Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 124

Tue, 24 Oct 2017

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: elazar teitz
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:49:21 -0400
Re: [Avodah] the miracle of judging by smell

     On this topic, the comment was made that "Moshiach is a melech, and
not bound by the rules of a beis din."

     However, other than moreid b'malchus, this is only true for r'tzicha,
not other capital punishment cases, as is indicated in Rambam Hilchos
M'lachim 3:10 (as it is understood by most m'farshim).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Isaac Balbin
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:07:43 +0000
Re: [Avodah] ?the miracle of judging by smell? was (Re: R.

From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name<mailto:z...@sero.name>>
> On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote:
>> When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid
>> shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most
>> judgements.

Zev responded
> Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din.

Indeed. His position therefore also invalidates Moshiach from being a
formal witness, although that's clearly not for trust/smell issues.

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:20:34 -0400
[Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis

Our old chaver R' Rich Wolpoe posted this article by R/Dr Mitchell First.
It's a nice survey of opinions about all those long lifespans in seifer

    From RRW
    Guest Blogger: Mitchell First
    Thursday, 19 October 2017

    The Long Lifespans in Genesis

    The Longevity of the Ancients Recorded in Genesis

    ... Josephus (late 1st century). Here is his statement in
    Antiquities, book I:
        "               ...For, in the first place, they were beloved of
        God and the creatures of God himself; their diet too was more
        conducive to longevity: it was then natural that they should
        live so long. Again, alike for their merits and to promote
        the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry,
        God would accord them a longer life...."

    Now I will survey the views of our Geonim and Rishonim.

    R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction
    to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations
    was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on
    the earth.....

    R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari
    (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who
    lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence
    of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect.
    The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another
    through these exceptional individuals.

    Rambam, in a famous passage in the Guide to the Perplexed (II,
    chap. 47) writes: "I say that only the persons named lived so long,
    whilst other people enjoyed the ordinary length of life. The men
    named were exceptions, either in consequence of different causes,
    as e.g., their food or mode of living, or by way of miracle."

    Ramban (comm. to Gen. 5:4) quotes Rambam's view and then disagrees,
    ... individuals with long lifespans named in the Bible were not
    exceptional in their lifespans. Rather, the entire world had long
    lifespans before the Flood. But after the Flood, the world atmosphere
    changed and this caused the gradual reduction in lifespans.

    Most of the Rishonim who discussed the issue thereafter followed
    the approach of either the Rambam or the Ramban. Either way, they
    were taking the Genesis lifespan numbers literally. (An underlying
    factor that motivated Rishonim to accept the Genesis lifespan numbers
    literally was that the count from creation was calculated based on
    these numbers.)

    Josephus had mentioned that one of the reasons that God allowed
    their longevity was to promote the utility of their discoveries
    in astronomy and geometry. This idea of longevity to enable the
    acquisition of knowledge and make discoveries (and write them to
    be passed down) is also included in several of our Rishonim. See,
    e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4 and of the Ralbag to
    Gen. chap. 5 (p. 136), and the Rashbatz (R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran,
    Magen Avot, comm. to Avot 5:21).

    Rashbatz also mentions the idea that the early generations were
    close in time to Adam and Adam ... was made by God from the earth....

    Another idea found in some of our Rishonim is that those early
    individuals did not chase after "ta'avat ha-guf," which reduces the
    lifespan. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4.

    ... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that
    the years given for people's lives were actually the years of
    "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that
    they established.

    ... R. Levi ben Hayyim (early 14th cent.).... concludes that in his
    opinion the names mentioned were just roshei avot. In other words,
    the number of years given for each individual reflects the total of
    the years of the several generations of individuals named for that
    first individual.

    R. Nissim of Marseilles (early 14th century) ... took the same
    approach as R. Moses Ibn Tibbon. The numbers ... included the
    total years of the descendants who followed his customs and lifestyle.

