Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 184

Tuesday, March 9 1999

• Chazal and science
• Women and Megilla
• Re: megilla
• Re: d'rabbanan
• Re: d'rabbanan
• Kant Revisited
• re: science and history
• Minyan Shmitto
• What year is it anyway?
• re: science and history
• Oleinu Nusach
• Rambam and the Big Bang - maybe not?
• Shabbos Hagadol
• Re: Shabbos Hagadol
• Avudraham on Shabbos HaGadol
• More on 420
• 420 and halachah
• [none]

Check the Rambam Moreh Nevuchim Chelek Gimmel end of Perek 14 and in Hilchot
Kiddush Hachodesh 17 at the end how he dealt with the discrepancy between
chazal's astronomy and secular science.

But Chazal *did* follow the opinions of gentile scientists of their time
(see the gemara in Pesachim 94b re: R. Yehuda Hanassi; the gemara in Shabbat
85a re: agriculture; the Yerushalmi in Shviit 9:2 on animal behavior).

Josh

Excerpted from
"WOMEN'S PRAYER SERVICES - THEORY AND PRACTICE; Part 1: Theory
by Aryeh A. Frimer and Dov I. Frimer
Published in Tradition, 32:2, pp. 5-118 (Spring 1998).


Women and Minyan for Reading the Megillah

The consensus of leading aharonim is that ten women alone indeed do
constitute a proper minyan for both the reading of the Megillah (in a
regular year and even on Purim Meshulash) and reciting of the ha-rav et
riveinu benediction. See:

	R. Mas'ud Raphael Alfasi, Resp. Mash'ha de-Rabbevata, addenda at end of
II, sec. 689.
	R. Joseph Hayyim al-Hakam of Baghdad, Resp. Rav Pe'alim, O.H. II, sec.
62.
	R. Moses Hayyim Lits Rosenbaum, Sha'arei Emet, 3, Hilkhot Megillah,
Hemdat Aryeh 4:5.
	R. Jacob Israel Algazi, Hug ha-Arets, sec. 3.
	R. Joseph Hayyim Sonnenfeld, Resp. Salmat Hayyim, I, sec. 101.
	R. Zevi Pesah Frank, Mikra'ei Kodesh, Purim, sec. 35 and 50 (note 3).
	R. Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz, Hazon Ish, O.H. sec. 155, no. 2.
	R. Isaac Halberstadt, Shnai Sarei ha-Kodesh, p. 16.
	R. Sraya Devlitsky, Purim Meshulash chap. 2, parag. 8 and 9 and
addendum thereto.
	R. Hanoch Zundel Grossberg, Iggeret ha-Purim, first edition chap. 7,
parag. 2, second edition chap. 8, parag. 3.
R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabia Omer, VIII, O.H. sec. 23, no. 27 and sec. 56,
end of no. 4; R. Ovadiah Yosef, Likkutei Kol Sinai, p. 47, sec. 23; R.
Yitschak Yosef, Yalkut Yosef, second edition, Hilkhot Mikra Megillah 7.
	R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Resp. Tsits Eliezer XIII, sec. 73.
	R. Joseph Shalom Eliashiv (personal written communication to AAF, 27
Adar 5754, March 10, 1994).
	Questioner in Resp. Mishneh Halakhot, Mahadurah Tanyana, vol. 1, O.H.
sec. 550.
	R. Joel Schwartz, Adar u-Furim, chap. 8, sec. 5, parag. 2 and 3 and
note 11.
	R. David Auerbach, Halikhot Beita chap. 24, sec. 17-21 and notes 33,
34, 44 and 48.
R. Moses Mordecai Karf, Hilkhot Hag be-Hag: Purim, chap. 8, parag. 13
and 14 note 32 and addendum to chap. 8, parag. 13 note 31, p. 218. 
	R. Yehudah Herzl Henkin, Tsibbur Nashim be-Keri'at ha-Megillah, Keshot,
4 (Adar II/Nisan 5755), sec 14, p. 8-10.
	Rabbis Joshua Katz and Mordechai Nagari, Ma'alot, no. 185, Parshat
Tetsaveh 5756; Halakhah Sedurah, sec. B, no. 5.

