Avodah Mailing List

Volume 43: Number 64

Sat, 25 Oct 2025

• 1. Re: tachanun/chatan (Akiva Miller)
• 2. tachanun/chatan (Michael Poppers)
• 3. Re: new moon (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: A woman reciting Birchas Gomel at the Bimah on shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 5. Evolving Practices (Was: Kiddushin and Nisuin (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: value independent of halacha? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Are We to Humiliate Sinners as Mitzvah Tochacha? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: yom tov sheini (Micha Berger)

.
R' Joel Rich asked:

> S"A O"C 131:4 states "nahagu shelo lipol al pneichem ... bbeit
> hachatan." Does nahagu imply amcha did this and the rabbis didn?t
> resist?

Isn't that how ALL minhagim get started?

In fact, my understanding is that the main difference between minhagim and
d'rabanans is that if it starts with amcha and the rabbis don't object,
that's a proper minhag. (As opposed to many examples of minhag shtus, which
the rabbis fought against, with varying degrees of success.) In contrast,
if it starts with the rabbis and the people don't object, then it becomes a
d'rabanan. (As opposed to some examples where the people did *not* ratify
it, such as Tevilas Ezra, which are not binding upon us, although they are
certainly in the "good idea" category.)

> Even though tachanun was a rshut (maybe not now) why would one
> want not to take advantage to say it?

Great question. Apparently, they felt Tachanun to be incongruous with the
nature of the situation.

Perhaps we can compare it to saying Selichot on Rosh Hashana. Why wouldn't
we want to say Selichot on one of the main days of the Aseret Ymei Teshuva?
And the answer is because Rosh Hashana *is* a yom tov. Yet, interestingly,
we do not totally reject that suggestion, but instead we compromise by
skipping Selichot while allowing Avinu Malkenu. (And on Shabbos, we skip
even that.) Everything is very carefully measured and nuanced.

Tu B'Shvat is another example. It seems to me that at some point in
history, the general feeling was that saying Tachanun on Tu B'Shvat was
inappropriate, and so they chose to skip it. But on the other hand, for
some reason, saying Lam'natzeach on Tu B'Shvat was NOT considered
inappropriate, so they continued saying Lam'natzeach on Tu B'Shvat - - -
even though Lam'natzeach WAS inappropriate for Purim Katan. Apparently,
Purim Katan has a higher level of simcha than Tu B'Shvat, and I would not
be surprised if someone somewhere once gave an entire shiur on that.

The above is merely my own conjecture, based on the evidence at hand. I
have not seen anything written about this. But it does fit well with the
concept of Yeridas Hadoros. It seems to me that previous generations were
very sensitive to all sorts of things that go far over my head.

> Also, why the focus on bet hachatan (like bet haavel) and not
> just in his presence? Is there a higher degree of joy there?

Indeed, you seem to have answered it yourself. If we can presume that this
minyan was not merely in the chatan's home but that he was present in that
minyan, then yes, there was a noticably higher degree of joy there. And
apparently, that difference was enough to trigger the skipping of Tachanun.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20251022/c4e65e93/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah V43n63, RJIR asked, "...why the focus on bet hachatan (like bet
haavel) and not just in his presence? Is there a higher degree of joy there?"
As can be seen from BT Sukah 25b
<https://www.dafyomi.org/index.php?masechta=succah&;daf=25b>, it's not just
about the *chasan* -- it's about him and the *kalla* being together under
the *chuppa*; and NB how Tos'fos (*d'ham'* "ein simcha ela b'chuppa")
stress the *chuppa* aspect and how the *g'mara* dismisses *sukka* as
equivalent to being under that *chuppa* (basically because the *chasan*
cannot interact w/ his *kalla* in the same manner should the *simcha* be
moved to a *sukka*).

Gut Chodesh, a gut'n Shabbes, and all the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20251022/812dd244/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 06:02:03AM +0300, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> Do we believe that moshe rabbeinu and/or shlomo hamelech did not know how
> to calculate when the new moon would appear (as Hillel II established)?

Rabbi Hillel didn't establish when the new moon would appear. He
presided over the last Sanhedrin who established when Rosh Chodesh
will be from then until the next Sanhedrin (bimheirah beyameinu).

It could be that Moshe Rabbeinu and Shelomo haMelekha knew the molad and
still didn't use Rabbi Hillel's calendar. Further down I will explain
why I suspect the molad was given to Moshe miSinai. (But not "halakhah
leMoshe miSinai", since the average time between New Moons is closer to
a fact than a law.)

(According to the She'iltos. The Rambam agrees that our calendar was
made at the end of the last Sanhedrin, but that it was in the days of R
Ashi. He needs this to explain the authority of the Bavli -- that it was
notes from the last time there was a Sanhedrin to legislate nationally.)

