Avodah Mailing List

Volume 38: Number 116

Fri, 25 Dec 2020

• 1. Barukh Dayan haEmes -- Rav Yehudah Herzl Henkin zt"l (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Where is the Molad announced for? (David Cohen)
• 3. Re: Barukh Dayan haEmes -- Rav Yehudah Herzl Henkin zt"l (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Where is the Molad announced for? (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Where is the Molad announced for? (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Where is the Molad announced for? (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Le'ilui Nishmas an Infant (Zvi Lampel)
• 8. Re: "Ha'od Avi Chai?" (Zvi Lampel)
• 9. Re: Where is the Molad announced for? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Insights Into Today's Fast (Prof. L. Levine)

We must acknowledge the passing of Rav Yehudah Herzl Henkin zt"l, a long
time member of Avodah.

Aside from his more "minor" accomplishments, like building and maintaining
a solid marriage, raising 5 children, widely asked poseiq who published
teshuvos that spanned all four Turim... And holding firm to a well defined
line between what he held was acceptable an unacceptable innovations in
how halakhah is applied to our situation.

I would like to believe that his first stop in the olam ha'emes was like
Rashi's depiction of Yaaqov and Yoseif's happier reunion -- resuming
learning with R Eitam zt"l Hy"d whatever it was they were discussing
when that conversation abruptly ended.

Yehi zikhro barukh!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

PS: RYHH was still lurking comparatively recently, sending occasional
comments in private email.

PPS to AhS Yomi learners: The AhS lost one its greatest defenders. RYHH's
favoring the AhS as more authoritative than the MB (following his
grandfather and followed by his son R Eitam) was frequent enough to make
it onto his wikipedia page.

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. 
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   "I want to do it." - is weak. 
Author: Widen Your Tent      "I am doing it." - that is the right way.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk

Some of the following is copied from Facebook comments where R' Micha and I
had more or less this same discussion 6 months ago, but I suppose we're
repeating it here for the benefit of a different audience.  :-)

The length of the mean synodic month (expressed in mean solar days***) is
decreasing *very* slowly, such that it takes about 10,000 years to decrease
by an entire chelek. If your degree of precision is that you're rounding to
the nearest chelek, then the value of 29 days + 12 hours + 793 chalakim was
accurate in the time of the Neo-Babylonian astronomers, it was accurate in
the time when our calculated calendar was set up, and it's still accurate
today. (The accumulated error of ~2 hours that we have now is due to the
cumulative effect of the "rounding error.") It was, indeed, most *precise*
-- in the sense of the actual value being exactly 793.000 chalakim -- in
the 4th century CE, but if your level  of precision is whole chalakim, then
I wouldn't say that it's been *inaccurate* at any point.

*** In objective (i.e. atomic) time, the length of the mean synodic month
is actually slowly increasing, but it's increasing more slowly than the
length of the mean solar day is, which means that it's decreasing when we
measure time, as we customarily do, in mean solar days and divisions
thereof.

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


calendar moladot were intended to be referring to Jerusalem mean time.  I
just don't think they were intended to be referring to the exact mean time
of any deliberately selected meridian, but rather that the determining
factor was having the very first molad come out exactly on the hour.
There's a wide range, spanning 15 degrees of longitude, over which rounding
that first molad to the nearest hour would get you the same result (14
hours into Friday), and I doubt that it particularly interested anybody at
the time the calendar molad was established to figure out exactly what
meridian it would be precisely accurate for.  For the purpose of the
calendar, it doesn't matter.  We only need to know if we want to translate
the molad into an actual time that we can point to on our watches and say
"the molad is.... now."  But the only reason we'd have any interest in
doing that is if we're using the calendar molad to determine our window of
time for kiddush levana, and I think that the practice of doing that came
long after it was established for the purpose of the calendar.

-- D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20201224/eef98cbe/attachment-0001.html>

On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 12:52:09PM -0500, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Aside from his more "minor" accomplishments, like building and maintaining
> a solid marriage, raising 5 children...