	However, other poskim dissent:
	R. Shlomoh Kluger, Hokhmat Shlomoh O.H. 689:5.
	R. Hayyim Sofer, Kaf ha-Hayyim O.H. 690:120.
	R. Jehiel Mikhel Epstein, Arukh ha-Shulhan O.H. 690:25.
	Rabbi Menashe Klein, Resp. Mishneh Halakhot, Mahadurah Tanyana, vol. 1,
O.H. sec. 550. 
	R. M. Feinstein [quoted by R. Dovid Katz, "A Guide to Practical
Halakha-Chanuka and Purim" (New York: Traditional Press, 1979), VIII,
Laws of Purim, sec. 14, no. 15, p. 134].
 

Women's Megillah Reading

	Many poskim maintain that there is no halakhic problem with women
reading Megillah for themselves, individually or in a large group. It
should be emphasized that these poskim are referring to a women's
Megillah reading exclusively and no generalization can be made regarding
women's services. See:
	(1) In October 1985, R. Mordechai Tendler indicated that R. Moshe
Feinstein had no objections to such a reading. 
	(2) Ma'aleh Adumim Chief Rabbis Joshua Katz and Mordecai Nagari,
Ma'alot, no. 185, Parshat Tetsaveh 5756, Halakhah Sedurah, sec. B, no. 5
and conversation with Dov I. Frimer, March 23, 1996.
	(3) R. Yehuda Herzl Henkin, Resp. Bnei Vanim, II, no. 10; Resp. Bnei
Vanim, III, sec. 7; 
	(4) R. Gedaliah Felder, cited by R. Henkin in Hadarom, ibid;
conversation with Aryeh A. Frimer, April 29, 1992.
	(5) R. David Cohen, conversation with R. Shael I. Frimer, March 1979,
and to Aryeh A. Frimer, March 1980; 
	(6) R. David Feinstein, conversation with Aryeh A. Frimer and Noach
Dear, March 26, 1991, and to Aryeh A. Frimer, Dov I. Frimer and Noach
Dear, March 19, 1995; 
	(7) R. Levi Yitzchak ha-Levi Horowitz, The Bostoner Rebbi, conversation
with Mr. Noach Dear, March 1990 - however, on April 13th, 1997, the
Rebbi's gabbai, Nesanel Peterman, wrote the following: "Since the Rebbi
considered this issue in the early 1990's, the whole question of women's
'rights' has become more complex and the Rebbi would like to consider
the wider issues further."
	(8) R. Aharon Lichtenstein, conversation with R. Chaim Brovender, March
1992 and February 1994, and to Dov I. Frimer, October 21, 1992 and
February 19, 1994, also permits a women's Megillah reading.
Nevertheless, R. Lichtenstein does advise Jerusalemite women not to hold
such a reading when the fifteenth of Adar falls on Shabbat (known as
Purim meshulash). While most authorities agree that ten women do
constitute a minyan for mikra Megillah even on Purim meshulash, a
minority dissent. R. Lichtenstein maintains, therefore, that it is best
to be stringent so as to be sure that one's obligation has been
fulfilled. Rav Aharon explained that the Rov (Rabbi Joseph B.
Soloveitchik) preferred that women be machmir for the same reasons (to
be yotzei kol ha-dei'ot lekhathila) every year. Hence, the Rov preferred
that women did not have their own service for mikra Megillah. 
	(9) R. Aaron Soloveitchik, in a taped conversation with Dov I. Frimer,
July 8, 1997, ruled that in those communities, such as in Israel, where
there is already an established custom to have a second Megillah reading
for women, it is irrelevant whether the reader is male or female.
Elsewhere, where such a minhag is not so common, a special women's
Megillah reading should not be permitted (for hashkafic and public
policy reasons).
	(10) R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabia Omer, VIII, O.H., sec. 56, end of no. 4
writes: "...the custom of women who make a minyan by themselves for
mikra Megillah...should be encouraged." Indeed, his son R. David Yosef,
Torat ha-Moadim: Hilkhot u-Minhagei Purim ve-Hodesh Adar, sec. 5., note
9, p. 139, s.v ve-ha-Rama, indicates that despite the rulings of Magen
Avraham and Korban Netanel, Ashkenazi (and certainly Sefardi) women can
read for other women.

