Avodah Mailing List

Volume 37: Number 14

Sun, 24 Feb 2019

• 1. Re: Does "ben" mean "son" or "child"? (Akiva Miller)
• 2. Two Adars (Professor L. Levine)
• 3. Re: Should Shiurim be Corrected to Archeological Data (Arie Folger)
• 4. Re: Should Shiurim be Corrected to Archeological Data (Micha Berger)
• 5. The youngest child (was: Does "ben" mean "son" or "child"?) (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Two Adars (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Should Shiurim be Corrected to Archeological Data (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: Should Shiurim be Corrected to Archeological Data (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Should Shiurim be Corrected to Archeological Data (Arie Folger)

.
R' Micha Berger wrote:

> My point being.... If the mitzvah is not male-specific, why
> would we think that "vekan haben sho'eil" means son and not
> daughter. In fact, if you have two little ones, and the younger
> is a daughter, it seems to me that: The MC would have the son
> ask Mah Nishtanah, since the girl's chinukh is for a derabbanan.
> Whereas the MB would have the daughter ask since her future
> chiyuv is equal to his.

Your example, which included the word "younger", highlights another
question that's been on my mind:

It seems to be a universal practice that the Mah Nishtanah is given to
the youngest "ben" (however you want to translate it) at the table.
Obviously, we are excluding those who are too young, and those who for
some other reason are incapable of saying it. But does anyone know how
this came to devolve upon the *youngest*?

I think this is a great example of something that is so ingrained in
us that we accept it without question. But the minhag could just as
easily have gone in a different direction. All the children might have
asked together, or it might have gone davka to the *oldest* for any of
several reasons.

The bottom line is that the classic seforim all write it just as RMB
quoted: "vekan haben sho'eil" - THE ben, as if there is only one ben
at the table. Does anyone know of any authorities who say what to do
when there is more than one?

Akiva Miller

From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis:


Q. This year there are two months of Adar. When is a yahrtzeit (the
anniversary of a parent?s death) observed? In the first Adar or the second?
Also, thirteen years ago there was only one Adar. When does a boy born at
that time celebrate his Bar Mitzvah, during the first Adar or the second?



A. With respect to a yahrtzeit, there is a dispute between the Mechaber and
Rama (568:7). According to the Mechaber, if a person passed away in a year
where there is only one Adar, the yahrtzeit is observed in the second Adar
(in those years that have two months of Adar). Rama cites two opinions: 1)
it should be observed in the first Adar, or 2) one should be stringent and
observe it in both Adars. Mishna Berura (568:42) states that the custom is
to observe yahrtzeit in the first Adar, however he cites the position of
the Vilna Gaon that it should be observed in both Adars.

Regarding a Bar Mitzvah, Rama (55:10) rules that it is observed in the
second Adar. Mishna Berura (55:45) explains that the first Adar is an
add-on month, while the second Adar is primary. Appropriately, the Bar
Mitzvah occurs in the authentic month of Adar, which is Adar Sheini (the
second).

There is a striking and obvious question. Why does Rama hold that a
yahrtzeit is observed in the first Adar, while a Bar Mitzvah is observed in
the second? Whichever Adar is primary for yahrtzreit should be primary for
Bar Mitzvahs as well. Particularly surprising is that the source of both
rulings is the same posek, the renowned Mahari Mintz. The answer to this
question is beyond the scope of this article. See Teshuvos Mahari Mintz 9
and Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah III 160 for possible resolutions.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190221/3f6293ec/attachment-0001.html>

RMB asked whether we should revise the size of our shiurim, and gave three
possible answers. Implicit in his trichotomy is that all shiurim are
connected (he mentions olive and arm and dirham in one fell swoop, even
though the arm and the dirham actually clash).

So I thought that fellow Ovedim may be interested to hear of another
shittah, namely that we reject the dirham, that based on archaeology the
ammah is longer than Rav Chaim Noe, while the kazayit is small. To my
surprise, that is exactly what I heard from noted talmid chakham Rav Zalman
Koren when I visited him three weeks ago. He claims that there is no reason
and no archaeological support to claim that when Herod enlarged the Har
haBayit he added to the breadth of the plaza, and only added to the length.
Rav Koren argues that there are no tolopogical features forcing the large
narrow side (the Har haBayit is a trapezoid, not a rectangle), and after
bringing proof from teh Gemara's discussion of the mizbeach that when
Chazal state sizes, they mean the size of the circumscribed (this is
actually the wrong verb, but will make it understandable) rectangle, he
then argues that the size of the northern wall are the 500 amot of
Massekhet Middot.

