Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 041

Thursday, May 11 2000

• Re: Question about Shavuos?
• Re: Question about Shavuos?
• Re: Calendar Controversy Article
• Re: Ozreinu vs. Ezrainu
• Defining Adas Yisrael and Am Yisrael
• Ozreinu vs. Ezreinu
• Re: Defining Adas Yisrael and Am Yisrael
• Re: Defining Adas Yisrael and Am Yisrael
• Re: Cardinal O'Connor
• Ozreinu vs. Ezreinu
• calendar controversy article
• hallel on yom haatzmaut
• Re: Desslerian System

At 07:25 PM 5/9/00 EDT, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 5/9/00 1:01:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, erics@radix.net 
>writes:
>
>> R. Akiva's response was: all the levels are listed in order to show that
>>  the Kohain that pronounces tzaaras must know all four levels.
>
>And so is the Halacha Rambam Hil. Tuma'as Tzoras 1:3
>  
>>  My chevrusa, (more learned than I), was puzzled.  He thought that the
>>  Kohain _doesn't_ have to know all four levels--that the Kohain could bring
>>  an expert, that was is necessary is that the Kohain make the
pronouncements
>>  ("tzaaras").  Again, the Kohain must make the announcement, but doesn't
>>  necessarily have to be an expert, personally, on the four shades of white.
>
>If he relies on the Chochom then he need not know, if he rules on his own he 
>needs to know, see Rambam Hil. Tuma'as Tzoras 9:2

With all due respect (and I'll be the first to admit I'm a rookie), isn't
that obvious?  Isn't it obvious that in order for person-x to make a ruling
on 'y' he has to know about 'y'?   Can one think of a contrary example?
I.e., an example where person-x can make a ruling on 'y' without having to
know about 'y'?

Thanks!

-- Eric

In a message dated 5/10/00 9:37:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, erics@radix.net 
writes:

> With all due respect (and I'll be the first to admit I'm a rookie), isn't
>  that obvious?  Isn't it obvious that in order for person-x to make a ruling
>  on 'y' he has to know about 'y'?   Can one think of a contrary example?
>  I.e., an example where person-x can make a ruling on 'y' without having to
>  know about 'y'?
>  
The point is that he needs to know the entire spectrum and their names, not 
enough that he is certain of this particular color.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 5/10/00 6:36:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

>   I always understood the connection when,  upon announcement of the
>  molad,  we say mi she'oso nisim la'avoseinu....chaverim kol Yisrael,  to
>  mean that we don't have "molad leshitas hageonim,  lehaRambam,  the Gra, 
>  the Mogen Avraham,  the Chazon Ish,  etc.  One molad.   This is truly a
>  nes,  and shows that at least in this respect chaverim kol Yisrael.

Just a pointer to the Issue of Rabon Gamlie-l and Rabbi Yehoshua.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

IMHO, R. Wolpoe is correct and this Shatz is wrong. Let's read the entire
sentence and translate it as this Shatz is saying. It makes little sense. He
is saying, "You are our help for the sake of the glory of your name, and
save us (verb!) and forgive our sins for the sake of your name." In the
book Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, on page 242 (RRW, do you own this sefer?
I'm almost sure you do) the author brings the Levush (Levush Hachur Orach
Chaim 582:5). The Levush writes that (during the period of Yamim Noraim)
one must say Zochreinu and Kosveinu with a chataf-kametz, not with a Cholam.
Why not? Because if you say it with a cholam, you are saying a shem toar
(noun), instead of leshon bakasha. Here as well, the Shatz was substituting
a a shem toar for a bakasha.

Daniel Schiffman

The primary source for the modern-O position on communal affairs involving
non-O Jews is a responsum written by RYBS in 1954, titled "Orthodox,
Conservative and Reform Jews in the United States: Second article in a series
on Responsa of Orthodox Judaism in the United States". It is only available
as a 7 page Xeroxed copy of type-written pages, not dated -- although RYBS
refers to a proposal he presented at an RCA conference "this past summer"
that a footnote associates with the summer of 1954 convention.

In true Brisker derech [the style of learning created by RYBS's grandfather,
R. Chaim Brisker], RYBS divides the concept of the unity of the Jewish
people into "_tzvei dinim_" [two laws]. The first he associates with the term
"_eidah_" [congregation], which he relates to the words "_eid_" and "_eidus_"
[witness, testimony]. The second is that of the "_am_" [nation], from "_im_"
[with].

