Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 105

Thu, 04 Jun 2009

• 1. Tosafot d.h. Litekufot on RH 8a (Motti Yarchinai)
• 2. Re: goy vs chiloni (Chana Luntz)
• 3. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (David Riceman)
• 4. missing nun (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 5. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (hankman)
• 6. further on Temimos (Prof. Levine)
• 7. ?????: further on Temimos (Shlomo Pick)
• 8. further on Temimos (Prof. Levine)
• 9. ?????: further on Temimos (Shlomo Pick)
• 10. further on Temimos (Prof. Levine)
• 11. ?????: further on Temimos (Shlomo Pick)

On my website, http://www.geocities.com/calendar.luchot I have posted 
a document "Tosafot (d.h. Litekufot) on Rosh Hashanah 8a, translated 
and explained."

I have been studying that Tosafot, which I believe to be evidence of 
the existence of the Jewish legend about the Moon whose source I have 
not been able to find. I wrote about that legend in Digest v26n88, 
post 14, subject: Targum Yonatan & Pirush Yonatan on Ber 1:16.  

(BTW, I asked for help in that post in working out the amendment 
suggested in Pirush Yonatan and the obscure piece of calendar 
arithmetic that he substitutes for the text in Targum Yonatan (which 
I believe I have explained correctly. -- No takers?)

That legend is that the Moon hid herself for 47 hours ending in Molad 
VYD (the beginning of Year 2). In the version alluded to in this 
Tosafot (which he dismisses) the period was 7d, 9h, 642p, but I think 
there may have been two different versions of the legend, 
corresponding to the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi
Yehoshua (commencing RH 10b) about when the world was created.  

Despite the title of my document, there are a couple of points in 
that Tosafot, that I cannot really grasp properly. I am hoping that 
someone here can help me with them.

One dificulty I am having is why (near the end of paragraph 6) the 
period of 47 hours is added to the period 5d, 10h, 642p.  

The second difficulty is his suggestion at the end (in paragraph 7) 
that the question about when the world was created, which was
debated by R.E. and R.Y., could have been settled empirically. I do 
not really understand how he thought this could have been done.  

(The division of the Tosafot into paragraphs is my own and is shown 
in my document.)  

Can anyone explain those two points?  

Motti

RET writes:

> <<. ?The term mavriach ari I am
> familiar with as a concept within Baba Kama and the laws of compensation,
> ie
> if somebody chases a lion away from your property , do you have to pay
> them or not?,
> What does this have to do with hilchos shabbas? ?Where is it found used it
> in hilchos shabbas?  >>
> 
> R Zilberstein says it is obvious that it applies to Shabbos without a
> source.
> He gives the example of a lion prevented someone from entering a building
> and someone shoots the lion. He takes it for granted that one can enter
> the building and it is not considered as benefiting from a melacha on
> shabbat.

I wonder why though he felt one needed to go to a concept in baba kama, when
I would have thought there were far more apposite areas of halacha to go to
for this.  I am thinking particularly of questions of hana'ah and issurei
hana'ah.  If you have an issur hana'ah on something -either due to a neder
or due to avodah type concerns - think wine for example, there is a lot of
discussion on how far this hana'ah extends.

But even not going so far - why do we not look internally in hilchos shabbas
to the definition of make bepatish and metaken kli and in particular, the
case that seems really appropriate to me to the building case, that of
opening a letter on shabbas.  After all, you are tearing the envelope
outside in order to extract the letter inside - about which the Mishna Brura
says in siman 340: 41 - one who tears a sealed letter even if he is careful
not to destroy the letters of the seal and only to tear the paper that is
around it also this is forbidden according to everybody even to say to a non
Jew one should be careful if it is not a tzorech gadol - although he then
brings the case that if one says to the non Jew "I am not able to open it"
if the non Jew understands of his own accord and opens it, it is OK.

And the Be'er Halacha there gets into the whole question of mekalkel al
manas l'mataken - where it would be assur, and mekalkel which is not al
manas l'mataken, where it would not necessarily be.  And would that not have
more bearing on this question?  If somebody shot the lion so as to get into
the building, I would have thought there might be a problem - but the
chances are, that if one shot the lion, it is because they were scared of
the lion pouncing on them or some such, and the intention to kilkul, ie to
kill the lion, it had to do with the lion, not the building particularly.
 