	Both of the past Chief Rabbis of Israel have published opinions against
women's Megillah readings:
	Former Sefardic Chief Rabbi R. Mordecai Eliyahu is quoted by R. Moses
Harari, Mikra'ei Kodesh - Hilkhot Purim, chap. 6, parag. 8, note 30.
	Former Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi Abraham Kahana Shapira is quoted by his
assistant R. Zalman Koitner, in a letter distributed by a group called
"Women of Efrat for the Achdut of Halakhah" and published in the
newspaper Yom ha-Shishi, 15 Adar 5791 (March 1, 1991), p. 8. R.
Shapira's letter indicates that although "...halakhically, a woman can
read for other women", nevertheless "one should not change the prevalent
custom" which has followed the more stringent ruling of the Mishnah
Berurah (Korban Netanel).
	R. Menashe Klein also dissents: see, Mishneh Halakhot, Mahadurah
Tanyana, vol. 1, O.H. sec 550.  As noted above, the Rov (Rabbi Joseph B.
Soloveitchik) preferred that women be machmir in order to be yotzei kol
ha-de'ot.

In a message dated 3/7/99 11:10:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, owner-
avodah@aishdas.org writes:

<< He feels that K'rias Megillah is composed of tzvei dinim: pirsumei nisah
and
 mechiyar Amaleik. While "af hein hayu b'oso haneis" means that women share in
 the same chiyuv of pirsumei nisa, he wasn't as sure about the Amaleik issue.
  >>

this is the chiddush of the marcheshes I:22.

-Chaim

In a message dated 3/7/99 11:10:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, owner-
avodah@aishdas.org writes:

<< My brother-in-law's
 position on d'rabbanan's seems vaguely to resemble Moses Mendelsohn's
 opinion on mitzvos: They have no special qualities necessarily, but we are
 bound by them regardless >>

Wrong.  What I wrote was that those special qualities are pointless to
speculate about as you or I have no clue as to what that may be.  To give an
example: I have no doubts that the 120 zekainim u'nevi'im who composed our
tefillos had better things on their mind than good poetic writing, but I am in
position to ascertain what those secrets are, and I fufill my halachic
requirements of tefilah by knowing the peirush hamilim.  Your position seems
to be one of speculating b'nistaros - pondering what MIGHT be theological or
metaphysical implications.  Since lo bashamayim hi and none of us has nevuah I
don't quite see what you hope to accomplish, but to each his own.

-Cb

On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> Wrong.  What I wrote was that those special qualities are pointless to
> speculate about as you or I have no clue as to what that may be.  To

What about, say, the Maharal?

> give an example: I have no doubts that the 120 zekainim u'nevi'im who
> composed our tefillos had better things on their mind than good poetic
> writing, but I am in position to ascertain what those secrets are, and I

What about, say, R' Kook and RSRH?

> fufill my halachic requirements of tefilah by knowing the peirush
> hamilim.  Your position seems to be one of speculating b'nistaros -
> pondering what MIGHT be theological or metaphysical implications.  Since

Are we not supposed to attempt to understand? See the Gur Aryeh Reish
Parashas Bechukosai.