What unifies us as an _eidah_ is "the unity of Jews as members of a spiritual
community", of being a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation", as decreed at
the end of the revelation of Sinai. "A collective testimony united us all
into a Jewish community. It therefore goes without saying, that the Jew,
who erases from his memory this great testimony, and destroys the unique
collective tradition, breaks the tie which joins him with the Jewish community
as a congregation [_eidah_], as a spiritual Jewish entity."

[RSRH, in his commentary on our verse, reaches a similar definition of the
 word _eidah_ but does so using a different etymology. He finds the root to
 be _ya'ad_, to fix or appoint. "A society united by their common calling."

[I would like, if I may, to add to RYBS's thought by pointing out that the
 proof provided in the Gemara that a minyan requires 10 men is also based
 on the word "_eidah_", via a gezeirah shava to the "eideh hara'ah" of the
 medraglim. A collection of 10 men, by becoming an _eidah_, are able to
 perform things that require the collective sanctity of Bnei -- or is it
 Adas? -- Yisrael.]

The second concept is that of "_am_" -- "_Am livadad yishkon_" we are a
nation that dwells alone. Is is "in our historical transmigrations and in
our paradoxical fate. Our history would not fit into a different historical
framework, and our fate is incomprehensible." This entity predates Sinai,
"And I shall take you unto me as a nation [_am_], and I shall be unto you
a G-d" (Ex. 6:7).

RYBS therefore concludes that participation in political or welfare
interdenominational orginizations is obligatory, as to refuse would defy
the sanctity of the _am_. However, religious umbrella groups should be
avoided.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  5-May-00: Shishi, Kedoshim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 35a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Doesn't make much sense to me.  Ozreinu is the verb of the sentence.
Changing it to Ezreinu makes the sentence a fragment:

Help us, O God of our salvation, on the word of the honor of your name,
to atone for our sins for the sake of Your Name.

Change that to "O Helper, God of our salvation..." and it ceases to
make sense as a sentence.  Is it a psalm quote, or a composed prayer?

About all I can think of is that, being a non-emphasized syllable, the
"ah" could become an "uh", which is less distinguishable from any other
schwa sound.

R. Hershel Schachter has a somewhat similar article in his Eretz Hatzevi.  
However, he discusses it from the angle of the individual.  As he puts it (and 
it is probably straight from RYBS), every Jew has two kedushas - a personal 
kedusha and a kedusha as part of kelal Yisrael.

The personal kedusha can never be removed - Yisrael af al pi shechata Yisrael 
hu.  However, one can remove oneself from kelal Yisrael and lose that kedusha.  
RHS gives examples of what actions can lead to removal from kelal Yisrael.  
Based on an aggadata, he includes not having a bris and bo'el aramis (i.e. 
intermarriage).

Evidently, what RHS calls kelal Yisrael RYBS calls adas Yisrael.  Also, using R.
Micha Berger's extension, it is possible to say that those who remove themselves
from adas Yisrael should not be counted for a minyan, a subject which perhaps 
deserves a thread of its own.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 01:27:38PM -0400, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
: R. Hershel Schachter ...                                   As he puts it (and 
: it is probably straight from RYBS), every Jew has two kedushas - a personal 
: kedusha and a kedusha as part of kelal Yisrael.

This is a different model. RYBS stresses that there are two communal
kedushos. Which is why he mandated joining the SCA, thereby keeping the
unity of Am Yisrael even amongst non-members of Adas Yisrael.

: RHS gives examples of what actions can lead to removal from kelal Yisrael.  
: Based on an aggadata, he includes not having a bris and bo'el aramis (i.e. 
: intermarriage).

RYBS defines leaving Adas Yisrael to be no longer providing eidus to matan
Torah. IOW, it's a matter of belief system. You would have to show why these
two aveiros are connected. Bo'el Aramis is opting out of the am, not the eidah
-- or at least, opting one's children out.

: Evidently, what RHS calls kelal Yisrael RYBS calls adas Yisrael.

This would imply that RHS sees Adas Yisrael as a collective noun, not as
a corporate entity. You are saying he uses the term to mean the set of
people who have a particular kedushah in common -- not an entity that as a
whole as a kedushah. Which, as I said, would not explain his position on
the SCA.

To me it would seem that RHS is contrasting the personal kedushah with
the two kedushos of RYBS as a unit. IOW, klal Yisrael refers to both
am and eidah. Perhaps RYBS found tzvei dinim -- am and eidah -- in the 
concept RHS is calling klal. To opt out of the klal would therefore require
opting out of both.

Also a related question is understanding "vinichrisah hanefesh hahi mei'amav".
Which seems to be talking about being removed from the _am_.

:                                                                Also, using R.
: Micha Berger's extension, it is possible to say that those who remove
: themselves from adas Yisrael should not be counted for a minyan...

