Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 164

Wed, 05 Dec 2012

• 1. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Marty Bluke)
• 3. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Joel C. Salomon)
• 5. re Goebekli Tepe (martin brody)
• 6. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 7. Re: toda lae-l (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 8. Re: Beit Hillel - Rules to be followed when eating at secular person's home (Ilana Elzufon)
• 9. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Marty Bluke)
• 10. Re: toda lae-l (Akiva Miller)
• 11. Introduction to RSRH's Commentary on the Torah by Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Marty Bluke)
• 14. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Is there a Reshus Harabim D'oraysa nowadays? (Micha Berger)

On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 11:04:27PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: In 2012 the city of Jerusalem has a population of about 700,000. The old
: city is but a fraction of the city...

Actually, the Crusader period walls enclose a much much smaller area
than their city. Not big enough to rebut your point, just correcting the
impression that the "Old City" borders are relevent. There was the Upper
City resting on Har Tzion, the New City that ran as far as Har haTzofim,
Har haZeisim, the Shiloach and Gei Ben Hinom were within the borders,
etc... Again, still just a tiny fraction of modern J-m.

But we're not talking about who lived within city limits. We're talking
about how many were within any one square on a good market day. (Or in
J-m, during aliyas haregel.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

R' Zev Sero wrote
> The links had everything to do with your question; the makor in Shas
> that the author found is a gemara that has Ulla saying there is no
> reshus horabim in Bavel!

> As for EY, we know there were certainly more than 600K people in Y'm
> on Shabbos Chol Hamoed.

A few points.

1. The Gemara implies in many places that there were many Reshus Harbims
all over, otherwise why all the gezeras? If there was no Reshus Harabim
in Bavel why be so strict with carrying?

2. Ulla never said that. Ulla just said that there aren't 600,000 people
in Bavel.

3. The Gemara says that Jerusalem was not a reshus harabim d'oraysa
because they closed the gates at night. So if Jerusalem wasn't a reshus
harabim d'oraysa what city was?


R'n Toby Katz wrote:
> I googled Jewish population and found varying estimates but there were
> at least two million Jews and possibly 7 million or more in E'Y at the time
> of the bayis sheni. If most of them went to J-m for sholosh regalim there
> would have been 600,000 people in the city at that time. All in one place
> at one time? Think of korban pesach, how many people?

Even if you are right, that is 1 city and a one time occurrence, and as
I pointed out elsewhere, Jerusalem since they closed eh gates was NOT
considered a reshus harabim d'oraysa. Given that, why would Chazal make
so many gezeras about carrying if there was basically no possibility of
violating an issur d'oraysa.

The fact is that the Gemara talks about whether you can wear amulets or
not on Shabbos a gezera that you will carry it in reshus harabim. The
Gemara discusses whether you have to take the amulet off to go to the
bathroom, if you do there would be a problem because maybe you will
carry it. Rashi comments, the bathrooms were outside in the fields and
therefore there was an issue of carrying in a reshus harabim. I don't
think 600,000 people ever used the same bathroom.

On 4/12/2012 4:11 PM, Marty Bluke wrote:
> 1. The Gemara implies in many places that there were many Reshu Harbims
> all over, otherwise why all the gezeras? If there was no Reshus Harabim
> in Bavel why be so strict with carrying?

The gemara doesn't imply that, that's just your question. Who says
we don't make gezeros unless RHR is common? Beside which, the gezeros
were made in EY, bizman habayis, not in Bavel. They had RHR there.

> 2. Ulla never said that. Ulla just said that there aren't 600,000
> people in Bavel

You didn't read the articles I linked to well enough. The whole point is
that Ulla *did* say this, and that is the Behag's makor (and hence that
of the majority of Rishonim who followed him), it's just missing from
our girsa.

> 3. The Gemara says that Jerusalem was not a reshus harabim d'oraysa
> because they closed the gates at night. So if Jerusalem wasn't a reshus
> harabim d'oraysa what city was?

