Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 50

Fri, 01 Apr 2011

• 1. reality (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: Women and Tallis (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. Re: Zechor/zachar (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Baruch Mordechai (was re:sobering thoughts for Purim) (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Ten Minute Halacha - The Starbucks Controversy- Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Something's Not Kosher at the Matzah Bakery (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Ten Minute Halacha - The Starbucks Controversy- Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Women and Tallis (Isaac Balbin)
• 9. Publishing Pictures of Women (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: Zechor/zachar (Hankman)
• 11. One Should Love All People, Even Non-Jews (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: One Should Love All People, Even Non-Jews (Micha Berger)
• 13. diet coke (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 14. Re: diet coke (Micha Berger)
• 15. How do Chazal calculate a king's reign? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)

<<
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2011/03/torah-always-right-in-con
flicts-with.html

r  schwadron says it's tora , even if it conflicts with 'reality'>>

I get the impression that Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim would not agree

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110330/aa5cf35c/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> We do many things that come from sources outside the mitzvah.
> "Hinei Keil yeshuasi" before Havdalah, for example.

If one simply mumbles the words, then your point is valid. But we should be
taking the time and effort to understand the words, and use them as a means
of getting a good start to the week.

> Qabbalas Shabbos. Etc, etc, etc...

Ditto

> Why is this woman wanting to do something that makes her feel
> connected to the Borei valueless just because it is non-halachic?

I'd put the emphasis elsewhere. I agree that merely being non-halachic is
not a good enough reason to declare something valueless. However, the one
who calls it "valuable" must be able to show where the value is located.

> Would RYBS have given the same advice to NCSY and tell them to stop
> doing kumzitzin or a pre-havdalah "ebbing" for an hour?

I hope not! For the type of people that NCSY works with, singing a song in
Lashon Hakodesh can be very meaningful. Even if they don't understand the
words, it establishes a kesher with one's people, and I don't see that as
valueless.

(More directly to the point of RYBS's outlook: Can someone explain where he
saw Pirsumei Nisa in a case where one read Megilas Esther without
understanding any of it? I wonder if there is a parallel between that case,
and the NCSY kumzitz.)

But this woman wore a garment whose only shaichus to kedusha was that it
*could* be used for the mitzva of tzitzis, if only someone would actually
put some tzitzis on it. It seems to me that RYBS judged this act to have
less than a mashehu of value.

> This is the poseiq who created a new variant of the minhagim of
> aveilus during the 3 weeks and 9 days because of his position that
> all minhagim are stamped with the matbei'os of halakhah, and thus
> the aveilus of this period must parallel to the kinds of mourning
> of the mitzvah derabbanan of aveilus.

A new variant? Or merely an alternate explanation of existing minhagim? Please, teach me more!

> Most of us simply don't view halakhah this way, so I don't see how
> citing RYBS's answer can be fit into our worldview.

His answer fit into my worldview very nicely as soon as I saw it. I'm looking forward to seeing how other listmembers understood that story.

> That said, I see value to R' Aviner's observation about yuhara. It's
> for this reason that when I first got ahold of murex dyed strings,
> my father only wore them on his tallis qatan, not on display. (My
> own tallis qatan's strings /are/ on display...)

And when I finally got near the Leadership side of YU's Torah Leadership
Seminar, one of the first things I did was to print a songbook with
translations of the songs we sang at our kumzitzin, because I do agree that
it is difficult (though not impossible) to find value therein if one does
not understand what he is singing.

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Groupon.com Official Site
1 huge daily deal on the best stuff to do in your city. Try it today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d93974b3edde565f8dst01vuc

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 06:21:36PM -0400, Hankman wrote:
: On the other hand if you approach this with a safek model - with both
: readings being al tenai that the correct one counts, then the order of
: the two readings should not matter at all!

Yes, but under this kavanah, one is definitely making a hefseiq.