> Lost me on this one. Cooking the food is what makes it eatable and that
> is an active role. Removing rawness is a meanlingless phrase.
> In any case one is eating the food that was cooked or had its rawness
> removed and so one gets direct benefit

And removing the circuit that makes the door of the building remain closed
is what makes the building enterable - so one now gets direct benefit from a
modified building when one could not before.

What I was trying to show was that if you can argue that removing a circuit
from a building or opening the door of a building is "indirect" you can also
say that cooking is "indirect".  In both cases you have "fixed" the item so
as to make the useable, and hence it seems to me, you have a direct, and not
indirect, benefit.

Now I do agree that scaring off a lion, which has no necessary shachas to
the object called building, does seem to be a different case.  It seems even
further away than your letter case, because in the case of your letter, the
envelope was put around it, to protect the letter inside (similar to the
closed circuit door of the building).  However, I doubt very much anybody
placed the lion there with the intention of guarding the building (nor I
would have thought, could one treat the lion as a bar daas, whether or not
it had any such intention) - it just happens to come.  So it seems to me
that killing the lion is a mere kilkul in the lion.  If however somebody had
in fact placed the lion from before shabbas there to guard the building and
prevent anybody coming in, well I do wonder if that would in fact be
different.


> R Zilberstein only brought the CI to assume that it is a deoraysa and
> strengthen the question, he was not interested in the details
> He takes for granted that pushing the buzzer is prohibted. The question
> is whether another Jew can benefit from the melacha

I think what I am saying is even if you grant a concept such as mevarech
ari, then it doesn't seem to me that it is applicable in this case, since
you are being metaken the building for use, like your letter.  If anything I
think this case is more problematic than the letter - because at least the
letter inside is definitely a different guf from the envelope, whereas the
building is one building, with its door open or not, and its buzzer pressed
or not, so it seems to me that what the chiloni has done is a direct act
upon the building.

> In fact using Chanas case if someone blew out a candle there seems to
> be absolutely
> no problem for someone else to sleep there even when he couldnt sleep
> in the light.
> This is exactly mavriach ari. One gets no direct benefit from the
> absence of light

Which is why turning off a light is another case where it is discussed that
one may use indirect language vis a vis a goy - the Chai Adam links these
two cases in klal 62:3 as falling into the category of "dvar sheain guf
yisroel nehene mimenu" (as opposed to him lighting the candle) which is why
he allows indirect (but not direct) language in both of them.

> ?> He then asked asked  a question from a MB who disallows using the
> contents of a put when a
> > Gentile opened the cover on shabbat for a Jew. Why should it be
> different?
> 
> forgot to mention the MB is 518:45
> so the question is whether in these cases one would need to wait until
> after shabbat a time of  bichdei sheyasu to remove articles from the
> pit or else to enter the building.
> 

Now I agree, this MB (he is bringing the Magen Avraham) seems to be a
contradiction to the case of opening the letter, where it would seem that
not only can one read the letter if the goy opened it, but one can even hint
to him to do so (as the Magen Avraham himself brings), whereas here the
Magen Avraham assurs where he does it l'tzorech yisroel, in case he might
come to tell him to open it some other time.

I was quite pleased to find, having a hunt around this morning, that the
Minchas Shlomo has the same problem - see Minchas Shlomo chelek 1 siman 5
d'h 2.  And he agrees that the letter opening case and the pit opening case
would seem at first blush to be exactly the same thing.  And he also
discusses the whole distinction about changing the guf hadavar - which to me
seems critical in this case.  Note that he seems to resolve the stira in the
Magen Avraham between the letters and the pit as suggesting that because
(unlike the pit case where the melacha done by the goy is accepted to be an
issur d'orisa) the opening of the letters he suggests is an issur
d'rabbanan, and since it is possible that since one also does not benefit
"miguf hamelacha" it is OK that it is permitted.  On the other hand, he is
no totally happy with this answer, and he does ask from where does the Magen
Avraham know this din about the pit on shabbas as he cannot source it in
shas.

