Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 164

Fri, 05 Dec 2014

• 1. Re: Tal Umattar (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. Re: Tal Umattar (Avi Goldstein)
• 3. Re: Tal UMatar on Dec 4 or 5 (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Dor HaPalga flood (Lisa Liel)
• 5. Re: Tal Umattar (Avi Goldstein)
• 6. Re: Tal UMatar on Dec 4 or 5 (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: jacobs ladder (Micha Berger)
• 8. jaocbs ladder (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Dor HaPalga flood (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 10. Re: Dor HaPalga flood (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: Dor HaPalga flood (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Dor HaPalga flood (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: heter mechira - lo techanem (Micha Berger)

R' Avi Goldstein wrote:

> if one reads the various sources that discuss the bracha,
> the conclusion is inescapable that Chazal believed the
> timing to be precise.

Please consider the meaning of the word "precise". I believe that it is
categorically impossible for anything to be perfectly precise.	("Safety"
is very similar.) There is always a tradeoff between the degree of
precision that you'd like, and the difficulty in reaching that level.

If you agree with me so far, then the next question is how much precision
did Chazal want, and how much were they willing to settle for? Let me offer
two facts to shed some light on that question: (1) Once we've reached the
correct year and day for Birkas Hachama, it may be said any time in a
six-hour window. (2) Anyone who wants to consider the Julian calendar to be
imprecise has to realize that it took about 1.5 millenia until anyone
bothered to correct it.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Is this the WORST carb ever?
This 1 carb is HARMING your metabolism & accelerates AGING (avoid)
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/547f1940408de19407909st04vuc

I am comfortable with the notion that Birkas HaChamah is here to remind us
that Hashem is the Creator. However, if one reads the various sources that
discuss the bracha, the conclusion is inescapable that Chazal believed the
timing to be precise.
I did make the bracha three years ago, because I was willing to live with
the kashya and did not wish to separate myself from the rest of klal
Yisrael.
I do know people who made the bracha near the ocean; having not seen the
ocean for a month, they had in mind the ocean as well, since the bracha
made for seeing the ocean after 30 days is also oseh maaseh bereishis. (I
tried, but happened to see the ocean several days before the day of Birkat
HaChamah.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141203/09497f69/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:41:33PM EDT, I wrote:
: Anyway, gatting back to the point: In the Julian calendar we start
: saying Tal uMatar on Nov 21 or 22...

R' Jonathan Sperling asked me off-list on motza"sh how I got Nov 21 or
22 when the BY says in siman 117 that it's 22nd or 23rd?

I had first guessed it was a fencepost error
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-by-one_error#Fencepost_error>,
that I was counting out the 60th day of the tequfah, whereas
the BY was counting 60 days after the day of the tequfah.
However...

The BY is quite clear "veyom 60 kele'achar 60", and quoting Hagahos
Maimoniyos (2 Tefillah os 10) "keshe'avru 58 yamim min hatequfah, sho'alin
betefilas Arvis, shehu techilas 59." He clearly means on the 60th day,
not 60 days after the tequfah.

And last, he places the tequfah "le'olam 7 yamim qodem Octoberi". Which
is the same as what I wrote:
:                                                     Tequfas Tishrei
: is always on (alternatively: happens to always coincide with) Julian
: Sep 24, coinciding with Gregorian Oct 7 in the years 1800-2099...

Sep has 7 days in tequfas Tishrei and Oct has 31, and then 22 days in Nov:
    7 + 31 + 22 = 60 days
So, 22 would be the 60th day of the tequfah, not 60 days after.

Meaning, the BY's day seems to check out in theory.

I cheated, and worked backwards: In practice, most years we start on
Dec 4. There is a 13 day difference right now (from Mar 1900 to [velo
bichlal] Mar 2100) converting from Julian to Gregorian. So, Dec 4 (ie Nov
"34") would be (34 - 13 =) Nov 21. And, that's how I got to 21.

So now the question is.... why are we one day before the BY's
pesaq, or did I do my math wrong?