Correction:

SIX children. I likely read an obit that discussed R Eitam and Rt Ne'ama
separately, since their murder is worth a pause in a biograph, and something
mentioning "5 other children".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 23/12/20 10:22 am, David Cohen via Avodah wrote:
> So I think that the molad was certainly set to be accurate for that 
> general area of the world , and hence that first molad was set for 14 
> hours into Friday, rather than 13 or 15, but that it was set for exactly 
> 14 hours and 0 chalakim simply in order to have a nice, round starting 
> point for calculations.? Sure, you could then work backwards and 
> calculate the *exact* meridian in whose mean solar time that the molad 
> would have been accurate for in some given year, but I think that's 
> somewhat beside the point.

And then someone decided to mess up the simplicity of that calculation 
by teaching us to start our calculations a year earlier at BaHaRaD...

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781
z...@sero.name       "May this year and its curses end
                      May a new year and its blessings begin"

On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 08:02:09PM +0200, David Cohen via Avodah wrote:
> As far as my main point, I share your objection to the assumption that the
> calendar moladot were intended to be referring to Jerusalem mean time.  I
> just don't think they were intended to be referring to the exact mean time
> of any deliberately selected meridian, but rather that the determining
> factor was having the very first molad come out exactly on the hour.

Ah, a fourth option. Quoting the first three from my previous post:

> 1- Explain it is okay for the time of the molad to be 15-22 min off in the
>    days of chazal, and stick to the common belief that the time is
>    Y-m local.

> 2- Use for the meridian where the local clock is 15 min 22 sec later,
>    so the minimum error (164bce) is zero. That's 4 deg 7 min east of
>    Yerushalayim, which is about 1/3 of the way to Bavel.

> 3- Use the meridian where the local clock is 22 min 25 sec later, so
>    that the error between astronomy and the *time* of the halachic
>    molad was zeros at the end of Chazal's day. 

And now:
4- Use the meridian that gives the first Molad an even 8am the Friday
   Adam was created.

(Note for third parties: Molad Baharad [meaning Yom Shini, 5 hours and
204 chalaqim] is the year before, the Molad for a hypothetical Tishrei
of year 1, on the Monday of a year 0. Which makes the math easier,
since you don't have to subtract anything from the year number to start
calculating. but it's a molad that if Bereishis 1 is literal days,
couldn't have happened -- no earth or moon yet. thus the other name:
"Molad Tohu", the molad during Bereishis 1:2.)

Takeh, that is very telling.

Given that the first Molad is almost certainly back-calculated, and
it's unlikely R Yosi ben Chalafta got every question and machloqes
about dating and years historically correct. (As I've said before,
"shenas 5781 leminyan she'anu monim kan" doesn't make an iqar emunah
that we are monim correctly over here, and in fact may imply we are
conceding we aren't sure.)

If I had confidence it were historically accurate, I could equally say:
the round number may imply HQBH picked that meridian when Creating. And
then there would be a significance to the meridian even with your
core theory.

(Maybe even it points to the meridian of Gan Eden, if it was on earth.)

> There's a wide range, spanning 15 degrees of longitude, over which rounding
> that first molad to the nearest hour would get you the same result (14
> hours into Friday), and I doubt that it particularly interested anybody at
> the time the calendar molad was established to figure out exactly what
> meridian it would be precisely accurate for.  For the purpose of the
> calendar, it doesn't matter.  We only need to know if we want to translate
> the molad into an actual time that we can point to on our watches and say
> "the molad is.... now." ...

The point of Mevorkhim haChodesh (a/k/a Hahrazat haHodesh) and making
sure to be aware of the time of the molad when doing so is to commemorate
Qiddush haChodesh by the Sanhedrin. So, however the Sanhedrin referred
to the molad when setting up the rules for dechiyot when they switched
us to al pi cheshbon would serve the purpose. Any convention would do;
but better the one they did.

