Avodah Mailing List

Volume 22 Number 27

Wed, 03 Jan 2007

• 1. Re: nes oil vs nes war (herb basser)
• 2. Re: Maakeh (Michael Kopinsky)
• 3. Re: Maakeh (Mordechai Torczyner)
• 4. Re: Lifnei Iver (Mordechai Torczyner)
• 5. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (Michael Kopinsky)
• 6. Re: Shitas R"T (Michael Kopinsky)
• 7. Changing Havara (Gershon Dubin)
• 8. stars (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: stars (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Shitas R"T (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: The GRA (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Glatt Yosher? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Maakeh (Micha Berger)
• 14. V'Lifnei Iveir - Is it intentended literally as well? (Jacob Farkas)
• 15. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (A & C Walters)

 >   The b'raisa in Shabbos 21b is found verbatim in M'gillas
>Ta'anis. It makes an offhanded reference to the military triumph, and
>emphasizes the nes pach hashemen almost exclusively.  In M'gillas
>Ta'anis, there is more, but it, too, makes only casual reference to
>the war.


Actually the mgilla itself makes no reference to the war or the oil miracle.
mgillas taanis is a list of dates written in aramaic while the 2nd beis
hamikdash still stood. These are dates that one does not fast on. The mgilla
is quoted in the mishna of taanis. However, much later--  much much later-- 
a hebrew commentary, called the scholion to MT, was added. The text of this
commentary is highly unstable and varies in the manuscripts-- on certain
sugyos scholars have disentangled the evidence to find a few older
commentaries have been smooshed together to create the one we have which
often has internal contradictions. This commentary continued to attract
midrashim from late times too and kept growing for a while. While the text
of our gemara certainly cites the commentary and the mgilla-- it does not
seem the amoraim respond in any way to the miracle of oil--although the
rishonim understood that to be the issue. The idea attributed (by rabbi
Yochanan to beis shammai knegged parei hahag accords with Maccabees notice
that the 8 days of hallel were taken  from sukkos which didnt happen that
year because of the war. but that attributed to beis hillel also only knows
a general klal-- maalin bakodesh. That lights were lighted is certain-- the
yerushalmi talks about spears holding lights. Many people think the baraisa
is just the mgilla itelf-- the commentary being just that commentary and
responding to the question mai hanuka supplied in the latest phase of the
editing of the talmud. Nevertheless-- the miracle of the lights has proven
itself to be the true version for the people--victories are too dry to
celebrate for very long-- and if we are not neviim we are bnei neviim and
that is the surest proof. What klal yisrael accepts is torah-- sha'al
avicha.

Zvi Basser

On 1/3/07, Mordechai Torczyner <rabbi@att.net> wrote:
> On 12/29/06, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> > Think how many shuls you know have a duchan built like a stage
> > -- no maakah. We think of Judaism in very rite-based terms: frumkeit, not
> > ehrlachkeit.
> 
> Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 427:3 explicitly exempts a shul from a
> maakeh.
> 
> Presumably, though, if it were truly a dangerous situation there would still
> be a lifnei iver obligation.

Obligation on whom?  The nosei keilim there say that there is another
shita in the rishonim (which the Mechaber seems to pasken like by Mezuzah)  
that says cattle-houses and the like are chayav b'mezuzah and maakeh, even
though he is Soseim like the Rambam in CM 427.  They explain (IIRC) that
by maakeh, everyone agrees that you're patur, since there's no individual
person to be mechayeiv.

I don't know why you think there would be lifnei iver.  If you mean it in 
the literal sense, maakeh is already mechayev you to protect against 
danger. And if in the classic sense, lifnei iver only exists if there's a 
halachic chiyuv/issur for someone.

But in any case, as I said before, it seems that the only thing that is
objectively chayav in ma'akeh regardless of danger is the roof of a
residential building.  Other things, such as scary dogs and deep pits,
necessitate preventative measures (not necessarily a 10 tefachim fence),
only when they are subjectively considered dangerous.