Oh and I see he does use the term Kmevarech Ari - but not in describing the
pit, but in fact in a contrasting case that he brings, where a candle is in
an open house, and the wind is threatening to blow it out, and if one did
not shut the opening, the candle would go out - because in that latter case,
ie where one closes the opening, it is as if one is chasing away a lion
because, he says "one who chases away a lion b'averah of malaches shabbas
d'vadai shari".  But this strikes me here as more of a throw away line,
giving an example, and that his conclusion is framed more in the terminology
of the Chai Adam (and others) ie anyone who does not do a melacha b'guf
hadvar, v'lo nishtane machamas melacha ... benefit is permitted".

Which seems to me to be the key thing - and something which is not true in
the case you brought - at least according to the Chazon Ish, who holds that
there is binyan v'stira in the circuit, in which case what one is doing is
indeed changing the guf had'var from which one is about to benefit (the
circuit is opened and the door is opened), so we do indeed have a change by
way of the chiloni's melacha.

Anyhow there is a lot of really interesting stuff in this teshuva RSZA, and
I certainly have not had a chance to digest it all - but a lot of it would
seem to have a direct bearing on the issues you are discussing.

> Eli Turkel

Regards

Chana

Me:
>
>     See Daniel 12:8, Rashi and Ibn Ezra ad. loc
>      
>     RCM :
>     Daniel is not a problem for two reasons: 1) According to Rashi,
>     Megila 14a and gemara 3a, Daniel was not a Novi. (Although one
>     could understand Rashi as meaning he was a Novi but one without a
>     shlichus to give over his nevuoh to Yisroel and thus not among the
>     48 and of lesser stature than the 3, Ch. Z. & M).
>
>  RYZ:
> See Maharatz Chayos, Mamar Divrei Nvi'im Divrei Kabalah, who discusses 
> Daniel and this Rashi, he also brings there that from the Rambam Hil 
> Yesodei Hatorah 7:2, is Muchach that he holds Daniel was a Novi. So 
> why bother as using this as an upshlog.
I don't own a Maharatz Hayos, but this is an immaterial distinction.  
See MN II:43 and II:45 that the mechanism is identical.  In the first of 
these his two examples are Zecharyah and Daniel.

Incidentally, see Zecharyah 4:4-5, for another example of a navi saying 
he doesn't understand a nevuah (though admittedly the Rambam in the 
source I cited understands this as an explanation of the process of nevuah).
>  RYZ:
>  
> IMHO the whole Kashe has no place since this Possuk was a Chelek of 
> the Nvuoh itself, IOW HKB"H wanted that Daniel should not understand 
> and ask and be answered, which is vital in the Nkudah that it is Sosum.
This is true, but it doesn't invalidate the problem, since there is a 
whole class of prophecies meant not to be understood, which contradicts 
RCM's claim.  I cited two examples, and you (basically agreed) as follows:

RYZ:
<<WRT Bil'am it was all part of the Nvuoh, IOW that is what HKB"H wanted 
for him to go through all those steps, (to show how evil he was, as the 
Possuk says the Lman Daas Tzidkas Hashem WRT to Bilom)
 
Which is also Pshat in  "Es Bincha" and "Al Tishlach">>

Though I would pick one nit: haba l'tamei pos'him lo but not m'sayyin 
oso, so I think it's improper to say that "HKB"H wanted" him to do evil.

Incidentally, there's another example in Rashi Shmini 10:3 s.v. "hu 
asher diber".

David Riceman

http://www.avakesh.com/2009/06/an-exchange-about-ashrei.html
in ashrei
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090604/5ecacd9f/attachment-0001.htm>

RDR wrote:
See Rashi Vayera 22:12 s.v. "ki atah yadati" (the first of the two 
paragraphs);  ibid. Balak 22:12 s.v. "Lo selech imahem".

CM responds:
I presume that your point  from Balak 22:12 is that it seems that the
"novi" Bilom harasha didn't get the message on the first try but had to be
corrected several times. First this assumes that the manner of "nevuah" by
Bilom followed the same patterns as that of Nevi'ai Yisroel. I could buy
that, but I really do not know if that is the case. But I think the answer
is in the Sifsei Chachomim on that Rashi. He writes: "... dekol echod dibur
b'anpei nafshei ..." You assume this was one entire nevuah that Bilom
misunderstood several times - not so  - each was a separate nevuah which he
did understand and wished to circumvent. I  would speculate that perhaps
this was Hashem playing cat and mouse with the rasha Bilom and was a
psychological onesh to him. Bilom got the message each time that Hashem
wished him to get!