This is halachah. However, there is are differing piskei halachah about
whether tinokos shenishbi'u are people who "removed themselves".

By RYBS's definition, they nebach don't provide eidus, and if RYBS would
count someone raised C toward a minyan, we disproved my extension.

However, RHS is saying that klal Yisrael is only actively left, in which
case if it is a kind of eidah (or partly about being an eidah) then under
my sevarah, would expect him to count tinokos shenishbi'u.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  5-May-00: Shishi, Kedoshim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 35a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

In message <H00013ad06122553@MHS>, Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes
>>>See Tosafos and Tosafos Rid in Bechoros 2b.  The problem with a 
>partnership is that you might cause the gentile to take a shevuah to their 
>a"z.  Since Xtians take a shevuah to their shutfus, and taking a shevuah 
>to a shutfus is mutar for a gentile, there is no issur of having a 
>partnership with a Xtian.  See also the Chiddushei HaGriz and Sefas Emes 
>there.>>
>No.  I am differentiating between worshipping a shutfus - which is 
>assur for a gentile - and vowing to a shutfus - which is mutar for a 
>gentile.  While the Tosafos is vague, see the Tosafos Rid, Griz, and 
>Sefas Emes above.  I am reading understanding Tosafos like they did and 
>not like the Rama.  See also the Noda BiYehudah I Y"D 148.
>

Unfortunately I have access to neither the Tosphos Rid, Griz or Sefas
Emes.  Can you tell me what they say (I hate transliteration, but it
will have to do, unless you can fax them)?

I am also having difficulty tracking down the Noda BiYehuda to which you
refer (I have his shutim, and my Shulchan Aruch sometimes has his
commentary on the side, but not for Yore Deah, at least as far as I can
see.  His shutim, although divided by the four divisions of the SA, do
not, in my edition, make any particular reference to simanim of the
Shulchan Aruch, and his teshuvas, in Yore Deah do not go up to 148).

Of course, the position of the Node BiYehuda in this matter is well
known, but I assume he is adding something about how to interpret this
Tosphos.

>     
>I would venture to say that most rishonim assumed that Xianity was avodah zarah,
>or rather that it was an assur form of worship for a gentile, and still managed 
>to live with them. 

Actually, I think the majority of major rishonim lived amongst Muslims,
so did not have to deal with the issue on a practical level.  The Baalei
Tosphos are, of course the most prominent exception (although many of
the Baalei Tosphos would seem to have lived in lands that had, at best,
only recently been Xtianized, and some of them would seem to have been
out and out pagan. Thus while England and much of France would have been
pretty firmly Xtian by the time of the Baalei Tosphos, if you look at
Germany I don't think that was so clearly the case, and much Eastern
Europe did not become Xtian until in some cases several centuries later.
I don't think you can assume, as a d'var poshut, that when Tosphos seem
to be referring to ovdei avodah zara in their time, they are necessarily
talking about Xtians, as there may well have been quite a lot of full
fledged, non shutfus type ovdei avodah zara around as well).

>Gil Student
>gil.student@citicorp.com
>

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

>richard_wolpoe wrote:         Subject: Ozreinu vs. Ezreinu
>
>Someone ...ended Tachanun with EZreinu....
>I quietly mentioned it should be OZreinu.
>
..EZreinu = Our help....OZreinu = Help Us!

>The guy argued that it was an alternate nusach... Lithuanian dialect.
>
>Is EZreinu an actual alternate nusach?

Very doubtful. It is after all a Posuk in Tehillim - 79:9
(unless one can supply an alternative Posuk).

SBA

"Yasher koach" to Micha for posting the article on the calendar
controversy of 920 CE (Y0.92K) by Rabbis Bechhofer and Zivotofsky.  I
found it to be interesting, informative, and well documented.  We need
more contributions of this caliber.  Having said that, I must confess to
being unpersuaded by their arguments.  The article is centered on the
great controversy that erupted when the leader of the sages of Eretz
Yisrael, Rabbi Aharon ben Meir, proclaimed changes in the calendar for
the years 920 - 922 that had the effect of advancing the dates of the
moadim by 2 days.  His legislation was adopted by the Jews of Israel and
Egypt and they celebrated the moadim according to the revised calendar.
On the other hand, Jews who were more influenced by the views of the
Babylonian Gaonim, followed the adamant refusal of Saadya Gaon to accept
the change in calendrical calculations.  They celebrated the moadim 2
days later.  In time, the views of Rabbi ben Meir fell into disuse, and
the subsequently published detailed calendrical rules by Nachshon Gaon
was adopted by Jews everywhere.