We know that for considerable periods Y'm and its surrounding suburbs
*were* RHR. Hence the pasei bira'os, and the question about how to carry
the chalef on Erev Pesach. Tosfos in Eruvin supposes that there was at
least a time when the walls of Y'm had breaches that made it a RHR.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Marty Bluke <marty.bl...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> It is patently clear that in the the time of Chazal that they felt that
> this was a very valid concern as we know that that Chazal followed a
> number of rules when making Gezeros 2 of them being:
>
> 1. milsa d'lo shchicha lo gazru bei rabanan - Chazal did not make gezeros
> for far-fetched cases.
> 2. we don't make a gezera l'gezera - Chazal only make gezeras to protect
> people from violating an issur d'oraysa
>
> Based on the above Chazal would only have made all of these Gezeras
> regarding carrying if there was a real concern that people would violate
> the issur d'oraysa of carrying in a Reshus Harabim. What this means is
> that there must have been MANY places deemed Reshus harabim in existence
> in Israel (and Bavel) otherwise they never would have made all of these
> gezeros.

Alternatively, reshus harabim d'oraysa is so rare, and the gezeira
against carrying in a karmelis so ancient (attributed to the beis din
of Shelomo), that this is an exception to the gezera l'gezeira rule.

This is my own theory; I would be glad to have it confirmed or refuted.

?Chesky

> On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 10:52:25AM -0800, martin brody wrote:
>  Because the Adam story is just that, a story. Part of out sacred
narrative,
>  but not part of our sacred history, because it never happened  There's a
>  difference.

Tell me, was there such a person as Lotan, and did he have a sister
called Timna?
Zev Sero"

That is a non sequitur, meaning it has nothing to do with the discussion.
Science has not disproven their existence as stated in Torah.



-- 
Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121204/2acdd223/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Marty Bluke: 
In short, how could it be that in the time of Chazal 2000 years ago they
were so worried about people violating an issur d'oraysa of hotzaa when we
can't find a Reshus Harabim d'oraysa today? 
------------------


from then, too?

KT,
MYG

R' SZN:
in english ?we say ?thank Gd . ?in ? jewish ?we ?say ?baruch hashem . in
israel the man on the street ?says ?toda lae-l.
do frum israeli people ?use ?that expression ? ?if ?so ?, do they say ?toda
?lakel? ?if ?they say ?toda ?lael ? is ?that ?a problem
of saying ?Gd's name ?

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


yeshivishe girl who went on a date with a super yeshivishe guy; she asked
him what his family called him, and he said, Keilikahu. So a little later in
the conversation she asks him - can you please pass the ginger keil? Ok, not
so funny, but seriously, that's obviously different in that the "ale" in
ginger ale is not intended to refer to Hashem. The "eil" in Yisroel is
intended to refer to a Malach. But the "yah" in Yeshayah refers to Hashem,
the El in Beit El does, and, as R' SZN says, so does the "El" in Todah
La'El. (Perhaps listmember R'n LL has some insight to this. :-)  ) So where
do we draw the line?

KT,
MYG

RBW: Truth be told, these don't see like such amazing qulot. IMO the big
chiddush is the very idea that, yes you can eat in a secular person's home.
The details aren't that startling.

No amazing chidushim here - nor should there be. I think many frum people
have been keeping some version of this for a long time when eating by
secular relatives, at office functions, etc. This is basically a statement
of their position that one may (and should!) forgo chumrot and hakpadot
that one keeps at home in situations where eating by others will create
achdut and shalom. Obviously the actual rules are somewhat different in EY
and chu"l, due to both mitzvot hateluyot ba'aretz and differences in
metziut.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121205/3bb5c87c/attachment-0001.htm>

A number of people have mentioned that Jerusalem especially at the time
of Aliyah L'Regel must have had more then 600,000 people coming.

However the Gemara comments (Eruvin 6b, 101a) that Jerusalem was NOT a
reshus harabim d'oraysa because the gates were shut at night and therefore
the city was surrounded by 4 real walls taking away the din of a reshus
harabim. This din is quoted l'halacha (see Rambam hilchos shabbos 14:1).
Therefore even if Jerusalem had 600,000 people, it is irrelevant as it
was not a reshus harabim for other reasons.

I think it is pretty clear that in the time of Chazal Jerusalem was by
far the biggest and most important city and it is hard to imagine that
there was another city close to its size in Israel, certainly not one
containing anything near 600,000 people.


R' Gluck wrote:
> The 600,000 comes from the people in the midbar; perhaps the Gezeiros come
> from then, too?

Do you mean to say that you believe that all of these Gezeros were made in
the midbar? Do you have any source for that? I believe that we generally
assume that the gezeros were made later and not in the midbar.

R' Saul Newman asked:

> in english we say  thank Gd. in jewish we say baruch hashem.
> in israel the man on the street says toda lae-l. do frum
> israeli people use that expression?  if  so, do they say toda
> lakel?  if they say toda lael is that a problem of saying
> Gd's name?