I don't think this tenai works, because one is only yotzei with the correct
reading, whichever it is, anyway.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 09:07:49PM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
:> In any case, the name probably isn't Hebrew -- why assume it follows
:> Hebrew rules of niqud?

: The name might not follow the rules of nikkud, but the nikkud follows
: the rules of nikkud. Thus, a foreign name might appear whose accent
: is three syllables before the last in a word, violating a rule of
: Hebrew which has accents only the ultimate, penultimate and (rarely)
: propenultimate syllables. The vowels represented by the symbols, however,
: do not change because they are being used to express a foreign name --
: and Hebrew does not have a chataf under a non-guttural.

You lost me.

Chataf-qamatz makes a distinct sound, different than a regular sheva na
and shorter than a qamatz qatan (or gadol). Suppose it is valid Persian
grammar for such a sound that is closest to chataf-qamatz to appear
after a consonant that isn't geronit?

How else would the name be transliterated and approximated by a Hebrew
speaker other than a chataf-qamatz under the dalet?

Or are you saying that there is something about chatufos that make it
impossible for a vowel similar to one of those three to be pronounced
after a dalet?

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:48:51AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: R'Aryeh describes the issues raised by the CRC on Kashrut issues and
: possible leniencies. A lot depends on the facts on the ground (me -
: or just say can't go into any food place that doesn't have supervision,
: just like in the old country (sarcasm alert)).

Realize that it has been common for quite a while to go into a treif
restaurant and get their coffee. And that often included relying on
stam keilim einum ben yonam on the mug you were drinking out of. Which
is really hard to understand if the restaurant gets more customers in
a day than they own cups.

When R' Ruderman recommended his talmidim to take their dates to Howard
Johnson's for ice cream and maybe coffee, he set a precedent different
than the cRc's. And IIRC, RYBS also got coffee (but AFAIK the maaseh
involved in a paper cup) from a treif establishment.

Starbucks stores are not a new metzi'us.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

On 30/03/2011 1:05 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Please see http://tinyurl.com/4hbrp35
>
> This article appeared in last week's Hamodia.

Nice article, except for the following:
> I mean, lots of people pay late. It?s almost what everyone expects;
> you know, like a custom.?  ?Well, I?m not sure that workers don?t expect
> to be paid on time,? Moshe retorted, ?but if it is a minhag, it?s a bad
> one, and it should be abolished.?

Surely minhag hatagarim is by definition valid; so long as everyone's
expectations are on the same page, because they're all participants in
the same economy with the same practises, there should be no issur,
de'oraisa or derabanan.

Postponing the usual payday, as in the story, certainly seems to be a
problem; since by definition it's a change from what the workers have
been told and have expected and relied on.  And it stands to reason
that if a payday is delayed to Sunday morning then it may affect
someone's Shabbos.  But the other examples, which are with businessmen
who are themselves tagarim and presumably also pay their bills with
the same cheshbon, it seems to me that "Kalman" was on solid ground.

Still, overall the story makes its point.

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

On 30/03/2011 7:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> Realize that it has been common for quite a while to go into a treif
> restaurant and get their coffee. And that often included relying on
> stam keilim einum ben yonam on the mug you were drinking out of. Which
> is really hard to understand if the restaurant gets more customers in
> a day than they own cups.

Indeed, according to a former (treife) restaurant owner I know, in a
commercial establishment there is no such thing as a keli she'eno ben
yomo.  If a piece of equipment is not used at least once a day it's not
worth keeping around.

I have never until now heard of this practise of drinking coffee in the
restaurant's mugs (other than glass, for which there are kulos available).
And of course at Starbucks there is only paper, and thus no sha'alah,
until this issue with the brew basket came up.   Indeed, years ago when
researching a certain rabbi who in my opinion takes a cavalier attitude
in his hechsherim, I found that he had personally sued a restaurant for
refusing to serve him coffee in a paper cup.  So even this mekil (for
others, at least) would not drink from the restaurant's klei cheres.