    The most interesting approach I saw was that of R. Eleazar Ashkenazi
    ben Nathan ha-Bavli (14th century), in his work Tzafnat Paneach,
    pp. 29-30. ... First, R. Eleazar refers to the view
    that perhaps the individual numbers were not to be taken literally,
    and points to other statements in the Torah that were not meant to
    be taken literally, e.g., 1) the Land of Israel was "flowing with
    milk and honey," and 2) the cities in Canaan were "fortified up to
    the Heaven" (Deut. 1:28). (See further Moreh Nevuchim, II,47.)

    But then R. Eleazar suggests the following creative approach. In
    listing these individual numbers, the Torah was merely recording the
    legends about these figures, even though they were not accurate. The
    important thing was to provide data from which the total years from
    Creation to Matan Torah could be derived, so that the people would
    be able to know the length of time between these two periods. Even
    though the numbers for the individual lifespans were not accurate,
    the Torah made sure that the total that would be arrived at would
    be accurate....

    ... Prof. Natan Aviezer of Bar-Ilan University.... in a post at
    the Bar Ilan University weekly parshah site for parshat Noach,
    1998... explains that modern science has figured out that aging is
    largely caused by genes, and not by a wearing out of our bodies. He
    then suggests that when God stated at Gen. 6:3 that man would be
    limited to 120 years, this was when God first introduced the gene
    for aging into the human gene pool.

    If you have not found any of the above answers satisfying, I have
    some good news. R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of
    chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will
    be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be
    bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore!

    (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts
    lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to
    Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali
    predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)

    I would like to acknowledge that most of the material above came
    from an article by Prof. Daniel Lasker of Ben-Gurion University,
    in Mechkarim Be-Halakha U-Be-Mishpat Ha-Ivri, vol. 26-27 (2009-10).

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:13:16 -0400
[Avodah] Beris Milah on Shabbos when Father isn't Jewish

I mentioned in the past I had this question halakhah lemaaseh. I knew
of an intermarried couple who lived nowhere near the nearest Jewish
community. They would have just had the boy circumcized in the hospital
rather than to pay what one of the nearer mohalim wanted to come down for
the weekend. Yes, the nearest Chabad house had a mohel, who (of course)
would come at cost... IFF he hadn't had a beris in his own minhan that
same Shabbos.

So the question I asked was whether I should donate (or raise donations)
for the beris to be bizmano. My LOR asked his rav... long story short,
as I best remember at a little more than two decades later:

The pasuq says "bayom hashemini yimol besar arlaso" -- it's the father who
is told "on the eight day", even if it's on Shabbos. Implied: If the father
has no chiyuv, such as our case or if r"l the father didn't survive to see
his son's beris, there is no one whose chiyuv overrides Shabbos. (If the
father is alive but not there, you'd still violate Shabbos.)

Well, someone asked R' Asher Weiss.
He didn't rule the same way, but does mention that is -- or at least
was -- a machloqes amoraim. However, RAW holds a consensus has emerged
to do the beris.

Perhaps RDC didn't think the consensus was solid enough to warrant my
spending or raising that kind of money for someone else's beris. Or
perhaps it was closer to the way I remembered it and RDC doesn't agree
with how the consensus emerged.

    Brit mila on Shabbos when father is non Jew
    Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz

    Question: Does everyone agree that a brit is done on Shabbat even
        if the father is a goy?
    Answer: No, this is a dispute among the achronim [halachic authorities
        of the last 500 years]. The halachic ruling is that we do in
        fact perform the bris mila on Shabbos.

        See Derisha Y:D 266:20, Nachalas Shiva [kuntress hamila siman 1],
        Shu't Binyan Tzion [Vol. 1:21].

The nearest I could find in Hebrew (as the Hebrew always has more
discussion) is "Beris beShabbos leVen Me'uberes sheNisgayrah" at
<http://j.mp/2yFQuZV>. There the question is whether the velad's milah
is a normal beris or lesheim geirus, and RAW still holds the milah should
be on Shabbos. It's a fun sugya, worth a read. But doesn't focus on our

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: hankman
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 16:15:49 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Torah precheit?

R. Akiva Miller wrote:

?One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history.
What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to
Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had
not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by
the rock??