> lo bashamayim hi and none of us has nevuah I don't quite see what you
> hope to accomplish, but to each his own. 
> 

Sheer curiousity: Do you see any value to the corpus of Machasva
literature?

Your position reminds me of the story of R' Moshe Soloveichik and the
Chassidishe Ba'al Tokei'ah...

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Fascinating footnote in Eugene Korn's Winter '97 essay in Tradition
magazine:

23. ...Rambam assumed that his theological principles and metaphysical
claims were demonstrably true, i.e., given to rational proof. It is
uncertain, however, whether Rambam would have maintained his intolerance
had he lived in our modern post-Kantian universe, where the truth of
metaphysical propositions is deemed unprovable and theological commitments
are more a product of will then rational knowledge. 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Rabbi Bechhofer writes:

<<<
Thanks for your eloquent response. "But let me ask you like this", to use
a yeshivishism:

Judgments are one thing. But what about enactments: I.e., not an
appliication, but an innovation, say, Yom Tov Sheni, Chanukah, Netillas
Yadayim, Eruvin - on which we make "Asher Kideshanu b'Mitzvasov" - does
the observance of these mitzvos d'rabbonon correspond to some source of
sanctity that was created by the Rabbis with their enactment, and does
there observance imply any theological or metaphysical benefit other than
the dogmatic observance of law?
>>>

If I undertand you correctly, you are asking me why I obey (with the
appropriate blessing) purely Rabbinic enactments that are not based on a
derivation from a Biblical verse.  But the obligation to obey Rabbinic
enactments is itself derived from a Biblical verse, "al pi ha-Torah asher
yorucha" or something else in a similar vein.  Are you suggesting that your (or
Rabbi Dessler's or the Chazon Ish's or Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik's, or for that
matter, my) subjective evaluation of Chazal's scientific or historical reliability is
of greater moment than the revealed word of G-d?  

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

RYGB: >>
Shemittos don't start from Beri'as Ha'Olam: They start from the entry into
EY and continue from there. 165 is not divisible by seven, so everythiing
would be askew.

(BTW, according to R' Schwab, if I understand correctly, it is now
actually 5759+165!) <<

When I was in 11th grade (1967-1968) R. Moshe Heinemann taught us kllolei luach.

(apprently his father made an accurate luach while in the camps under the Nazis 
YS)

Year 1 starts with 25 Ellul, and th 6th day of brio was the 1st of Tishrei in 
year 2. To my best recollection, Shmittos WERE detremined from the Brias olom 
year. (This MIGHT have been because the cycles co-incided to entry into EY, I'm 
not certain).  The 19 year cycle of Hillel sheini was definitely based upon 
Brias Olom.

I also recall that Art Scroll's Birchas haChamo (circa 1981) said that TB and 
Shmuell knew that the physical year was not 365.25, but that was the figure used
in Halocho anyway.  (simplicity perhaps?)

Isn't there a Tosfos that uses 3 as PI?  My understanding that for Eiruvin, etc.
this was an pproximation that works, and not as a substitute for PI in 
engineering.

Some wish to say that Chazal were "ignorant" because they ignored certain 
scientific or historical phonemena.  Like Artscroll, I choose to see Chazal as 
simplifying certain complex issues for transmission purposes.)

(L'havdil, Kalishnikov of the AK47 rifle kept saying over and over that the 
succes of his design was due to the fac that he kept it simple and reliable.  
Isn't that a metaphor for a lot of Mesorah?)

Rich Wolpoe 

RYGB:<<
(BTW, according to R' Schwab, if I understand correctly, it is now
actually 5759+165!) <<

I think Rav Shcwab did a (partial?) retraction of his original article.  So in 
his defense, he may not have held of the +165 for very long.

One theory discussed at BRGS is that the missing 165 is compenstated for prior 
to churban Bayis Rishon. I.E> the 480 in  in Melochim VI:1 was longer than the 
actual years.  IOW, one discrepancy offsets the other. 