The authors suggest that Rabbi ben Meir differed only with Saadya Gaon
on an understanding of the basis of the delay of Rosh Chodesh by at
least one day when the molad occurs at or after noon (T.B. Rosh
Hashanah: 20b).  According to their thesis, the dispute is based on
where to draw the international date line, exactly 90 degrees east of
Jerusalem (Saadya) or the most eastern yishuv in Asia then known
(supposedly Kaifeng, China) at about 80 degrees east latitude (ben
Meir).  The time difference between the 2 points comes to roughly the
additional time past noon that Rabbi ben Meir allowed the molad in order
to avoid delaying rosh chodesh (35min, 40 sec).  The above follows the
views of the ba'al Hamaor in understanding Rosh Hashanah 20b.

In the course of their exposition, the authors mention but reject the
possibility that Rabbi ben Meir felt that it was the perogative of he
and his colleagues in Israel to proclaim the New Moon at their
discretion in accordance with the views of the Rambam that the sages of
Eretz Yisrael have that perogative even in the absence of a Sanhedrin or
Semicha.  Instead, they posit that no one has the right to oppose the
conclusion of the Bavli regarding the rule about delaying rosh chodesh
if the molad falls in the afternoon.  Yet, the supremacy of the sages of
Israel in the determination of rosh chodesh and the moadim was a
perogative that had been forcefully maintained.  This is illustrated by
the story of Rabbi Yehoshua's nephew in the Golah whose status as a
posek was undermined by a delegation from Israel who were sent on this
mission by the talmidim of Rabbi Akiva.  The nephew, a leading sage, had
the temerity to believe that he, like Rabbi Akiva before him, had the
authority to declare rosh chodesh for the Golah.  Nor is Rosh Hashana
20b very clear about the nature of the "dechiat molad zaken" since it is
treated as part of the esoteric (sod) knowledge on the calendrical
calculations that even the leading Amorah, Shmuel, an authority on
astronomy, did not know.  Amongst other things the radical distinction
made between Israel and Babylonia in the duration of the disappearance
of the old moon vs. the appearance of the new one appears to defy a
simple understanding.  In addition, they mention that a previous
convocation of sages in Eretz Yisrael had simply done away with dechiat
molad zaken before one Rosh Hashana, and their judgement was accepted by
all Jews.

In all of the above, it must be remembered that the calculation of the
molad is based on the mean lunar period of 29 days, 12 hours, and 44
seconds.  While this value is accurate, it masks the actual variation
from month to month in the lunar cycle which can be as much as 13 hours,
largely because of the effects of the sun on the earth - moon
dynamics..  The molad that is traditionally calculated is not the same
as the astronomical value, nor does the new moon that is calculated by
the traditional rules always occur on the same day as the actual new
moon.  The binding force of the traditional calculation is based on the
fact that it was instituted by the last authoritative Beth Din, the one
headed by the Nasi Hillel II in the 4th century CE.  As the authors make
clear, that Beth Din did not completely specify the calendrical rules.
Therefore there was some opportunity for pragmatic adjustments.
However, the fact that not everyone agreed to the adjustments and that
the moadim were consequently celebrated on different days made it
necessary to completely specify the calendrical calculation so that
everyone would know when to celebrate the holy days.

Yitzchok Zlochower

I spoke with a friend of mine who was a gabbai in Maimonides in Boston.
He said that on yom hhatzmaut in the minyan of RYBS they recited
tehillim starting from 2 perekim before Hallel and continued straight
to 2 perekim after Hallel.
He didnt want to say a beracha and felt that if they would just say the
sections in Tehillim that contain Hallel then they might be required
to say a beracha. On the other hand he did not want to ignore the
day and so came up with this compromize.

Eli Turkel

RR Wolpoe wrote to Areivim, commenting on an email from RC Sherer:
:>                                  The Gemara in Brachos (I think 
:> somewhere in the last perek) says that one should not spend too 
:> much time learning Nach, because the stories are appealing and 
:> will lead one to follow them and abandon more intellectual pursuits. 

: And - in my experience - many Sefardim and Teimanim know Tanach backwards and 
: forwards, and not always are they such bekiim in gemoro... Did they pasken 
: against this Gemoro somehow?

Li nir'eh that the gemara means learning tanach without peirushim -- literally
studying mikrah. Nach with peirushim is no less intellectual than Shas. Nor
does it focus on reading a book of stories.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 5-Iyar-5760: Revi'i, Emor
micha@aishdas.org                                           A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                      Yuma 4a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.           Yeshaiah 4

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


[ 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         ]