(I also think suing the restaurant was ridiculous; they are not obligated
to cater to our mishugasen, and there is no shortage of coffee or of
places to buy it.)

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

> From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
> 
> This is part of RYBS's general position about the relationship between
> halakhah and following the Torah. One that I believe is distinctly Brisk.
> 
> Recall that this is someone who wondered for years what the value of
> nevu'ah was, given that it can't relay halakhah. Most of us place more
> importance on things that move us spiritually and never would have even
> asked the question.

I'm not sure where you get the "most" of us from, but I see it a very valid question!
If the task of the human is Veholachto Bidrochov then the more automaton like will
view the world solely through this prism without Hachonos.

> Nevu'ah is for mussar, it's for deveiqus -- it can
> have value without contributing to the din.

Deveikus for the Rav is keeping Halacha

> 
> We do many things that come from sources outside the mitzvah. "Hinei
> Keil yeshuasi" before Havdalah, for example. The particular patterns of
> hand washing most qehillos use for neigl vasr or before hamotzi. Qabbalas
> Shabbos. Etc, etc, etc...
And the Rav and others are quite capable of excising such things unless there is
a shitas hagro to support it

> 
> Why is this woman wanting to do something that makes her feel connected
> to the Borei valueless just because it is non-halachic?

It is valueless within the confines of Jewish law, which defines how one should ACT.
The ACT was not a Jewish act. 

> Would RYBS have
> given the same advice to NCSY and tell them to stop doing kumzitzin or
> a pre-havdalah "ebbing" for an hour?
That depends. If those people would be learning torah at the time they were
ebbing and kvetching, then he might have had something to say.

> 
> This is the poseiq who created a new variant of the minhagim of aveilus
> during the 3 weeks and 9 days because of his position that all minhagim
> are stamped with the matbei'os of halakhah, and thus the aveilus of this
> period must parallel to the kinds of mourning of the mitzvah derabbanan
> of aveilus.

I don't believe that this was the Rav's lonely innovation. My recollection is that
there are others before him who held that way.

> 
> Most of us simply don't view halakhah this way, so I don't see how citing
> RYBS's answer can be fit into our worldview.

The Rav's answer could also fit into R' Moshe's shita on women practicing
things shelo lishma (okay you'll say it is, or mitoch shelo lishma)

> 
> That said, I see value to R' Aviner's observation about yuhara. It's
> for this reason that when I first got ahold of murex dyed strings,
> my father only wore them on his tallis qatan, not on display. (My own
> tallis qatan's strings /are/ on display...)

Kvar Doshu Bo Rabim. It's okay, you can wear them out in colour. You will be one of many now.
Just like Ashkenazim ignored the Zohar and wear theirs out ...

This week's Jewish Press contains 4 letters to the editor about 
publishing pictures of women under the heading Faceless for Purim I, 
II, III, and IV. The letters are at 
http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/47789  and were written in 
response to two articles that appeared last week and the week before 
in the Jewish Press.  The first article by  Rachel Bluth may be read 
at http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/faceless_3_11_11.pdf and the 
second by Ziona Greenwald at http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/47677 .

In his letter to the editor under Faceless for Purim II  Boruch 
Fenner writes, "I can easily understand why many individuals feel 
this is wrong, as it seems to signal that girls are second-class 
citizens. What eludes me is why these writers think it is a matter of 
popular opinion and not psak halacha."

Can anyone tell me who has paskened that one is not allowed to 
publish tznius pictures of women and where these piskei halacha can be found?

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110331/b558bb79/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB wrote:

Yes, but under this kavanah, one is definitely making a hefseiq.

CM responds:

An utterance (not calling it a hefseiq intentionally) letzorech hatfilah
(eg.) is not a hefseik, so too here as we are in "doubt," it is letzorech
hakriah and should not be a hefseiq either.

RMB wrote:

I don't think this tenai works, because one is only yotzei with the correct
reading, whichever it is, anyway.