(The Magein Avraham says this is why we're standing, like beis din
accepting eidim. Except, RAEiger asks, they /didn't/ stand for eidus for
RCh! It's possible we're standing like the eidim, declaring the time
of the future RCh as a commemoration of everyone in the room saying
"MeQudash! MeQudash!")

I was arguing that R Hillel and his beis din would likely use some
contemporary time when setting up the calendar.

So as to keep the lede on top, I replied first about the *time* of
the molad. Jumping to RDC talking about the *interval*:
> The length of the mean synodic month (expressed in mean solar days***) is
> decreasing *very* slowly, such that it takes about 10,000 years to decrease
> by an entire chelek...

Which does mean that the most accurate time for the molad interval is
less than rounding error. It was but one factor out of what I thought
was a three-way "coincidence" that commended looking for the "right"
meridian in the days of R Hillel's beis din. The fact that it was their
time is much more significant (although less "coincidental"). And it
makes sense to announce the time at a meridian just around the middle
of where Jews then lived.

Might even be what the Rambam means, when he talks about the region eidim
may come from. Even if eidim weren't actually going to try arriving from
Bavel (and on time?!). The Rambam sticks in my craw still.

You can dismiss the significance of the "most accurate molad interval"
third of the "coincidence" without changing much of my argument. Which
is why I wanted to separate it out of the conversation of what clock the
molad *time* is from the topic of the accuracy of the molad *interval*.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
Author: Widen Your Tent      happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                      - Dale Carnegie

On 23/12/20 4:27 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> c- it is also the era when the*interval*  between molads ("molad"
>         definition #1) was correct to the average time between astronomical
>         real new moons was within a cheileq.

It's *still* within a chelek.  It's only 0.5 seconds off now, almost 
2000 years later.


-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781
z...@sero.name       "May this year and its curses end
                      May a new year and its blessings begin"

 RMB: Second issue, if someone didn't inspire others to do the mitzvah in

> question, how can that mitzvah be added to their cheshbon. And I don't
> mean that they in effect inspired, I mean chose to inspire. After all,
> what's the sekhar in just happening to be a cause, no different than a
> falling rock could be a cause?...How do we satisfy straightforward notions
> of Dayan haEmes with these things?

I suggested:

ZL (Avodah V38 #112): It seems that the concept for one's ] is that Hashem
> gave people the power to gift each
> other, or to assign a sharing of the merits they gain to whomever they
> please. Just as it is in olam hezeh. What is the justice that I should
> gain
> wealth by my shver gifting me, just because I married his daughter?
> Not that I have a mekor for any of this. Maybe we can relate it to the
> concept of a kinyan to B through the han'a'a that A get's from B' accepting
> the item from him. (The niftar's neshamah is surely choosing to grant the
> learner the hana'a of accepting the learner's gift to it. In exchange of
> that hana'a to the learner, that neshama gains the merit of the learning.)


But RMB dismissed that with:

>
> RMB:
> >> Yes. But we're talking about how the RBSO could be Just. I would prefer
> >> getting to a point of "I really don't know" than embracing theories
> >> that don't seem fair. It's theology. "I don't know" is a perfectly fine
> >> answer; we shouldn't insist we /can/ understand it all and settle for
> >> compromises....


And I agreed, but called attention to how this relates to the original
issue:

ZL > True. But it is only a dilemma deserving an ''I don't know' response
if you
> accept the premises that the practice of saying kaddish in such a
situation
> is valid, somehow ...

RMB: Which situations?


ZL: I meant situations such as an infant's petira, and the application to
it of the le'i'ui nishmas concept.
Or situations such as when ''[others doing a mitzvah ''on someone's
behalf''] when that someone ''didn't inspire the others to do the mitzvah
in question,'' where the question arises over the fairness of how that
mitzvah can be added to their cheshbon.

So I wrote that this is only a dilemma if such practices, particularly with
such a kavana, were attributable to minhag Yisrael/bnei neviim heim.