As far as the Rashi in Vayera 22:12 is concerned [hmmm, both of your
challenges are from 22:12 - anything to that? :-)] is the point that
Avraham misunderstood the nevuah of the akeida? - that he should have
understood that he was not to shecht Yitschok? The answer is obviously 
that the entire point was a nisoyon. So the message which Avraham got as
Hashem intended was exactly what Avraham understood, otherwise there would
not have been a nisoyon. If there is a problem here it is from "motsei
sefosai lo ashaane." But Avraham got the intended message without any
failure to comprehend it. 

Another variation on the theme that answers the latter problem as well is
that Hashem used the "aspaklaria sheina meira" purposefully to hide and
shroud the true intent and knew what  Avraham's interpretation of the
nevuah would be, so Hashem was not meshaane but the intended message was
nevertheless received. so it was not a technical answer that the words were
not changed even if the meaning was - rather the meaning didn't change
either but happened INTENTIONALLY metsad the "aspaklaria sheina meira"
aspect of nevuah

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090604/a400dfb5/attachment-0001.htm>

At 10:18 AM 6/4/2009, R. S. Pick wrote:

>true for temimos, but according to the Natziv the real reason for 
>delaying maariv on Shavuot is because the verse states beEtzem hayom 
>hazeh which negates tosefet yom tov for Shavuot and thus there would 
>be no difference between the two days in the Diaspora.

This brings to mind a question that occurred to me a couple of days 
ago. If we are concerned about Temimos, then should we not insist 
that women wait until Tzeis (when the first day of Shavuous is not on 
Shabbos) to bentch licht?  Yet I have never heard of anyone saying 
such a thing. Indeed, all of the calenders that I have ever seen give 
the standard time for candle lighting (18 minutes before Shkia). 
True, a women could wait to light until after Tzeis, but many do not. 
If we are so concerned about Temimos, then why aren't women told to 
wait until after Tzeis to light.

Now what you say about the Netziv adds to my question. If there is no 
Tosefos Yom Tov for Shavuous, then how can women light candles before 
Tzeis? Is lighting before Tzeis even valid?

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090604/1aa03cdf/attachment.htm>

I remember hearing while studying at yu (I think in the name of the Rav, and
I hope someone can confirm this), that while there was a minhag for women to
bench licht just before Kiddush to demonstrate that ha?avarat eish is
permitted on Yom Tov, it was better to light before yom tov, in accordance
with rambam, hil. Yom tov, 6:16 that just like on shabbos there is a din of
kavod, so too on yom tov there is a din of kavod. In hil. Shabbos 30:5
rambam says that part of kavod shabbos is to have a ner daluk before
shabbos, and thus one should light candles before the onset of yom tov,
lechvod yom tov, just like his table set, he is washed and decked out.  This
year before  yom tov I heard a shiur from a grandson of rav Elyashiv (sorry
no video on this) who said the same thing in the name of his grandfather,
and thus out of kavod yom tov one should bench licht early, before
nightfall, and then of course wait for at least Kiddush until after zeit?.  

And for those who have a feminist trend among you, see the introduction of
the preesha who brings from his mother, the wife of the semah and pressha
and dreesha, that a woman should light the yom tov candles before nightfall
and not at night, and she labeled the custom of lighting before Kiddush a
minhag ta?ut.  Her son concurred with this pesak, and we have shown so do
gedolei hora?ah of this generation. Further on yom tov candles see aruch
hashulchan 514:17 how they should be lit, and a general summary of the
shitot, R.Ovadya Yosef, yechaveh da?at 1:28 (beat you to it, rabbanit c.
Luntz :-)). Hope this has been illuminating to you.

Kol tuv

Shlomo

 

 

 

  _____  

???: Prof. Levine [mailto:llev...@stevens.edu] 
????: Thursday, June 04, 2009 5:29 PM
??: avo...@lists.aishdas.org
????: Shlomo Pick
????: further on Temimos

 

At 10:18 AM 6/4/2009, R. S. Pick wrote:




true for temimos, but according to the Natziv the real reason for delaying
maariv on Shavuot is because the verse states beEtzem hayom hazeh which
negates tosefet yom tov for Shavuot and thus there would be no difference
between the two days in the Diaspora.