He argues that tefachim have not changed and are a tefach, confirming the
large amah, and that we therefore must reject the dirham as a reference
size.

At the same time, he argues that the olive is not connected to the size of
eggs, and therefore a large etzba does not imply a large olive, thus
solving some of the problems raised by large shiurim (for example that
according to the Gemarah the beit habeli'ah can contain three olive sizes,
which cannot be the "Chazon Ish olives."

To top it all off, he claims that that was precisely the shitta of the
Chazon Ish and the Steipler, and has the quotes to support that
interpretation.

The only or greatest problem with the above, he admits, is that no less
than the Rambam used the dirham as a reference size, and he shows that the
Chazon Ish and the Steipler acknowledged this, and yet they rejected the
dirham reference shiur.

I haven't yet fully digested this, but thought Ovedim may be interested in
this.

Kol tuv,


-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/

* Koscheres Geld (Podcast)
<http://rabbifolger.net/2016/02/15/koscheres-geld-podcast/>

* Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen
Gedankengut (Podcast)
<http://rabbifolger.net/2016/02/14/kennt-die-existenz-nur-den-chaos-gttliches-vorsehen-im-judischen-gedankengut-podcast/>

* Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo
<http://rabbifolger.net/2016/02/11/halacha-zum-wochenabschnitt-baruch-hu-uwaruch-schemo/>

* Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought
<http://rabbifolger.net/2016/02/09/is-there-order-to-the-world-providence-in-jewish-thought/>

* What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment)
<http://rabbifolger.net/2016/02/08/what-is-modern-orthodoxy-from-a-radio-segment/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190221/3fa0de9c/attachment-0001.html>

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:03:06PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote:
: RMB asked whether we should revise the size of our shiurim, and gave three
: possible answers. Implicit in his trichotomy is that all shiurim are
: connected (he mentions olive and arm and dirham in one fell swoop, even
: though the arm and the dirham actually clash).

If shiurim do depend on today's arms and olives, they wouldn't need to
remain in the ratios they were in when Chazal stated how they related
in their forearms, finger-widths and olives.

: 
: So I thought that fellow Ovedim may be interested to hear of another
: shittah, namely that we reject the dirham, that based on archaeology the
: ammah is longer than Rav Chaim Noe, while the kazayit is small....

Tangengially, I am not sure about the clause about the ammah.

R Chaim Naeh's ammah is 48cm. According to the plaque at Chizqiyahu's
Water Tunnel <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siloam_inscription> (BTW,
in kesav Ivri), they dug a canal of 1,200 amos. As the tunnel is 533 m
long, that's somewhere between 42.6 and 46.3 cm. (As 1,200 is a round
number, I figure the actual number of amos is somewhere between 1,150 and
1,250 amos. Thus the range.)

So that's one piece of archeological data that says that RCN's shitah for
the ammah is too BIG.

Of course, if shiurim are supposed to drift, either because of the "law is
law" theory or because an ammah is based on contemporary peoples' arms,
then this may simply mean that the ammah during bayis sheini was lohnger
than it was in Chizqiyahu's day.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:11:05PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: The bottom line is that the classic seforim all write it just as RMB
: quoted: "vekan haben sho'eil" - THE ben, as if there is only one ben
: at the table. Does anyone know of any authorities who say what to do
: when there is more than one?

All but one. To use an idiom of the AhS, "velahaRambam z"l yeish lo
dei'ah achares".... (Although it isn't really an idiom, because he uses
several different paraphrases: "yeish lehaRambam", "lehaRambam sham",
"delehaRambam hayah lo bazeh", "da'as acheres", "shitah acheresh"...
My personal favorite YT 183:39, "Vezehu lefi kol rabozeinu, aval
lehaRambam tzarikh lomar kavanah acheres". The AhS clearly noticed
how often the Rambam is a da'as yachid. Which to my mind reflects the
Rambam's unique approach to what machloqes and pesaq are, so I'll
ping R Zvi Lampel....)

Anyway, in our case, the unique shitah of the Rambam (Chameitz uMatzah
8:2), "... ve'omar haqorei, 'Mah nistanah....'" And is only required when
someone in the audience doesn't spontaneously ask real questions (7:3),
with dinim derabbanan at the seder just to get those real questions going.

The mishnah 10:4 has "vekhan haben sho'el aviv, and if the ben lacks
da'as, his father teaches him, 'mah nishtanah...'" (With different
girsa'os in the Bavli and the Y-mi.)