CM responds:

Is this your way of saying that there is no safeik model, only a correction
model? You will always have a hefseiq problem in your model as well, since
you are knowingly including one version that does not belong there (even
though you have no choice due to your doubt) and even more so if you really
do know the correct version but do not use it exclusively out of some of
fealty to the  "minihag" of the last several hundred years. (Even though a
clearly "improper" minhag should not be continued).

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110331/fc2e2516/attachment-0001.htm>

Someone sent me the following.

"I have to add something fascinating to what my cousin R. Moshe 
[Sternbuch said regarding attending the funeral of a non-Jew.]

"I have attached part of the Sefer Shaarei  Kedusha from R. Chaim 
Vital, the foremost disciple of the Ari HaKadosh. (I posted this at 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/c_vital_love_gentiles.pdf )

"I think it is important that you publish this."

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110331/0aee6756/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:46:50PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> "I have attached part of the Sefer Shaarei  Kedusha from R. Chaim Vital, 
> the foremost disciple of the Ari HaKadosh. (I posted this at  
> http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/c_vital_love_gentiles.pdf )
> "I think it is important that you publish this."

The Tiferes Yisrael points out that the mishnah makes a similar statement.
See my blog post (condensed from an Avodah discussion) "Universalism"
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/04/universalism.shtml>. The part I'm
referring to:

    9- R' Yitzchak Blau on Ki miTzion Teitzei Torah (starting at 25:25)
    ( 25:25) points out that the Tif'eres Yisrael explains three mishnayos
    in Avos in universal terms.

    a- Hillel asks us to try to be mitalmidav shel Aharon (one who
    is from among the students of Aaron), which in part means being
    someone who is "oheiv es haberi'os -- literally: loves the creatures"
    (Avos 1:12). Beri'os is a pretty universal term for humanity, not
    confusable for a limitation to other Jews.

    b- Lest you think this attitude is specific to Hillel, the Tif'eres
    Yisrael also learns this lesson from Shammai's words: "havei meqabeil
    es kol ha'adam beseiver panim yafos -- receive all people with a
    pleasant expression on one's face" (Avos 1:15).

    Is this "ha'adam" universal? The Tif'eres Yisrael cites a Tosafos to
    show that while "adam" sometimes means "everyone in our conversation",
    "ha'adam" is always about all of humanity...

    c- While "adam" may be ambiguous, it's not ambiguous when used
    in contrast to "Yisrael." And so, the Tif'eres Yisrael reads the
    following mishnah:

        [R' Aqiva] used to say, "Beloved is man, for he was created in
        the "Image" [of G-d]. It was an extra [show of] love that it was
        made known to him that he was created in the image of G-d, as
        it is said, 'For in the image of G-d He made man.' (Bereishis 9:6)

        Beloved are Israel, or they were called children of the
        Omnipresent....

So, R' Chaim Vital's point about "vehohav es kol haberi'os" dates back
to Hillel.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

in studying the  various  pesach guides at  
http://www.kashrut.com/Passover/   , it is interesting to note  that  many 
 mainstream hechshers are not recommending  diet  coke  use  for 
ashkenazim.

here is  COR [toronto] ---   The following products contain kitniyos and 
are for
use only by the Sephardic Community. These items
bear the distinctive Passover symbol displayed below.
Diet Coke

in fact  they observe---
COR KITNIYOS POLICY
The policy of the COR for Kosher L?Pesach
products which contain kitniyos or kitniyos
shanishtana is to use a distinctive label indicating
?Kosher for Sephardim only for Passover?.
The following organizations do not use kitniyos
shanishtana: KOF-K; KAJ (only the Migdal and
HaOlam retail labels); Star-K; CRC (Hisachdus
Harabonim); MK; OK (except as indicated on
product labels); and products supervised by the
Nirbater Rav and the Volover Rav.
Some of those that do allow its use include the CRC
(Chicago) and the OU (Orthodox Union). [emphasis mine] 

yet  KAJ  accepts it ---via  thier   product guide----

Beer Mayim, Mayim Chaim, Mae Tovim, 
Pepsi with Badatz Eida Chareidis; all must 
have Pesach hashgocho on label or cap.
Diet Coke & Classic Coke. Coke items will 
have a yellow cap, in addition to the OUP
on cap or shoulder.