Rabbeinu Bachayei on "HaChodesh hazeh lakhem"
<https://www.sefaria.org/Rabbeinu_Bahya%2C_Shemot.12.2.3>
cites Rabbainu Chananel, and they both hold that the calendar was always
calculated. R Eliahu Monk's translation:

   Rabbeinu Chananel also states clearly [Torah Shlemah by Rabbi M. Kasher
   pages 46-48] that we base our calendar on astronomical calculations
   rather than the sighting of the moon. For proof of this, consider the
   fact that during the Israelites wanderings in the desert for 40 years
   when their encampment was totally enveloped by the [ananei hakavod]
   G-ds clouds of distinction, neither the people nor their leaders
   were able to sight the moon. They did not even see the sun by day
   either... How would the Israelites have been able to fix the date of
   the new moon unless they had based themselves on their astronomical
   calculations? Clearly, the principal method of determining the new
   moon is based on calculations.

Leshitasam, receiving eidus was pro-forma part of Qiddush haChodesh
ritual, but not used to set the date.

But as I said above, this machloqes *could* be limited to whether there
were algorithms for Rosh Chodes before R Hillel, not whether the molad
was known.

It's pretty clear to me that R Chananel must had held that the Beis Din
haGadol / Sanhedrin didn't always use the same calculations, just that
they used *a* calculation, and from there decided whether or not to open
to accept eidim. Otherwise, what kind of sefeiqa deyoma would they have
had in Abayei's day to cause YT sheini shel Goliyos?

For that matter, Abayei's day was just decades before our current
calendar. And he is the one who wrote to Jews in Bavel that there is
now a derabbanan to continue acting as though the day is still in doubt.
So apparently they tried to set up a calculated calendar before the end
of the Sanhedrin, and the last Sanhedrin updated the calculation.

Or the comment that Anshei Keneses haGedolah made sure Hoshanah Rabba
would never fall out on Shabbos -- for a reason that didn't exist until
the concept of Hoashanos. Moshe Rabbeinu or Shelomo haMelekh wouldn't
have had that rule.



In years past, I posted here a theory that the molad was miSinai. We
definitely knew the current length of a molad in the days of Galus Bavel,
since they knew them. Historians assume we got it from them. But if you
think about Galus Yechaniah, they took our intellegsia. Knowledge flowed
the other way.

Now it can get a bit mathematically complicated. In short, the length of
a day and a month change with time. (Tides are sapping energy from the
system.) The month got longer, but the change in the length of a day will
also change how long "29 days, 12 hours and 793 chalaqim" is. So, glossing
over that part, there was a time when the molad was its most accurate.

In human history, the average time between astronomical new moons hasn't
been a full cheileq off from the molad. The difference wouldn't have
mattered much until the drift started adding up.

But it when it was most accurate "just happened to be" the same period
as Rabbi Hillel???

So I figure, this shows we didn't figure out the molad. Nor did Bavel.
Hashem must have given Moshe Rabbeinu the molad, but gave the power
to use it as part of deciding when to make Rosh Chodes to BY, and our
representative, the Sanhedrin. (RH 25a)


And after all, just knowing the molad would solve R Chananel's problem
of the how the Dor haMidbar could be meqadeish hachodesh when couldn't
see the moon. Even if the decision of when to start the month didn't
plug that molad into an algorithm.

Chodesh Tov!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
Author: Widen Your Tent      and helps us cope with adversity.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF       - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 03:14:18PM +1000, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
> The Poskim certainly discuss a woman saying HaGomel from the Women's
> gallery. Some of those women's galleries would be curtained, others
> would be behind the men, raised etc

I wonder if the custom in Vilna to let women say Qaddish is a precedent.

In particular, in the Gra's shul there was no Ezras Nashim, so they said
Qaddish from the back of the room.

R CO Grozhinsky and RYBS both used this precedent for cases beyond
Vilna.

I can't see why Qaddish and HaGomel would be different.

Chodesh Tov!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
Author: Widen Your Tent                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 09:51:27AM EDT, R Akiva Miller commented on a
quote by RYGB about the shift to making eirusin and nisuin back-to-back:
>> This makes a lot of sense. The paucity of tangible records
>> of the evolution of the practice remains remarkable.

> I'm not sure, but I think RYGB is pointing out that we do have records
> regarding the evolution of most *other* practices....

> I'd like to suggest that Heseba might be another example of this. It seems
> that there was a universal style of eating meals which involved
> individuals, each with their own recliner-couch and small table...

I am not sure the cases are comparible. Is heseibah at a non-Seder meal
an issue of din or minhag? Or was it that societal norms changed causing
a new scenario to pasqen about?

...
> If R [Aryeh Frimer] is correct about blaming Kiddushin/Nisuin on the
> Crusades, then it would be an example of...

There is another case where the Crusades forced a change in Minhag, and
I also don't know a paper trail -- angling the Mezuzah. Ashkenazim went
from holding like Rashi (and the Rambam) to holding like both them and
Rabbeinu Tam with no record of the switch.