There may be other ways of conmpensating, too. 

Rich Wolpoe

On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, David Glasner wrote:

> If I undertand you correctly, you are asking me why I obey (with the
> appropriate blessing) purely Rabbinic enactments that are not based on a
> derivation from a Biblical verse.  But the obligation to obey Rabbinic
> enactments is itself derived from a Biblical verse, "al pi ha-Torah
> asher yorucha" or something else in a similar vein.  Are you suggesting

Not asking that!

I am asking, rather, is that all?

Is there an intuitive Ruach HaKodesh to Chazallic pronouncements - or not?

Are there, to paraphrase another post, spiritual worlds that Chazal tapped
into with their enactments? I obviously think there are - do you?

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

RMicha Berger writes;  <For example, the Gro felt that the common nusach of
"moshav yikaro" violated hilchos Avodah Zarah. It's an anthropomorphication
not found in Tanach. He
therefore changed it to the less common version of Aleinu which read "kisei
k'vodo", as Hashem is often pictured on a kisei>
  This is unlikely as an explanation for the changed girsoh since a) there
are plenty of other anthropomorphic referents in davening which are not
changed and b) kisei  is even more anthropomorphically offensive than the
moshav it replaces while yiqoro and kivodo I'd call a draw. 

R Wolpoe is much closer with his comment <I heard it was because Yekaro and
Yehsu had the same gematriyo!>.  This suggestion was aired by Wieder in a
1975 Sinai article -cited also in one of the earlier Sperber Minhogei
Yisroel volumes. He points out the amusing fact that the censored phrase in
oleinu - about bowing li'hevel vo'riq, with voriq having the same gemtaria
as yeshu afforded the jewish daveners all sorts of pleasure as they ritually
(and literally at times) spat out vo'riq thinking of you know whom - but at
the same time the consternation which must have been caused the same
daveners as soon as they realized the further phrase of moshav yiqoro
bashomayim, with yiqoro merely a permutation of voriq with of course the
same gematria.  And since one could hardly tolerate a hidden message
espousing jesus' moshav in shomayim, it gave rise to this, and other
suggestions, for nusach changes. 

Mechy Frankel			michael.frankel@dtra.mil

All the back and forth about einstein and big bangs and such like reminded
me of another matter worth passing remark.  What set off the first round of
brouhahas were some differences of opinion re motivations  for AE's changing
his field equations to avoid dealing with an expanding universe, a step he
later regretted as physical evidence started to surface consonant with such
an expansion.   But also underlying the exchange was (what i inferred to be)
R. Ginsparg's understanding of only the latter cosmic condition - the big
bang - being congenial to the traditional jewish tifisoh of biriyoh yeish
mai'ayin, as most emphatically emphasized by the rambam.  And in this he is
undoubtedly correct - or at least his view is very widely shared by frum
jews of every hashkofic persuasion. (though I have never felt that way
myself, pace rambam, and  indeed I agree with the thrust of Dr. Stokar's
recent letter denying any necessary qesher between current scientific
cosmological preferences and religious understandings).   In a high level
group such as this we should at least pause to remember that there is - and
has always been - a strain of thought to the effect that the rambam was
prevaricating here, and did not in fact mean what he said about the
incompatibility of qadmus ha'olom with religion.  This is part of what more
generally goes under the rubric of maimonidian esoterica, which studies
started about as soon as the ink dried on moreh nevuchim and which seeks to
uncover the rambam's true attitudes towards whatever - and we know he
bikavonoh was not always on the up and up with his readers because he
himself warned us he was gonna mislead them here and there.  The choice
between eternity of matter vs its creation has always been a prime candidate
of esoreticians for a place in the list of rambimical (think that has legs?)
obfuscations, and for some cogent - though not slam dunk compelling -
reasons.  