Another data point one might add to the list: What of an an
English-speaking person who hears another sneeze, and he says, "God bless
you." Or when one hears something and responds, "God forbid."

For all of the above, I see two basic versions: Either he says it
automatically, as a reflex, or he truly means it. If he truly means any of
these phrases, I cannot imagine what the problem might be; it seems to me
that it is quite purposeful and not at all l'vatala.

If it is said unthinkingly, however, then I'm unsure: At first glance it
would seem to be l'vatala and to be avoided, but isn't there something
positive about "Shem Shamayim sh'gura b'feev?"

I think an important source for all this might be Boaz's takana about
greeting people with His Name -- Mishna Brachos 9:5, or daf 54a in the
Gemara. I find it noteworthy that Boaz himself used the Actual Name (or so
he's quoted in Ruth), but the poskim on this Mishna give it as the reason
why we greet people with "Shalom Aleichem", given that "Shalom" is one of
the Names. For some reason, we degrade it even further when something good
occurs, and we thank Him by exclaiming "Baruch Hashem!" - Why not use His
actual Name?

Perhaps the one who says "God bless you" should be praised for saying it,
even if unthinkingly, and the criticism should be reserved for the one who
mumbles "gobleshu".

All the above refers to cases where the Name is said in an appropriate
context, which also includes many zemiros. But there are some cases where a
zemer is a totally mindless singsong, and there is no attention whatsoever
being given to the lyrics. I think one of the most egregious examples might
be one particular tune for Baruch Kel Elyon, in which the refrain repeats
several times: "la-Kel, la-Kel, la-Kel yeratzu, la-Kel yerazu k'mincha al
machavas."

By the way, I just noticed that when I spelled the name of that zemer, I
used the letter "k". This is because one can sing the zemer itself as a
tefilla, in which case using the Proper Name is appropriate (except when
the refrain has the tune I described), but we are not singing it right now
- we're merely referring to it, and when using the title as a title, it is
in no way a tefilah itself. Similarly for titles "Kel Malay Rachamim" or
"Kah Keili" -- but not "Eli Tzion", which is another word entirely.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50bf84485c34b4483526st03vuc

Volumes I and II of the translation from the German of this 
commentary were published in 1948.  Volume I is available at 
http://hebrewbooks.org/ .  I was able to obtain Volume II from Mrs. 
Meta Bechhofer,  the youngest daughter of Rav and Mrs.  Joseph 
Breuer.  I have scanned it and placed the book on my web site of 
articles related to TIDE. The site is

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/

Links to both volumes are at the top. Mrs. Bechhofer told me that Rav 
Breuer wrote only these two volumes.

The preface to Volume I says in part

"The present popularized adaptation of Hirsch's Commentary
on the Torah tends to develop the basic concepts
and ideas of our Torah which characterize Torah Judaism
in its ideological uniformity. From the extensive material
the principal explanations to the individual chapters and
verses were selected. As far as practicable, the topics are
presented in concise and popular form, as they are intended
for a wide circle of readers and, above all, for the
mature Jewish youth. They should also serve as a welcome
addition to the material of the teacher in his preparation
for Torah-instruction."



Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121205/d5ec570c/attachment-0001.htm>

On 5/12/2012 6:43 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote
>> Who says we don't make gezeros unless RHR is common?
  
> Milsa d'lo shchicha lo gazru bei rabanan.

That's a general statement, not a rule.  Also, I don't think you've
applied it correctly; in places where RHR does exist, carrying there
would be very common; the fact that RHR itself is not common (according
to the view we're discussing) isn't relevant.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it.  The view that 600K is a
requirement for RHR is based on a girsa in which Ulla explicitly says
that there is no such thing as a RHR in Bavel (whether this means the
city or the country is another question).  And it's expressed by most
of its exponents as a statement that there is no such thing as a RHR
"nowadays".  So you can't question it on the basis that if it's true
then RHR would be uncommon; that's explicit in the view itself.  You
can ask *why*, in that case, Chazal would make such gezeros, but you
can't conclude that they couldn't have done, and therefore that this
is a problem for the view's viability.


> Would Chazal really have been mevatel the mitzva d'oraysa of shofar
> and lulav on shabbos if RHR was not common? Would they have imposed
> so many restrictions on what you can wear (for example women were
> prohibited from wearing jewelry) if it was a far fetched chashash?

Evidently they did.  There's no proof that they didn't.  We may wonder
why they did so, but it is illegitimate to use that wonder as proof
that they didn't.