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 06:41:46AM -0500, Mordechai Torczyner wrote:
>: Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 427:3 explicitly exempts a shul from
>: a maakeh.

:... and it's more chayav in mezuzah?
:That was the point of my comparison: Many (most?) shuld have on a
:mezuzah because we can't picture a Jewish room without one, even though
:in this case it's a reshus. But we do not equally picture Jewish space
:requiring maakos.

The two chiyyuvim are actually quite different; see the SMA 427:2.


Be well,
Mordechai


Congregation Sons of Israel, Allentown, PA www.sonsofisrael.net
HaMakor - References on Torah Topics - www.hamakor.org
WebShas - An Index to the Talmud - www.webshas.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070103/3b722462/attachment-0001.html 

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 06:41:46AM -0500, Mordechai Torczyner wrote:
>: Presumably, though, if it were truly a dangerous situation there would
>: still be a lifnei iver obligation.

:I don't think so. Bor bereshus harabbim. But lifnei iveir is not once
:mentioned in the gemara as an issur against physically harming people.

Not so; see Avodah Zarah 15b on selling arms to those who might use them to endanger us.

In any case, my choice of lifnei iver was lav davka; my point is that a separate halachic issue will pertain even if maakeh does not.


Be well,
Mordechai


Congregation Sons of Israel, Allentown, PA www.sonsofisrael.net
HaMakor - References on Torah Topics - www.hamakor.org
WebShas - An Index to the Talmud - www.webshas.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070103/8c1ca6fb/attachment-0001.htm 

On 1/2/07, A & C Walters <acwalters@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> MeMonofshach. If we go sho shovious, it's zicher nogeia in EY. Even if we go
> Sho zmanious it's davka nogeia in EY (and in North America/Western Europe, 
> it should be more than 72 mins. Shver on RMF who says 50 in NYC)

Excuse my ignorance.  What's the difference between "zicher nogeia" and 
"davka nogeia"?

RZS writes:
>  
> >>So it remains theoretically *possible* that the stars visible  before
> 4 millin are all what Chazal called "gedolim", and only the ones  that
> become visible then are "beinonim", and perhaps the "kochavim  ketanim"
> are ones that are too small or distant for us *ever* to see with  the
> naked eye <<

Another point for you New Yorkers (or other big city people) to keep in 
mind, is that stars come out a lot earlier, and a lot more of them are 
visible, outside the city.  As someone who has done a lot of camping, I 
can assure that by  72 minutes after shkia, there are MANY MANY stars out, 
and there's no way you can say that every thing that's out by then is 
medium.

On 12/25/06, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> But in fact that the Earth's shape and size were well known in Chazal's
> day, and therefore it is to be expected that at least the more educated
> among them, especially those in EY, knew this.  Since it is the expected
> result, references that may indicate such knowledge need not be treated
> with undue scepticism.  OTOH it's not surprising that some of the Bavli
> amoraim may not have had this knowledge; they may even have seen
> references to "kadur", by which the original writer meant a globe,
> and misunderstood them to mean a disc.

Excuse my ignorance...  Why is it likely the Israeli Amoraim were more
educated than the Babylonian ones?

From: "Michael Kopinsky" <mkopinsky@gmail.com>

<<Thank you for the correction.  (And for a good response to any
Israelis who make a fuss about this.)>>

So the world is NOT destroyed, only endangered (Lesaken olam bemalchus Sh')

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Nor is it relevant what the "average person" was to understand, since
the shiur of 3 middling stars was not given to the average person, but
to experts in astronomy.  It was for the benefit of the rest of us,
who wouldn't know how to classify a star's magnitude if our lives
depended on it, that the other shiurim were given.>>

Is there is a source for this? A number of poskim have stated that to
decide when it is night it is perfectly okay to look at the sky and
see middling stars. No need to be astronomers just to have
normal eyesight

