B behaves like a Minhag

AIUI the nafka mina is that B might not be as "repealable" as A

Shana Tova
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 185
***************************************

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..."