BTW, the BY quotes the Avudraham (110) as giving the length of the next
Feb to know when Tal uMatar is delayed. So, while RAM in the opening post
might find it unweildly, at least we know it's traditional.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are what we repeatedly do.
mi...@aishdas.org        Thus excellence is not an event,
http://www.aishdas.org   but a habit.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Aristotle

I'll try and dig up the Rashi later, but the actual source is Midrash 
Rabbah:

http
://www.daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/mefaresh.asp?book=1&;mefaresh=ra
ba&perek=11

???? ????:
??? ???? ??? ????, ???? ????? ???, ????? ?' ?????? ???.

Rabbanan amri: ein vayifetz ela vayetzaf.  Hitzif aleihem hayam, 
v'hitzif shloshim mishpechot meihem.

The midrash goes on to ask, since we know there are still 70 nations, 
and thirty of them were destroyed in this flood, where are the extra 30 
from, and answers that they're from Avraham.  16 from Keturah, 12 from 
Yishmael, and Yaakov and Eisav.

So we're talking about a flood that was major enough to kill almost half 
the world's population, and the Midrash dates it to Dor HaPalga.

Lisa


On 12/3/2014 8:41 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
> RLL mentioned that Rashi alludes to a flood during Dor Haflagah. I 
> don't see it. Where and how? Thanks!
>

Micha challenged me on the grounds that I did not fully respond to his
points, and Micha insists that Shmuel had no choice but to estimate.

1. Micha notes that Shmuel was able to pre-compute a calendar of 60 years
and that Shmuel was known for his astronomical prowess.
Unfortunately (and I know this sounds uncomfortable), one cannot prove a
source's abilities from the source itself. And so while Shmuel may have
computed a calendar, we have no way to measure that calendar's accuracy.
And our knowledge about Shmuel's astronomical abilities comes from a
statement he himself made (that he knows the paths of the heavens as well
as he knows the streets of Nehardea). Again, there is no objective
confirmation that Shmuel was right; he certainly believed that he knew
astronomy, but was he right?

2. Birkas haChamah is clearly meant to indicate an astronomical event. I
don't understand how you can read the Gemara any other way, unless you take
the minority opinion that holds the bracha to have nothing at all to do
with the return of the sun to its place at teliyas hame'oros.
According to you, Micha, why did Chazal calculate a day and time that has
absolutely no  significance? They might just as well have stuck a pin in a
calendar and used that date for Birkas HaChamah!

3. The issue of the age of the universe has no bearing on the present
discussion. Yes, I do say "hayom haras olam." Even if we accept the six-day
Creation timeline as literal, the actual date of haras olam is disputed
among the Rishonim. Not everyone agrees that it is  Aleph Tishrei. Yet no
one has suggested that we veer from the traditional wording of the nusach.
I have no issues with Shabbos in the framework of this particular point. My
Shabbos issue is related to the International Dateline, but that is a
different discussion..

4. I don't know what "lack of faith in the halachic process" you think you
detected. I did make the bracha!
When we last said Bikas HaChamah, I researched the issue carefully. I
cannot remember where I saw this (maybe Shut of Chasam Sofer?), but there
were European communities who did not say the bracha b'shem umalchus,
evidently because they knew that Shmuel's calculation was wrong. And so
perhaps the lack of faith issue should be taken up with them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141203/71c6d8bf/attachment-0001.htm>

On 12/03/2014 11:54 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:41:33PM EDT, I wrote:
> : Anyway, gatting back to the point: In the Julian calendar we start
> : saying Tal uMatar on Nov 21 or 22...
>
> R' Jonathan Sperling asked me off-list on motza"sh how I got Nov 21 or
> 22 when the BY says in siman 117 that it's 22nd or 23rd?

> I had first guessed it was a fencepost error

> So now the question is.... why are we one day before the BY's
> pesaq, or did I do my math wrong?

It was a fencepost error of a different kind.  The BY means that we
start at the Maariv *before* the 22nd or 23rd of November.

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 01:54:36PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
:> I meant to say Malkhus Yavan is being lumped together with the galiyos,
:> even though it was entirely during Bayis Sheini..

: I checked again in the Medrash Tanchuma and it uses the language "Yavan"
: So the language of Galut is not used in this source.

Nor did I say it was. My original comment was that it's implied, not
stated.

After all, it's a list of continuous somethings. If the list were galus,
galus, malkhus-non-galus, galus, with nothing singling out the third
element, it would be strange. Not rock-solid proof of anything, but
an indication.