Mechy Frankel		michael.frankel@dtra.mil 

We were discussing this over the weekend...
Shabbos Hagadol - al Sheim Ma?
The Tur and others brgins down based on Be'osor Lachodesh Haze, that the taking 
of the avodo zoro of was a great neis, hence the name Shabbos Hagadol...

The Drisha (and I was told the Maharshal) give the reason as based upon the 
possuk in the Haftoro of Shabbos Hagadol, (i.e... lifnei bo yom Hagadol...)

Question to our esteemed group:  What is the earliest source of saying the 
hafotoro of v'Orvoh on Shabbos Hagadol?

Rich Wolpoe

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> We were discussing this over the weekend...
> Shabbos Hagadol - al Sheim Ma?
> The Tur and others brgins down based on Be'osor Lachodesh Haze, that the taking
> of the avodo zoro of was a great neis, hence the name Shabbos Hagadol...
>
> The Drisha (and I was told the Maharshal) give the reason as based upon the
> possuk in the Haftoro of Shabbos Hagadol, (i.e... lifnei bo yom Hagadol...)
>
> Question to our esteemed group:  What is the earliest source of saying the
> hafotoro of v'Orvoh on Shabbos Hagadol?
>
> Rich Wolpoe


R. Kasher in his Hagadah Shleima  cites nine reasons for the name.

I wrote an article based on him that will G-d willing appear in the Cleveland Jews
News in three weeks.
It follows below for those who are interested.



"The GREAT Shabbat"
 by Ari Z. Zivotofsky

 The shabbat immediately preceding Passover (April 4th this year) is a
distinguished one. It bears an impressive title and a unique set of liturgical and
ritual practices. Known as Shabbat Hagadol - the "GREAT" or "big" shabbat - it can
precede the holiday by as much as seven days. But it does not mark the onset of our
psychological or practical preparation for the celebration. That distinction
probably belongs to the 30th day preceding the holiday, when according to our sages
we should begin reviewing the detail-rich requirements for the traditional
fulfillment of our religious obligations. It is also customary to eliminate food
items containing chometz from our freezers and pantries by consuming and not
replacing these supplies and by thoroughly cleaning the house over an extended
period preceding this shabbat.
 In the synagogue the approach of Passover is heralded by the public reading of
four special Torah portions beginning about seven weeks before Passover. Finally,
the Shabbat before Passover has arrived. There are two widespread customs observed
on this shabbat: The rabbi delivers a major discourse, second in importance only to
the high-holiday sermon, and the first half of the haggadah is recited in the
afternoon, almost like a practice session before the seder.
 In many contemporary synagogues the high point of every shabbat morning service is
the rabbi's speech. It was not always this way. Throughout most of Jewish history,
until about 200 years ago, the Torah reading was the focus of the service and the
rabbi delivered a sermon only twice a year - on Shabbat Shuva - the shabbat between
Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, and on Shabbat Hagadol.
 A strange thing about Shabbat Hagadol is that there is no clear origin to its name
and character, as exists for Shabbat Shuva. The Haggadah Shlaimah By Rabbi Kasher
collects nine different reasons that have been suggested over the years. Among them
are the following:
 The most well known source relates back to the events that occurred in Egypt right
before the Exodus. The year the Jews left Egypt Passover, the 15th of the month of
Nissan occurred, according to tradition, on Thursday. Thus, the 10th of Nissan was
on Shabbat. It was on that day that each Jewish family selected the Paschal Lamb
that would be used at the seder. Since the Egyptians worshipped sheep this was a
daring and risky action. A GREAT miracle occurred and the Egyptians remained
passive. It is in commemoration of this GREAT miracle that occurred on the shabbat
before Passover that we observe the shabbat before Passover as the GREAT shabbat.
 The Chizkuni and others have suggested that the day was GREAT since for the first
time in our history the Jews carried out a Divine commandment - the taking of the
Paschal lamb - as a nation. Similarly, when a Jew matures and becomes obligated in
the commandments as a bar or bat mitzvah s/he is referred to as a GADOL - as in
Shabbat hagadol.
 A slightly humorous explanation is offered by Rashi. Since people remain in the
synagogue significantly longer than on other weeks to listen to the special,
well-developed sermon, this shabbat appears to be exceedingly long (gadol).
Furthermore, this long lecture is delivered by the gadol (outstanding religious
personality) of the community.
 Two suggestions detract slightly from the uniqueness of the day. One attributes
the title to a scribal error. Ancient books had called it Shabbat Haggada because
part of the haggada is read during the day. The word Haggada was written in
abbreviated form and eventually became corrupted to hagadol. This theory is
rejected by Rabbi Kasher because the usage of the name Shabbat Hagadol is far more
widespread than the custom of reading the Haggadah. Furthermore, there are just too
many diverse and early sources that employ the term hagadol to suspect that they
are all based on a scribal error.
 Others have noted that in different periods and locations not only the shabbat
before Passover was called Shabbat Hagadol, but so was the shabbat before Shavuot
and Sukkot. It was simply a way of designating the special event that is to take
place during the upcoming week.
 Probably the most likely source of the name Shabbat Hagadol is that it relates to
the haftora of the day. Just like Shabbat Shuva and Shabbat Nachamu (the shabbat
right after Tisha B'av) are so called because of phrases found in their respective
haftora readings, so too Shabbat Hagadol. Its haftora portion is taken from the
prophet Malachi and speaks about the coming of Elijah the prophet to announce the
Great Day of God. Hence it is called THE Great Shabbat (Shabbat HAgadol), not just
Great Shabbat (Shabbat Gadol). It is for this great day that we yearn on Passover
night when we great Elijah at the door and proclaim at the conclusion of the seder
"Next year in the rebuilt Jerusalem."