-- 
Eli Turkel

Eli Turkel wrote:
>> Nor is it relevant what the "average person" was to understand, since
>> the shiur of 3 middling stars was not given to the average person, but
>> to experts in astronomy.  It was for the benefit of the rest of us,
>> who wouldn't know how to classify a star's magnitude if our lives
>> depended on it, that the other shiurim were given.>>
 
> Is there is a source for this? A number of poskim have stated that to
> decide when it is night it is perfectly okay to look at the sky and
> see middling stars. No need to be astronomers just to have
> normal eyesight

IIRC it's explicitly stated in the Baal Hatanya's Seder Hachnasat
Shabbat (which is where he sets out his shita on "shkia hanir'it"
and "shkia ha'amitit", and where he also says that the BY changed
his mind about RT's shita).  There are editions of this essay with
mar'ei mekomot, which I'm sure will show the BH's source.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Michael Kopinsky wrote:
> On 12/25/06, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
>> But in fact that the Earth's shape and size were well known in Chazal's
>> day, and therefore it is to be expected that at least the more educated
>> among them, especially those in EY, knew this.  Since it is the expected
>> result, references that may indicate such knowledge need not be treated
>> with undue scepticism.  OTOH it's not surprising that some of the Bavli
>> amoraim may not have had this knowledge; they may even have seen
>> references to "kadur", by which the original writer meant a globe,
>> and misunderstood them to mean a disc.

> Excuse my ignorance...  Why is it likely the Israeli Amoraim were more
> educated than the Babylonian ones?

Because they were in the Roman empire, where Greek astronomy was widely
known.  "Chochma yevanit".  In Bavel they would have been more isolated
from that world, and might have been ignorant even of things that had
been known in Greece for centuries.  Therefore it's not so surprising
that we find passages in Talmud Bavli that seem very strongly to show
that the author thought the earth was a flat disc.

I have heard (but not seen inside) that R M Kasher wrote an essay
showing that Chachmei EY knew the earth was a globe, while Chachmei
Bavel did not.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:17:05 +0200, R Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
> One of the goals of the Mishna Berura was to introduce the Gra's rulings
> into the mainstream

I didn't notice that in the haqdamah. The haqdamah did say the CC was trying to
capture the shitos that emerged since the standardization of the page of SA. Given
the number of unique pesaqim of the Gra, a significant minority of those shitos are
the Gra's. But that's not the same as dedavka aiming to introduce the Gra's pesaqim
in particular to the mainstream.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 07:45:46 -0500, "Michael Kopinsky" <mkopinsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/1/07, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <ygbechhofer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am not aware that such "Hashgocho" exists in the secular world - al
>> achas kamma v'kamma in our small world.
 
> If not formal hashgachas (which I think there are), there certainly are
> stores that make sure that all their products are produced in moral ways.
> Go to any health food store and ask them.  (Let me know what they say.)

The only formal hashgachah I know of is www.tav.org.il . They certify 40
restaurants and catering halls, and 75 businesses owned by qibbutzim
datiim. There is also no reason why a te'udat yashrut would be specific
to the food industry. Waters and kitchen staff aren't the only jobs where
the employee is frequently mistreated. But to get back to Avodah territory...

I do not think that a te'udat yashrut is possible. Too much depends on the
individuals involved, and with all that gray area, political definitions of
"proper work environment" is bound to creep in. I'm asking why we aren't
even demanding certification that basic choshein mishpat is being met, with
the exception of ve'asisa hatov vehayashar.

And again, I only asked rhetorically. I know I'm more reluctant to eat in
an establishment that is mechalel Shabbos than one that doesn't pay its
workers or other bills. I meant the opening comment as divrei his'orerus.

WRT maakah.... RMT may well be right that maakah and mezuzah are different,
which would even be reflected WRT hanging one up in a shul despite there
being no chiyuv in either. However, do you really think shuls that don't
have maakos on their duchan do so because of that difference? Or is it
simply because we've gotten to defining ourselves in terms of rite, and
therefore expect Jewish space to have a mezuzah, but do not have a parallel
expectation WRT maakah.