: Furthermore I identify galus with a foreign government...

And I, with the absence of a State guided by the RBSO. Foreign governments
as well as Jewish governments during a time of hesteir "Panim". And
so galus Yavan runs directly up to galus Edom, with no break during
the Chashmonaim. AISI, galus has more to do with a disconnect due to the
Shechinah being in galus than with our political situation.

As we know, the phrase "Galus Yavan" is hard to find in Chazal. (But
still, I think found once is sufficient.) The big explosion of usage is
with the Alshich and Tzefat. However, I found a second quote, in Pitaron
haTorah, a collection of medrashim and peirushim on the Torah which was
written in Bavel or Paras in the 10th cent. In Haazinu, the PhT says:
    HaTzur, tamim pa'alo -- this is galus bavel
    Tzadiq veYashar... mishpat -- this is galus Madai
    Kel emunah ve'ein avel -- this is galus Yavan
    Tzadiq veYashar Hu -- for He is matzdiq es hadin about the fourth
        malkhus

So, this list of four appears twice with "galus Yavan", and a third time
with no adjective. And in any case Yavan is placed in the middle of the
list with three known galiyos, therefore implying a comparison. So that
even though none of the rulers are called by more than their country
names.

Total tangent: I think "Yavan" is most literally Ionia. (I just saw that
some wikipedia contributor agreed, although he didn't provide sources
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionia#Legacy>.) And the Yevanim appear
to have remembered the name of Yavan's father when they named Prometheus's
(the fire-stealing guy) father "Iapetus".

To get seasonal, Reish Laqish comments in BR:
    veha'aretz hoysah sohu -- this is galus Bavel, as it says...
    vavohu - this is galus Madai...
    vechosekh - this is galus Yavan, which darkened Israel's eyes with
        their laws, as they said to them, "write on the bull's horn
        that you have no portion with the G-d of Israel."
    al penei sehom - this is the galus of the evil empire that is
        immeasurable like the tehom...
    veruach E-lokim merachefes -- this is the spirit of the meleah
        hamashiach...

I noticed that neir Chanukah occurs during "vechoshekh".

: when Israel is under "Greek" (Syrian or Egyptian) rule while the period of
: the Chashmanaim is not galus even though EY had the same population. When
: the Romans took over (either Herod or the destruction of the Temple)
: a new galus began.

: Again if this started with Herod then there was no great change in the
: population but the government was no longer Jewish.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

<<And I, with the absence of a State guided by the RBSO. Foreign governments
as well as Jewish governments during a time of hesteir "Panim". And
so galus Yavan runs directly up to galus Edom, with no break during
the Chashmonaim. AISI, galus has more to do with a disconnect due to the
Shechinah being in galus than with our political situation.>>

The midrash Tanchuma lists the number of steps of Yavan as 180 (or in
another girsa 100),
Assumin Malchus Yavan began in 332 BCE 180 years later is 152 BCE before
Rome was important in EY.
From wikipedia
The first intervention of Rome in the region dates from 63 BCE, following
the end of the Third Mithridatic War
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Mithridatic_War>, when Rome made a
province of Syria <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_(Roman_province)>.
After the defeat of Mithridates VI of Pontus
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridates_VI_of_Pontus>, Pompey
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompey> (Pompey the Great) remained there to
secure the area.

Furthermore as I pointed out the 70 years of Bavel ovelap the years of Mede
(Persia).
The 70 years of Bavel end only towards the beginning of the reign of Darius.

Coming to seasonal matters the reign of Achashversosh (according to the
counting of Chazal) belongs both to malchut Persia and also the 70 years of
galut bavel.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141204/eca79c83/attachment-0001.htm>

On 12/03/2014 11:33 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
> On 12/3/2014 8:41 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
>> RLL mentioned that Rashi alludes to a flood during Dor Haflagah. I 
>> don't see it. Where and how? Thanks!

> I'll try and dig up the Rashi later, but the actual source is Midrash 
> Rabbah:
> http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/mefaresh.asp?book=1&;m
> efaresh=raba&perek=11 
...
> Rabbanan amri: ein vayifetz ela vayetzaf.  Hitzif aleihem hayam, 
> v'hitzif shloshim mishpechot meihem.
...
> So we're talking about a flood that was major enough to kill almost 
> half the world's population, and the Midrash dates it to Dor HaPalga.