Ari Z. Zivotofsky

Interesting (IMHO) tidbit:

The Avudraham writes that sheep were /not/ an Egyptian deity. Rather, the
zodiac was. And, since Pesach occured in the month whose mazal is a sheep,
the sheep was sacred during that month.

Many opine (typically Shabbos morning, right before mussaf <grin>) that the
point of the first korban pesach was to have a show of bitachon as necessary
precondition for the ge'ulah. IOW, the choice of animal was /because/ it
was important to Egyptians.

If the Avudraham agrees, it would turn out that the choice of animal for
korban Pesach was because of the zodiac for Nissan. However, in Jewish
astrology, the reverse is usually said: Nissan is the month of the sheep
because of the korban pesach.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  8-Mar-99: Levi, Vayakhel-Pekudei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 302:7-13
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 46b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Horeb 713-715

Given: we halachically accept the 420 as being halachic...
Question:  At WHAT point in time did it become halachically binding?

Rich Wolpoe

In what way does the duration of bayis sheini affect halachah? Two
possibilities came to mind, but I don't think either actually do.

1- Dating sh'taros. However, we add "liminyan she'anu monim kan", which is
true whether or not the count is correct. As long as the year is thought of
as 5759.

2- Sh'mittah. Sh'mittah bizman hazeh is l'zeicher, no? So, the chachamim had
to choose which years to do the zikaron on, and they chose these. This would
be true whether or not sh'mittah d'Oraisa really would be on those years.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  8-Mar-99: Levi, Vayakhel-Pekudei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 302:7-13
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 46b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Horeb 713-715

>>>My earlier posts allude to just who can override whom!
When I attend Ner Yisroel, I was very bothered how the Rishonim were held to
be 
virtually binding, while the Geonim were given quite short-shrift. <<<

How much material do we have from the Geonim?  Answer - very little.  Maybe
the small quantity of material is the reason


________________________________
Ben Waxman
Technical Writer, Foxcom Ltd.
Telephone:  972 2 589 9822
Fax: 972 2 589 9898

Have you seen Foxcom's Website?
http://www.foxcom.com

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]