I think the C initiative to have a yosher certification is a noble idea. The
fact that I disagree with the politics of how they define yashrus doesn't
change my basic frustration that the idea would cross their minds, but with
one small exception (115 companies) didn't cross ours.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 07:30:05 -0500, "Michael Kopinsky" <mkopinsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> But in any case, as I said before, it seems that the only thing that is
> objectively chayav in ma'akeh regardless of danger is the roof of a
> residential building....

1- I thought it was any privately owned building. As long as there is a
gavra to be the mechuyav.
2- I also thought it includes any platform or staircase in a residential
building with a > 10 tefachim drop.

Thus, if it were a yachid's store rather than a shul that had the platform,
it would require a maakah. Even if people didn't normally walk on that
platform.

> Other things, such as scary dogs and deep pits,
> necessitate preventative measures (not necessarily a 10 tefachim fence),
> only when they are subjectively considered dangerous.

Midin maakah, or midin bor bereshus harabbim?

I argued on Avodah a while back that maakah isn't directly about safety. If
it were, it would be a chiyuv on the cheftzah. However, the chiyuv is on the
gavra, which is why I phrased #1 (above) the way I did. So, I suggested that
maakah is an exercise in learning the importance of safety, rather than an
exercise in safety itself.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

R' Mordechai Torczyner wrote:
> 
> : Presumably, though, if it were truly a dangerous situation there would
> : still be a lifnei iver obligation.

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> I don't think so. Bor bereshus harabbim. But lifnei iveir is not once
> mentioned in the gemara as an issur against physically harming people.

Rashi in Qedoshim (Vayiqra 19:14) quotes the Sifra that the blind person
mentioned in the pasuq is only metaphorically blind, Suma beDavar. The
Sifsei Hakhamim mentions that the next piece of Rashi, V'yareisa
meilokekha, states that we need reinforcement for those Mitzvos that are
not apparent to other people, and only the person and God are aware of
what is being done. The Sifsei Hakhamim uses this as evidence that Rashi
intended to exclude the literal scenario from being part of the
Issur of V'Lifnei Iveir, as it it noticeable by other people.

Minhas Hinukh (Mitzvah 232) deduces that the Hinukh was of the same
opinion, that the literal scenario is not part of the commandment. He
also notes that this is Rambam's opinion as well. He does ask (and
leaves the question as tzarikh iyun) why shouldn't the literal scenario
be part of the Mitzvah, being that we know Ein Hamiqra Yotzei Midei Peshuto?

Meshekh Hakhmah (Vayiqra 19:14) is of the opinion that the literal
scenario is included in the commandment. Furthermore, he writes that Bor
Berushus Harabbim is an Issur Torah of V'Lifnei Iveir. He quotes Rashi
in Hulin 3a (d"h VaAfilu Kusi) that the Kusim translated it to be
literal exclusively. Meshekh Hakhmah adds "vekhein haEmes," meaning that
the literal is not excluded, unlike the Kusim who viewed the literal
scenario exclusively as being the intention of the Pasuq.

--Jacob Farkas

> On 1/2/07, A & C Walters <acwalters@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>> MeMonofshach. If we go sho shovious, it's zicher nogeia in EY. Even if we 
>> go
>> Sho zmanious it's davka nogeia in EY (and in North America/Western 
>> Europe,
>> it should be more than 72 mins. Shver on RMF who says 50 in NYC)
>
> Excuse my ignorance.  What's the difference between "zicher nogeia" and
> "davka nogeia"?

I wasn't clear. What I meant was, if we go with sho shovious, RT (72) is 
zicher ALSO nogeia there, because everywhere is the same, and EY is no 
different. If we use sho'es zmanios, it is davka ONLY in EY.

Sorry for the confusion

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Click for top financial advice. Reduce debt & save for retirement
http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/CAaCMPJkmC5yhELs6aMlXDjTevrjV2b6/



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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 22, Issue 27
************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

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..."