This brings to mind a question that occurred to me a couple of days ago. If
we are concerned about Temimos, then should we not insist that women wait
until Tzeis (when the first day of Shavuous is not on Shabbos) to bentch
licht?  Yet I have never heard of anyone saying such a thing. Indeed, all of
the calenders that I have ever seen give the standard time for candle
lighting (18 minutes before Shkia). True, a women could wait to light until
after Tzeis, but many do not. If we are so concerned about Temimos, then why
aren't women told to wait until after Tzeis to light. 

Now what you say about the Netziv adds to my question. If there is no
Tosefos Yom Tov for Shavuous, then how can women light candles before Tzeis?
Is lighting before Tzeis even valid? 



Yitzchok Levine

__________ NOD32 4128 (20090603) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090604/b2b544d8/attachment.htm>

At 12:25 PM 6/4/2009, Shlomo Pick wrote:
>Her son concurred with this pesak, and we have shown so do gedolei 
>hora'ah of this generation.

How do you reconcile all of this with what you wrote, "according to 
the Natziv the real reason for delaying maariv on Shavuot is because 
the verse states beEtzem hayom hazeh which negates tosefet yom tov 
for Shavuot and thus there would be no difference between the two 
days in the Diaspora."?

Will you say that a woman who lights candles at the usual time, 18 
minutes before Shkia here in America, is not m'kabel Yom Tov as she 
is on say, Pesach, when she lights the candles at the usual time?

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090604/a9fd6e8f/attachment.htm>

Your question is excellent, and prima facie, it would appear that a woman
should not light earlier on erev shavu?ot according to the Natziv.  And yet
what about kavod yom tov mentioned in my last posting?  It could very be
that the natziv will not work out with this rambam and the posekim who say
women should light earlier, for they may have other reasons for making arvit
later, like temeemos (see below on that). Nevertheless, I would offer the
following solution ? she should to light with a bracha early for the kiyyum
kavod yom tov, but make a tenai (stipulation) that she is not accepting yom
tov yet. That would satisfy both requirements.

In any case, your question is so good, let me recommend the 3 page article
by rabbi ya?akov hochberger, beinyan zeman hadlakat haneirot bechag
hashavot, in Zecher Avot, 5753, pp. 147-149, which takes your question,
bringing further sources from the natziv?s responsa, dealing with issues
mentioned earlier.  He doesn?t suggest what is suggest, and in that point,
zaruch iyyun. He does note that since women are exempt from sefira, they
don?t have temeemous, and so can light earlier without any problems. If so,
then we have a solution to your problem, your womenfolk can start eating
earlier, after making their own Kiddush, enjoy themselves, while you and
fellow talmidei chachamim are awaiting temimos.  This is not a pesak
halakha, just following throught r. hochberger?s logic.

The article can be accessed by bai ilan?s responsa project kotar.

There is a further article by r. Yehuda pearl, zeman hadlakat ner beyom tov,
found in derekh halacha, pp. 52-60, which I have not been able to access.
From the title it deals with the general issue of when to light the yom tov
candles.

Prof. Levine, I appreciate your pushing this point, because I had to do some
research, and I came upon r. hochberger?s article which touches upon some
other issues, bringing further proofs, to lighting the yom tov in general
lechvod yom tov. He brings the brisker rav in favor of generally lighting
the candles earlier, as well as a discussion if women are included in
tosephet yom tov in general.

Kol tuv

Shlomo Pick

 

 

  _____  

???: Prof. Levine [mailto:llev...@stevens.edu] 
????: Thursday, June 04, 2009 8:11 PM
??: Shlomo Pick; 'Prof. Levine'
????: avo...@aishdas.org
????: further on Temimos

 

At 12:25 PM 6/4/2009, Shlomo Pick wrote:



Her son concurred with this pesak, and we have shown so do gedolei horaah
of this generation. 


How do you reconcile all of this with what you wrote, "according to the
Natziv the real reason for delaying maariv on Shavuot is because the verse
states beEtzem hayom hazeh which negates tosefet yom tov for Shavuot and
thus there would be no difference between the two days in the Diaspora."?

Will you say that a woman who lights candles at the usual time, 18 minutes
before Shkia here in America, is not m'kabel Yom Tov as she is on say,
Pesach, when she lights the candles at the usual time?