-----  regardless of     the listed policies,  i would  assume  that 
essentially  all MO  communities  use  diet coke , and i would  presume  a 
sizable  proportion of  non-hassidic  individuals .  i am curious  what 
the Pesach  programs  do. I don't know  whose tshuva  OU is relying on . 
Maybe  that question could be asked  on the Webcast next week  with r 
belsky/r schechter .
  It  would also be  interesting to see if, like  peanut oil in the 60's , 
the  OU  will eventually go with the flow.....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110331/5ca52f4c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:32:49AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: in studying the  various  pesach guides at  
: http://www.kashrut.com/Passover/   , it is interesting to note  that  many 
:  mainstream hechshers are not recommending  diet  coke  use  for 
: ashkenazim.

Sucralose (including the brand name "Splenda"), and aspartame (such as
"Equal") are generally made from corn syrup.

So, if:

1- Your variant of the minhag includes categories, not species (so that
   corn is included despite not being known by Ashkenazim when the minhag
   started), and
2- you are noheig to avoid mei qitniyos (which seems to be implied by
   the Rama), then
the two leading artificial sweeteners are out.

That's why you tend to find sacchrine (eg "Sweet-n-Low") on the Pesach
store shelves.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

My chavrusa and I are still stuck on the chronologies of the kings and
events mentioned in Gemara Megilla 11b-12a. At the moment, our problem is
that we've been forced to admit that we can't figure out how to count how
long a king has been reigning for.

To modern minds, this is not a difficult question. George H.W. Bush was
President of the United States from noon on January 20 1989 until noon on
January 20, 1993 -- exactly four years. No one would dream of saying that
he was president for five years simply because he was president during the
five calendar years of 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993. But our
understanding is that this *is* how the old kings counted their years.

We know this from the gemara, in the last words on Megilla 11b, where Rava
resolves some difficult calculations by concluding, "Shanim m'kutaos havu -
They were partial years." Rashi explains that the final year of one king
got "absorbed" into the first year of the following king. In other words,
when a new king came to power, the time from that day to the end of the
year got counted as his first year, independently of the previous king's
last year also being in that same year. This can cause big errors. It would
be like counting George HW Bush's 5 years, Bill Clinton's 9 years, and
George W Bush's 9 years, adding them together, and finding that (5+9+9=) 23
years elapsed from Jan 20 1989 to Jan 20 2009. According to that gemara,
both Belshatzar and Achashverosh made this exact error, and so Rava warns
us about counting these partial years.

This helped a lot, when my chavrusa and I were working on the reigns of
Nevuchadnetzar and Evil Merodach. But it seems to work against us with some
of the later kings. Belshatzar is a great example:

Several sources (ArtScroll Megilla 11b2, Seder Hadoros 65a) say that
Belshatzar reigned for three years, from 3386 to 3389. But that phrase
("three years, from 3386 to 3389") makes sense *only* according to modern
minds.

If we look at it the way the ancients did, that Belshatzar's first year
began at some point in 3386, then his second year was 3387, and his third
year was 3388. How can anyone say that he reigned for three years and was
still king in 3389?

It gets worse. It is clear from the Gemara on 11b, that Belshatzar
calculated that the first 68 years of our galus had elapsed during the
reigns of his predecessors, and that he considered his first year to be #69
of our galus, and his second year to be year 70. Therefore, right at the
beginning of his third year, when we were still not redeemed, he mistakenly
thought that he no longer needed to worry about us; he celebrated by using
the keilim of the Beis Hamikdash, and was killed that very night. Thus,
regardless of how long his first year might have been, we know for a fact
that his third year hardly lasted any time at all. This makes it even more
difficult to imagine any calculation by which his reign began during 3386
and lasted to 3389.