RMB replied:

RMB: Qaddish for someone who you don't owe in that sort of way doesn't
> actually

have a long tradition. I wouldn't assume it qualifies as minhag Yisrael.

Me: I'm not informed about the minhag status of Kaddish for an infant,
or learning
something like mishnayos for a stranger. Nor of the history of doing these
things with the intent of 'e'ilui nafsham. If such practice, and certainly
if the attribution of ilui nefesh powers to the practice does not qualify
as a minhag, then that would tend to weaken the need for an explanation of
''I don't know'' for why we are making such an attribution.

RMB concluded: But I think that regardless of whether a person can get
> zekhus for a
> mitzvah done, rather than for their role in causing that mitzvah to be
> done, if the emotions of the moment can cause someone to say Qaddish
> with kavvanah, why not say it?


Fine, L'maa'aseh of reciting the Kaddish. But the original issue was the
theological one of how to defend applying the concept of le'ilui nishmas in
such situations.

Zvi Lampel

- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                      - Rabindranath Tagore
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20201224/551cdd5d/attachment-0001.html>

The explanation I posted as to why Yosef asked particularly about whether
Yaakov, and not Yitzchak, was still alive (namely, Yosef feared that the
reason Yaakov did not demand the brothers return Joseph to him, was either
that Yaakov also thought that Yosef deserved golus, or that Yaakov was no
longer alive) does not seem to be gaining any traction among the
discussants. Too bad, I really think it's pashut peshat.

As I posted back in 2005 (V. 16, #072), I later came across the same peshat
given by R.Shmuel Shraga Feigenson (in his work, "HaSh'mattas
Mi-HaYerushalmi, printed in the back of our Yerushalmi masechta Brachos),
which closes by wondering why none of the "ba'aley ha-peshat" have
suggested it!

I then found out that R. Yoel ben Nun also came up with. And last year, I
was at a drasha where R. Doniel Neustadt also said he came up with it.

Besides the evidence that I brought for it, I just thought of another
factor pointing to it:

Reuvain was not present when Yosef was sold. Why not? Because it was his
turn in the rotation to be meshameish Yaakov. But Yosef was also with
Yaakov! It seems that although all the other brothers took turns being
meshameish Yaakov, Yosef's role was to always stay and study with him.
(Likely adding to the brothers' concerns).

So now, in addition to the strangeness of Yaakov sending Yosef out to see
the welfare of his brothers (who what, needed Yosef's protection?) is the
strangeness that all of a sudden, Yaakov sends out to them not Reuvain, but
Yosef!

As I originally noted, Bereishis Rabbah (84:13) states that when Yaakov
Avinu contemplated his sending Yosef out to his brothers, "his innards tore
themselves [to pieces] (mis-chas'chin). It depicts Yaakov as saying, "You
knew that your brothers hate you, yet you said "henneni"!--which in its
literal sense would indicate that Yaakov ultimately knew, or at least
suspected, that his sons were
responsible for Yosef's disappearance. He likely found his behavior
inexplicable, while the explanation Yosef feared was that his father set
him up to be ''taken care of'' by his brothers.

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20201224/f6c19f7e/attachment-0001.html>

On 24/12/20 4:06 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> (Maybe even it points to the meridian of Gan Eden, if it was on earth.)

Shu"t Bnei Tzion (R David Shapiro, Y'm, 1930) cites a medrash that the 
sun was created directly over Gan Eden, and that the sun was created at 
9am in EY.  Therefore, he says, Gan Eden is 90 deg east of EY.  And 
presumably on the equator, though he doesn't explicitly say so; that 
spot is now underwater.

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy 5781
z...@sero.name       "May this year and its curses end
                      May a new year and its blessings begin"

Please see


Teveth I<https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/teveth_I.pdf>
The Tenth of Teveth-The Wanderdoom (Galuth) of the Jewish People and its
Significance (Collected Writings II)

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20201225/74c4eafb/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.)