YL


__________ NOD32 4131 (20090604) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090604/3f615f6e/attachment.htm>

At 02:52 PM 6/4/2009, Shlomo Pick wrote:

>Your question is excellent, and prima facie, it 
>would appear that a woman should not light 
>earlier on erev shavu?ot according to the 
>Natziv.  And yet what about kavod yom tov 
>mentioned in my last posting?  It could very be 
>that the natziv will not work out with this 
>rambam and the posekim who say women should 
>light earlier, for they may have other reasons 
>for making arvit later, like temeemos (see below 
>on that). Nevertheless, I would offer the 
>following solution ? she should to light with a 
>bracha early for the kiyyum kavod yom tov, but 
>make a tenai (stipulation) that she is not 
>accepting yom tov yet. That would satisfy both requirements.

I may be on shaky ground here, but it seems to me 
that according to the Netziv a women would not be 
able to light with such a stipulation. Would it 
not be a bracha l'vatalah?  After all, according 
to him, since one cannot make early Yom Tov,  it 
is similar to a woman lighting before plag, is it not?

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090604/bffe7664/attachment.htm>

I see that being in nyc you are unfamiliar with the concept of tnai and
hadlakat neriot. Anyone having a half an hour to an hour walk to shul, will
light candles on yom kippur eve at home, make a stipulation not to be accept
yom tov, and drive to shul to save an hour trip.  See SA, OH, 263:10.  for
further elucidations, see aruch hashulchan.  See also shmiras shabbos
kehilchasa in the second volume and who notes in the name of R. Shlomo
Zalman zt?l, that in the case of tenai, the woman should NOT say
shehechayanu for then the tnai will not help.  

The reasoning is simple, the bracha over the ner is a birchat mitzvah, there
is an issue whether the person who lights is mekabel shabbos with the bracha
or not. Therefore, in any case, if a tenai is made, the bracha is over the
mitzvah without kabbolos shabbos/yom tov.  If you say shehechayanu, so you
have accepted yom tov otherwise you wouldn?t have made the bracha over the
time of yom tov and so the tnai no longer helps.

Thus for those who drive to shul erev yom kippur after having lit candles,
the shehechayanu is not said, but in shul with everyone else. [I have a
different problem ? I have to remind my wife who has lit erev yom kippur
with the shehechaynu, NOT to repeat it in shul with the zibber, for then it
would be a bracha levatalah ? she has already recited it!].

Hope this clarifies the principle.  I presume I will get a lot of flack
whether one should use a tnai or not, but I would appear that lezorach it
can be used.  To make the fast easier and saving strength would be lezorach.
Perhaps to be mekayam the shitat haNatziv would also be lezorach.  For
further details, I gave the sources above with shmirat shabbos bringing most
of them, including whether a tnai can be made and then driving to the kotel
for kabbolas shabbos, see shemiras shabbos 23:24 and notes. For the kossel
issue, see also the resposum by r. gedalyah oberlander, or yisral (monsey),
12 (5758), pp. 127 ff. (for a very stringent view ? courtesy of the Kotar
project, I hope you realize what a resource this is).

Shabbat shalom without any tenaim at all

Shlomo 

 

  _____  

???: Prof. Levine [mailto:llev...@stevens.edu] 
????: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:04 PM
??: Shlomo Pick; 'Prof. Levine'
????: avo...@aishdas.org
????: further on Temimos

 

At 02:52 PM 6/4/2009, Shlomo Pick wrote:




Your question is excellent, and prima facie, it would appear that a woman
should not light earlier on erev shavu?ot according to the Natziv.  And yet
what about kavod yom tov mentioned in my last posting?  It could very be
that the natziv will not work out with this rambam and the posekim who say
women should light earlier, for they may have other reasons for making arvit
later, like temeemos (see below on that). Nevertheless, I would offer the
following solution ? she should to light with a bracha early for the kiyyum
kavod yom tov, but make a tenai (stipulation) that she is not accepting yom
tov yet. That would satisfy both requirements.


I may be on shaky ground here, but it seems to me that according to the
Netziv a women would not be able to light with such a stipulation. Would it
not be a bracha l'vatalah?  After all, according to him, since one cannot
make early Yom Tov,  it is similar to a woman lighting before plag, is it
not? 

YL 

__________ NOD32 4131 (20090604) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090604/15768fc7/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 105
***************************************

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..."