(I suppose one possible scenario is that he became king during the day of
29 Elul 3386, and he did *not* consider that partial day to constitute his
first year, but that his first year continued until 29 Elul 3387, and his
second year until 29 Elul 3388, and that he died the night following 1
Tishre 3389. But this goes against the whole "partial years" concept, not
to mention the odds of his taking office on that particular day being
around 1/365.)

Additional Note:  I must point out that in Rav Aryeh Kaplan's "Torah
Anthology" on Megillas Esther, the chronology on page xv shows Balshatzar's
reign from 3387-3389, which would solve all the above questions. However,
that simply moves the problem to Nevuchadnetzar, who is shown as reigning
from 3319 to 3364, which goes blatantly against the 45 years that the
Gemara says he reigned. When counting 3319 as his first (partial) year, the
45th year is only 3363. This is simple counting, not even advanced
arithmetic.

Additional Note #2: The reign of Evil Merodach is confusing both according
to the ArtScroll Gemara (which gives 3363-3386) and the Torah Anthology
(which gives 3364-3387). Either way, if the first year is #1, then the last
year is #24, but the Gemara is very clear that he died in his 23rd year.

What on earth could it be that we are misunderstanding?

Let's wrap this up:

The numbering of years from Creation is not really critical to our quest.
Our goal is no different than the Gemara's: to to document the 70 years of
galus in terms of the political events of the time. We'd be quite happy
with a list, seventy lines long, looking something like this:

* Galus year 1 - Tzidkiyahu is exiled; it is the 11th year of Yehoyachin's exile, and the 19th year of Nevuchadnetzar's reign
* Galus year 2 -  12th year of Yehoyachin's exile, and the 20th year of Nevuchadnetzar's reign
... etc ...
* Galus year 27 -  37th year of Yehoyachin's exile, and the 45th year of Nevuchadnetzar's reign; Nevuchadnetzar is killed, Evil Merodach becomes king
* Galus year 28 - Evil Merodach's 2nd year as king
... etc ...
* Galus year 48 - Evil Merodach's 22nd year as king
* Galus year 49 - Evil Merodach is killed, Belshatzar becomes king
* Galus year 50 - Belshatzar's 2nd year as king
... etc ...
* Galus year 57 - Last year of Koresh's reign; 1st year of Achashverosh
* Galus year 58 - 2nd year of Achashverosh's reign
... etc ...
* Galus year 69 - 13th year of Achashverosh's reign
* Galus year 70 - Achashverosh dies in the 14th year of his reign, and Daryavesh (his son and Esther's) becomes king
* Year 71 - Galus ends in Daryavesh's second year when he begins rebuilding the Beis HaMikdash

Most of the "...etc..."s in that list are pretty easy to fill in. (It's
just counting! Not even high-level arithmetic!) But we can't figure out the
gap between years 50 and 57. No one seems to dispute the claim that
Belshatzar died in (the very beginning of) his third year, and then
Daryavesh Mada'a and Koresh reigned for a combined total of 5 years. How
can we stretch that to fill in the whole gap between 50 and 57?

Akiva Miller

PS: I had thought that the solution might lie in Mishna Rosh Hashana 1:1,
which says that the years for kings are counted from Nisan. According to
this, if a king took office in Tammuz and died the following Teves, that
would count as only one year, even though it spans two calendar years. And
if he took office in Teves and died in Tammuz, it would count as two
(partial) years, even though his reign only lasted about a half-year.
However, this is NOT relevant to any of the above, according to ArtScroll
Mishnah Rosh Hashana page 13, which says that Nisan marks the year only for
Jewish kings -- non-Jewish kings count their years from Tishrei.


____________________________________________________________
Groupon&#8482 Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d95ce0274d494b64b6st03vuc


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 50
**************************************

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..."