(And yes, diagonoal is a "both", not a compromize. The gemara says
one shouldn't post a mezuzah "like a nagar". And the diagonal is not
like anyone's definition of what that means.)

In terms of history, we saw three stages:
1- Before the Crusades: vertical.
2- During the Crusades: Many doorways were found where the notch the
   mezuzah was in was turned into a cross. When a Jewish home was
   appropriated (hopefully the previous owners survived) the new
   Christian residents would pick out the mezuzah, which was vertical,
   and put a horizontal notch across it to make a cross. (Or maybe the
   problem was worse and that they didn't tear out the mezuzah first?)
3- Late Crusades and after: diagonal.

Chodesh Tov!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The time you spend comparing yourself to others
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   is much better spent investing in yourself.
Author: Widen Your Tent
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Sun, Oct 05, 2025 at 10:17:26PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> R' Joel Rich asked:
> > From a pure halachic viewpoint ISTM there is no benefit for an
> > avel to lead services up to, but not including, yishtabach (some
> > minyanim have no one leading that portion). Is the value that
> > klal yisrael has invested it with value independent of halacha?
> 
> You have hit upon a point which has caused me great frustration over the
> decades.  The Psukei Dzimra Chazan (or however you want to refer to him)
> does serve a very important function. He does the chessed of helping the
> tzibur pace themselves.

If there only is a Qaddish or two before PZ because the minyan are in sync
with a Chazan, the Chazan is even doing the Qaddish recitation minhag.
But ignoring that...

Maybe we should rephrase the question, then, as why the haqpadah for
this mitzvah. There are many ways to help a tzibbur. Some of them, like
a tzedaqah donation or a full fundraiser, are also common.

Chodesh Tov!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   but to become a tzaddik.
Author: Widen Your Tent                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 05:57:50PM -0500, Brent Kaufman via Avodah wrote:
>> the commandment is for us to admonish our fellow Jew, not to bring
>> about his or her repentance

> This is an important statement, but is it accurate? Is this splitting hairs
> or is our mitzvah truly detached from the other guy's need to do teshuva?

It can't be obligatory, as it's up to the other person to choose to
do teshuvah or not.

But, tokhachah requires that teshuvah be possible, with caveats to
follow:

    And R Ila'a said besheim R Elazar ben R Shimon: Just as it is a
    mitzvah for a person to say something which will be listened to,
    so is it a mitzva for a person not to say something which will not
    be listened to.
    R Abba says: It is a chiyuv [in the latter case to stay quiet],
    as it says: "Do not give tokhachah a leitz lest he hate you; give
    tokhachah to a chakham and he will love you." (Mishlei 9:8)

The Rama (OC 428:2) discusses "mutav sheyihyu shogegim" and based on the
Rosh and the Ran holds that this is only mitzvos derived by derashah or
altogether derabbanan.

Personally, I am not sure how we just assume this distinction still holds
now that the major apostacy is no longer Tzeduqim nor Qaraim. But it
does.

Still, the majority of dinim would be mutav sheyihyu shogegim.

However, there is another the caveat, the possibility of teshuvah need
not be that of the sinner in front of you. But there are times one is
obligated to make a macha'ah, a public warning to be careful not to
be influenced by this bad example. (Shabbos 54b) Again, if there is a
likelihood that the masses will listen. And if one stays silent, they
share culpability for the sin. Rav, R Chanina, R Yochana and R Chaviva
quote someone we are told is R Yonasan [although they say R Yochanan] who
uses the word "kol mi she'efeshar. The gemara's cases are one's family,
or if one has some level of leadership in the community that one would
be speaking to. But even if he can influence "bekhol ha'olam kulo -
nispas al kol ha'olam kulo".

Tokhachah when aimed at the sinner should be betzin'ah. Both because
doing it publicly is embarassing them when it could be avoided, and
because strategically by minimizing the chance of defensiveness. But
a macha'ah would be in public, because it is to the population.

Chodesh Tov!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Worrying is like a rocking chair:
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   it gives you something to do for a while,
Author: Widen Your Tent      but in the end it gets you nowhere.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 05:10:40PM -0400, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> When rabbis discuss in a public shiur (vs in yeshiva) the need to observe
> yom tov sheini shel galiyot ISTM I often hear "hizharu bminhag avoteichem
> byadeichem" but not the follow on "zimnin dgazra hamalchut gzeira vati
> lkilkulei" (rashi  -- you'll forget how to do the calendar calculation and
> mess it up). Is this a conscious omission?

If it's a halakhah shiur given to balebatim, I could see a Rav not
trying to motivate the audience using an argument they don't expect
to apply to them.

People don't relate.

(In the past two years, though, I worry about how long things will stay
that way.)

Chodesh Tov!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
-- 
Micha Berger                 Do not spoil what you have by desiring what
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   you have not; remember that what you now
Author: Widen Your Tent      have was once among the things you only hoped
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    for.         - Epicurus


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



_______________________________________________
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.)