According to the Bartenura, the correct girsa as found "bekhol hasefarim"
is "vekhein haben sho'el" (minus an alef), and the "vekhein" is like
"kein benos Tzelofchad dovros".

So that's the source of "vekan haben sho'el". Rov rishonim say that the
child asks "Mah Nishtanah" and if he has no da'as, the father teaches
him to say "Mah Nishtanah". Whereas the Rambam understands the mishnah
as saying that the child should ask questions, and if there is a da'as
shortage, then the father teaches the child starting with the words
"Mah nishatanah" -- I guess instead of starting by addressing the
child's questions.

Anyway, on to the main question.... Having the youngest ask does seem
to be a minhag that arose in comparatively recent times, given that I
also failed to find a maqor.

However, if makes sense from the sevara I assumed (above) motivates rov
rishonim. It is the father's job to teach Mah Nishtanah to the kid who
can't come up with his own questions. It is a natural implication to
assume that the child who has been at the fewest sedarim who would need
this coaching.

The minhag seems pretty directly supported by the Yerushalmi (vilna
edition 70a). R Yosah identifies the "im ein da'as beven aviv melemdo"
in the mishnah with the "at petach lo" of the she'eino yodei'a lish'ol.
So it would be logical for minhag to concludes that Mah Nishtana goes
to the child closest to she'eino yodei'a lish'ol.

(In my house it goes youngest to oldest, every descendent who is willing
to. Sometimes we have choirs, sometimes strange languages or Dr Seuss,
but it is a long production. But that has more to do with not wanting
to grow up than anything halachic or minhag.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 01:59:59PM +0000, Prof Levine quoted from today's
OU Kosher Halacha Yomis:

: There is a striking and obvious question. Why does Rama hold that a
: yahrtzeit is observed in the first Adar, while a Bar Mitzvah is observed
: in the second? Whichever Adar is primary for yahrtzreit should be primary
: for Bar Mitzvahs as well. Particularly surprising is that the source of
: both rulings is the same posek, the renowned Mahari Mintz. The answer to
: this question is beyond the scope of this article. See Teshuvos Mahari
: Mintz 9 and Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah III 160 for possible resolutions.

The Mahari Mintz dismisses reasoning based on the name "Adar". The only
reason why the extra month makes an Adar Rishon and Adar Sheini is
because Adar is the last month. And had we chosen a different way to raname
months for a shanah me'uberes, creating a new name or goubling the name of
another month, no one would be asking whether the bar mitzvah of someone
born in Adar should be in Shevat or in Adar. Just as in the real world,
no one asks whether a Bar Mitzvah boy born in Adar II should have his
bar mitzvah in Adar or Nissan.

So the kid doesn't turn a bar oneshin a month early just because of
a naming convention.

However, a niftar's oneshim is measured in months. So the first yahrzeit
makes sense being on the 12th month, and that's when the son should fast.
"Vekhein bekhol shanah", no explanation other than the implied one of
consistency.

(Mahari Mintz also toys with the idea of chodshei hachamah, and the
constellations, as yahrzeit could be about the mazal of the day the
parent died being a bad one for the child. But doesn't take it beyond
being a hava amina.)

Jumping ahead 550 years... RMF (answer A, the sho'el asks three questions)
cites sources, not reasons.

What I did find interesting was that RMF holds "for we who have the
minhag of keeping both yahr-zeits" (hyphen in the IM; keeping both is
a chumera mentioned in the Rama and endorsed by the Gra) keeping the
first years' yahr-tzeits the aniversary of the yom haqevurah in Adar I
and the aniversary of the yom haqmisah in Adar II.

The reason why we (in general, not an Adar issue) wait for yom haqevurah
for the first yahr-tzeit is out of fear that people would end aveilus
at less than 12 months year because it would be natural to end it at
yahr-zeit. But the year doesn't include aninus, so we want to mark 1 year
from qevurah, when aveilus began. And since Adar II is after 12 month,
there is no such fear.


That said, I heard or saw (maybe here) another conceptual reason:

(My engineering background wants to talk about ordinal vs cardinal
numbers. But I'll resist.)

Bar mitzvah marks a boy becoming 13 years old. It's about a span of time.

Yahrzeit makes an anniversary, it being the same day in the year.

The year is 13 months long, so the bar mitzvah boy's 13th year ends in
Adar II.

But the date in Adar I is the same date as the yom hamisah, so for
yahrzeit, that's the appropriate month.