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> I find this possibility far more likely than Hashem letting the majority of
> rishonim head off in the wrong direction halachically. Although that's
> possible too -- witness the evolution of the kezayis.

I would suggest another example of teh Rishonim headed off in the wrong
direction halachically, tzeis hakochavim.

A large number of important Rishonim (Ran, Rashba, Ramban, Baalei
Hatosafos) all held like R' Tam that tzeis hakochavim is 4 mil after
astronomical sunset and that Bein Hashmashos only starts 3.25 mil after
shkia and until then (3.25 mil after shkia) it is vaday yom. In fact,
this is how the Shulchan Aruch paskens and was the generally accepted psak
in Europe. However, in the last 200 years after the Gras famous argument
that hachush makchish, that R' Tam's shita contradicts reality, the pesak
has shifted and has reached the point where I don't think anyone today
will be lenient to permit melacha 30 minutes after shkia on Friday night.

This would seem to be another case where the majority of rishonim head
off in the wrong direction halachically


R' Zev Sero wrote
...
>  Who says we don't make gezeros unless RHR is common?

Milsa d'lo shchicha lo gazru bei rabanan.

Would Chazal really have been mevatel the mitzva d'oraysa of shofar and
lulav on shabbos if RHR was not common? Would they have imposed so many
restrictions on what you can wear (for example women were prohibited from
wearing jewelry) if it was a far fetched chashash?


R' Joel wrote:
> Alternatively, reshus harabim d'oraysa is so rare, and the gezeira
> against carrying in a karmelis so ancient (attributed to the beis din
> of Shelomo), that this is an exception to the gezera l'gezeira rule.

> This is my own theory; I would be glad to have it confirmed or refuted.

This is actually a very interesting question. When were the gezeras
related to carrying established? The Gemara states that Shlomo was
mesaken the need for an Eruv Chatzeros, however, what about all of these
other dinim d'rabanan? When was the takana of carmelis made? When were
all of the gezeros listed at the beginning of the 6th perek of shabbos
(regarding not wearing jewelry etc.) made? When was the issur to blow
shofar on Rosh Hashana on Shabbos made?

On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 01:38:44PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
:> I find this possibility far more likely than Hashem letting the majority of
:> rishonim head off in the wrong direction halachically. Although that's
:> possible too -- witness the evolution of the kezayis.

: I would suggest another example of teh Rishonim headed off in the wrong
: direction halachically, tzeis hakochavim...

Possible, although I think it's more complex than that.

BUt not relevant to our original conversation. I believe that halakha
can evolve because someone understood an earlier shitah in a way we
can prove through non-mesorah means could not have been what the
earlier shitah meant. I gave kezayis as an example.

I just think it's *far* more likely that Qatzrin/Qasrin and Teveryah (to
get away from Y-m by picking the two centers of learning in the days of
the Y-mi) had 600,000 people show up to enough of their market days for
it to qualify as a rh"r deOraisa than to think that they made gezeiros
on a case that's rare or that either the majority of rishonim followed
a girsa that invented a maamar of Ula's out of nowhere or alternatively
that Ula didn't know what cities were like in his own homeland (EY in
the late 3rd and early 4th centuries) when he contrasted Bavel to it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 08:13:51PM -0500, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: The 600,000 comes from the people in the midbar; perhaps the Gezeiros come
: from then, too?

Shelomo haMelekh (and his court) enacted eiruvin and netilas
yadayim. (Eiruvin 21b) This is usually understood not as the creation
of a new loophole in a pre-existing gezeira of karmelis, although it is
arguable that Shelomo's court was gadol bechokhmah uveminyan than any
earlier one. Rather, the usual explanation is that the original gezeira
was against carrying in a karmelis that doesn't have an eruv or shituf
mevo'os, and was enacted in the days of Shelomo haMelekh.

But in any case, the biggest hotza'ah-related gezeira well predates
bayis sheini and the period we've been arguing about.

However, Rebbe spends over 1/3 (guesstimating) of the space on hilkhos
Shabbos (mesechtos Shabbos and Eiruvin) discussing hotza'ah.
Disporportionately huge, if you think there are not only 28 other
melakhos, there is some mention of muqtzah (aside from Mes' Beitzah),
shevus, mitzvos asei of Shabbos, etc... It makes it hard for me to
believe hotza'ah wasn't a big part of their Shabbos experience in his
day.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 164
***************************************

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..."