I can't see how the Midrash on Calabria and Beberia and on Akko and Yafo 
can be referring to Dor Haflaga. The flood is totally in the wrong place 
to be connected to Migdal Bavel!

Rabbi Kasher seems to learn like you - even changing a girsa in the 
Yalkut HaMechiri to do so - but I'm scratching my head...

KT, GS,
YGB

On 12/5/2014 10:12 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
> I can't see how the Midrash on Calabria and Beberia and on Akko and 
> Yafo can be referring to Dor Haflaga. The flood is totally in the 
> wrong place to be connected to Migdal Bavel!

Depends how big that flood was. If it was going east to west, it could
have gone across the fertile crescent up to Italy (where Calabria is).
Additionally, we don't really know what the geography was like prior to
this flood. It could be that Shinar was in the (unflooded) Mediterranean
basin. Bavel where it was later could have been named for it. There are
a million things we don't know.

Lisa

On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 10:33:33AM -0600, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
: Depends how big that flood was. If it was going east to west, it could
: have gone across the fertile crescent up to Italy (where Calabria is).
: Additionally, we don't really know what the geography was like prior to
: this flood. It could be that Shinar was in the (unflooded) Mediterranean
: basin. Bavel where it was later could have been named for it. There are
: a million things we don't know.

It also depends on whether the flood was historical or mythical. After
all, we're discussing a medrashic story at this point.

Calabria, the "toe" of Italy's "boot", is close the to the middle of
the Mediterranean. Whereas the Barbary Coast, the coastline near Berber
territory, runs from the south-west end of the Mediterranean, around
the Rock of Gibraltar, and the top of Africa's Atlantic coastline. I
would suggest we're looking references to the middle and end of the
Mediterranean, denoted by landmarks. And therefore that the focus of
the story is the Mediterranean in particular, not the world, and in
particular in the opposite direction from Israel as Bavel.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every child comes with the message
mi...@aishdas.org        that God is not yet discouraged with
http://www.aishdas.org   humanity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Rabindranath Tagore

On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 10:33:33AM -0600, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
: Depends how big that flood was. If it was going east to west, it could
: have gone across the fertile crescent up to Italy (where Calabria is).
: Additionally, we don't really know what the geography was like prior to
: this flood. It could be that Shinar was in the (unflooded) Mediterranean
: basin. Bavel where it was later could have been named for it. There are
: a million things we don't know.

It also depends on whether the flood was historical or mythical. After
all, we're discussing a medrashic story at this point.

Calabria, the "toe" of Italy's "boot", is close the to the middle of
the Mediterranean. Whereas the Barbary Coast, the coastline near Berber
territory, runs from the south-west end of the Mediterranean, around
the Rock of Gibraltar, and the top of Africa's Atlantic coastline. I
would suggest we're looking references to the middle and end of the
Mediterranean, denoted by landmarks. And therefore that the focus of
the story is the Mediterranean in particular, not the world, and in
particular in the opposite direction from Israel as Bavel.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every child comes with the message
mi...@aishdas.org        that God is not yet discouraged with
http://www.aishdas.org   humanity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Rabindranath Tagore

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 01:25:21AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: ... In such a case, is it relevant that the kesubah explicitly states
: (near the end) that it's NOT an asmachta, and that it's NOT "tofsei
: d'shtarei" (which I understand to mean a mere formality)? What if that
: clause was omitted for some reason?

: My wild guess is that this clause which appears on the kesubah has
: about as much significance as the "user accepts all risk" which appears at
: the amusement park...

I think it's a hint to the mesader qidushin to remember to make sure
the parties know what they're signing and how much of it is a real
debt the other side can expect to collect / pay over.

After all, there are often extra amounts added to a kesuvah which
are actually mere formality and both sides are assumed to know are
guzma. (It's routine among Sepharadim.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             There's only one corner of the universe
mi...@aishdas.org        you can be certain of improving,
http://www.aishdas.org   and that's your own self.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Aldous Huxley


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



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


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


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

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)