-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 Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:57 PM Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:03:06PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote:
> : RMB asked whether we should revise the size of our shiurim, and gave
> three
> : possible answers. Implicit in his trichotomy is that all shiurim are
> : connected (he mentions olive and arm and dirham in one fell swoop, even
> : though the arm and the dirham actually clash).
>
> If shiurim do depend on today's arms and olives, they wouldn't need to
> remain in the ratios they were in when Chazal stated how they related
> in their forearms, finger-widths and olives.


Well, since I am not reporting my own views or research, but rather the
view of one notable TC I visited, let me correctly state his views. For Rav
Zalman Koren, the olive is an olive, perhaps even a contemporary olive and
subject to change, but an amah is a fixed measure.

Furthermore, Rav Koren remarked that even though people have grown taller
as our public health has improved, fists have not grown broader. If
anything, our fists are smaller than those of our forebears, since we do
not do as much hard menial work. Hence, his argument goes, an etzba cannot
be less than a contemporary actual finger breadth. Same for tefach.

This insistence that the shiurim are meant to match realia leaves me with
some questions. First of all, if we take the fingers and fists literally,
the eggs become unrealistically large. The Chazon Ish's kebeitzah is almost
twice as large s a large egg; it's even larger than a so called jumbo egg
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_egg_sizes). Also, a zeres,
defined as half an amah, is really problematic, as I know of no one with a
thumb to pinky spread of thirty centimeters. I assume some giant basket
ball players may have such hands, but they are so unsually tall that they
cannot possibly be the standard setting example.

Arie Folger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190221/7333fcc7/attachment-0001.html>

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 09:35:10PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:57 PM Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
...
:> If shiurim do depend on today's arms and olives, they wouldn't need to
:> remain in the ratios they were in when Chazal stated how they related
:> in their forearms, finger-widths and olives.

...
: This insistence that the shiurim are meant to match realia leaves me with
: some questions. First of all, if we take the fingers and fists literally,
: the eggs become unrealistically large...

Why? If they have to match realia, then eggs become egg sized. And a
zeres would be the span of your fingers, whether or not that's half the
length of your forearm. And if it's a communal project -- measuring se'ah
for a miqvah or the AhS's case of eiruvin -- then the normal finger span
in your place-and-time, normal forearm, etc...

As I said in the post you're replying to, the ratios between shiurim
wouldn't necessary remain as they were for chazal.) I feel we are talking
across each other.

If one takes a hybrid approach, different than that you described
besheim RKZ, that only the ammah etc... which are based on anatomy are
personal (and therefore communal measures be based on normal range in
the population). And perhaps kezayis, kebeitza, etc... were intended
to be objective.

After all, the AhS doesn't actually say that middos change with the times.
He says that middos are based on the individual, that 4 amos doesn't
mean 4 of some standard measure, but 4 of your own ammah. And then that
because the eiruv is for many people, they need a consensus ammah. And
that *implies* that with new population demographics, the consensus will
change.

Meanwhile, he also says a number of times that 4 amos are 3 arshin,
which is 6 regel which is one sachen. And in CM 218:1 he also says that
a tefach is 2 vieshok. (Translating using
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete_Russian_units_of_measurement
that comes to a 21" ammah.) Ammah as a fixed measure.

So, does he mean that 21" was a normal length for an East European
Jewish forearm? Or do I entirely not understand AhS OC 363:32-35?
Explanation from when it was fresh in my mind at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n006.shtml#01
I had open questions then too.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             People were created to be loved.
mi...@aishdas.org        Things were created to be used.
http://www.aishdas.org   The reason why the world is in chaos is that
Fax: (270) 514-1507      things are being loved, people are being used.

There are essentially three positions possible, one of which can branch out
in at least two but really many more:

1a) All the shiurim are connected and they are small (Rav Chaim Noe, small
dirham shiur)
1b) All the shiurim are connected and they are large (Noda biYhuda a.k.a.
Chazon Ish, even though CI himself held like a variant of view #3)
2) All shiurim that can be connected to realia are connected to realia even
if their ration then conflicts with Chazal. I understand that this is the
AhS RMB is citing.
3) Some shiurim are connected to realia and some are standardized. This
view can then split up based on two factors, first of all which are the
shiurim that are connected to realia and which not (Rav Zalman Koren claims
that CI held that the kazayit is an exception and is connected to olives,
but almost all other shiurim are standardized), and secondly whether those
shiurim that are standardized are small, large or connected by ratio to one
of the basic realia-based shiurim.

So you tell me that AhS has a different approach that CI. I think that we
can accept that. But it isn't a stira of any shitta.

Arie Folger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190224/8fa93a50/attachment.html>

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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)