Actually I had thoughts along similar lines that you express. The most
prominent such turning point was the cheit ha?eigel, where again, had they
succeeded, that again would have been the end for man?s tafkid and
correction the cheit of Adam, direct route to eretz Yisroel, no forty years
in the midbar and presumably Moshe R. would have been the final moshiach
and on to the final gemul. The reason these two stick in my mind more than
the other forks in history you point to, is that these would have been
endpoints to the tafkid in this world and led directly to olom haba with no
continuation of the ?Torah? story we are familiar with. The moments in
history you point to would have been forks in the road but not endpoints.
So if say Esau/Yishmoel had made good choices and been more like his
brother Yaakov/Yitzchok, the story would have had a different twist to it,
but the overall gestalt to the Torah could still have been quite similar.
What we have now, with some changes. But we
  would h
 ave no problem imagining all (perhaps most) of the mitzvos as we know them.

These two, cheit of Adam and cheit ha?eigel, were fundamentally different
than the other ?forks? in the road as what we know to have followed would
never happen. So Regalim, and avdus in Mitzrayim, etc, etc are ideas that
seem not to have a place in such a reality had Adam succeeded while the
other forks would have led to a variation on a theme we are familiar with
and can at least readily imagine.

The idea you mention of ?70 panim latorah? would have to be expanded
greatly if for every fork on the possible choices made in the biblical
period (by this I mean the time through the end of the forty years bamidbar
that were recorded in chumash). If every possible choice made at every fork
(say N) resulted in a diff version of Torah, then that would result in 2 to
the N panim laTorah ? with N being very large! Perhaps 70 is just a synonym
for ?many?? When we say that there are 70 umos, I always wondered how that
was defined, as it seems to me that there are many more and that the number
would change for different periods in history. If 70 here too means ?many?
that would clear that up. But then the precise number of 70 for the parei
hachag might be a problem unless for some reason that may have been fixed
symbolically, or perhaps to coincide with the original number at some early
 point in history as say per the list of the 70 nations Art Scroll makes in
its chumash at the e
 nd of th
 is weeks parsha (Noach). Basically it is a listing of certain of the names
 of descendants of Noach. Have you ever heard of a nation called Ever (or
 most of the other names they list)? So is the ?essence? of 
Torah something beyond our ken. Is all we can see just a single facet of
the 70 panim laTorah? (This of course is not the normal meaning to 70 panim
laTorah, which usually is applied to differing explanations to our
?current? Torah, and not the other ?possible? ?Toros? as you are
suggesting.  Is this so far off the beaten path that this might even be an
accidental trip into thought that might be apikursus or a credible notion
within the daas? (Torah lo yehai moochlefes).  I have no idea!

R. Akiva Miller wrote:
?Torah manifests itself differently to a
kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man.?

There is a fundamental difference between a mitzvoh only applying to some
vs the concept not existing. Even if I am a Yisroel I can still be oseik in
torah of the mitvos of a cohen ? it is still a part of Torah given to all
of us even if not all of it pertains to me.

R. Akiva Miller wrote:
?Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status.?

I actually had a thought similar to yours as well on this idea. When I
thought a little more about it, I had difficulty putting it all together.
so what kind of meaning would trummos and massros have. What would orlo
mean. Without aniyim, what is the point of leket shichacha upei?a? (or
tzedaka in general, or even more broadly of gemila chasadim in	such a
world?) The mitzvos hatelyuous ba?aretz only make sense in an agricultural
society, not in a world of olam haba where there are no farmers or farms.
No need for orei miklat in a world without a yetzer. 

On another thought, would the notion of baal tigra in the world of only one
mitzva leave you with no mitvos at all? That would make one a kofer bekol
haTorah koola? Also there would be no need for lo tassur yamin usemol for
gezeirot derabanan in such a world (though perhaps it might have stopped
Chava if such a takana existed to protect the only mitzvoh they had).

R. Akiva Miller wrote:
?"If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a
Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived
there!" That question bothered me for a very long time,?

Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back.  As a young bachur in
yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during which the
progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would have happened
if there had been another deep thinker who came to the same realization and
belief that Avraham did. He answered that there would have been two (or
more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel Torah. It didn?t occur to me
at the time to ask, would they each have the ?same? Torah or each get a
tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, would there be one Torah that
talks of both of the chosen peoples? Years later when discussing what is
the purpose to us of the trillions of stars and galaxies so distant that
they could never possibly affect us here on Earth? Then it occurred to me,
what if those stars had planets with intelligent beings on them and they
too went through a similar period wherein they too had some allien being
come to the same conclusions
  as Avra
 ham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and received
 a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate there etc.?
 This almost makes sense of the questions the malachim asked Moshe when he
 went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a version suitable
 to them which would deflect all of Moshe?s responses. If memory serves, I
 think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim in such a manner.

Just some more rambling thoughts.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: hankman
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 02:25:10 -0400
Re: [Avodah] ?the miracle of judging by smell? was (Re: R.

R. Zev Sero wrote:
?Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din.?

You are obviously referring to Rambam, Melachim P. 3: 8, 10. However this
refers to judgments that are within the scope of the Melech such as a
moreid, or letakein  ha?olom kefi ma shehasho?o tzricha. This does not
however give him the right to usurp ordinary judgments that normally would
fall to a beis din (and disregard such niceties as eidus that the Torah
requires), unless he is the av beis din (possible for malchei beis Dovid)
and does follow the rules of Torah for eidus like any other beis din and
does not simply follow his nose in these judgments. Furthermore, in the
category of cases like moreid and shehasho?o tzricha, all the Melech needs
to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct for ANY Melech ? he
does not even need the power of moreiach veda?in to prove his position. So
mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, or has no need of the power
to be moreiach veda?in.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:16:56 -0400
Re: [Avodah] ?the miracle of judging by smell? was (Re: R.

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:25:10AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote:
:                                                           . Furthermore,
: in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho'o tzricha, all the
: Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct
: for ANY Melech -- he does not even need the power of moreiach veda'in to
: prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not,
: or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda'in.

If I understood the Rambam this way:
It would be good to have a king who knows with certainty which dinim
need shoring up because he can smell that their violation is rampant.

Or, in determining the convicted's guilt:
Let's say some sin became common place, and hasha'ah zerikhah that the
king enforce a capital punishment for it.

But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the
Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without
hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that
retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...)
3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh
and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in
the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel

Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal
ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy?

He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a
king to have in order to be effective and fair.

So I'm not sure your argument holds.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             Every child comes with the message
mi...@aishdas.org        that God is not yet discouraged with
http://www.aishdas.org   humanity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Rabindranath Tagore

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:51:25 -0400
[Avodah] No Barrier Between Religion and Science

See this article on Real Clear Science <http://bit.ly/2gxvyvZ> or

Here is Mosaic Magazine's snippet:

    Kuhn's [argument] is that students learn first by imitation and
    practice and -- assuming they receive a good education -- once they
    strike out on their own, they will have been successfully inculcated
    into a particular scientific tradition. They will thus be prepared
    to recognize, pose, and solve scientific problems.

    If we take tradition to be antithetical to scientific rationality,
    Kuhn's conclusions will appear disquieting. And, indeed, Kuhn's
    critics rejected his arguments as "irrationalist." But if, on
    the contrary, we take tradition to be essential to rationality,
    then Kuhn's conclusions will be not only acceptable but also
    unsurprising. According to the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre,
    before we can begin to reason at all, we must first acquire the
    habits necessary to recognize and, ultimately, to replicate rational
    behavior. To do so, there must first be exemplars that we take to be
    authoritative -- in the moral domain these will be exceptionally
    virtuous people, in the scientific domain, exceptionally good
    scientists. To become rational, in other words, one must be educated
    within a tradition of inquiry.

    Science, on this view, is not Cartesian -- at least as far as [the
    rejection of received ideas] is concerned -- even if it remains
    eminently rational.

    Where does this leave us?... [T]he fact that religious beliefs are
    not entirely reducible to empirical experience and partly depend upon
    tradition doesn't make them irrational or even anti-scientific. Thus
    a popular way of opposing science and religion starts to look
    untenable. This hardly means the two become indistinguishable. But
    it does suggest that science and religion could be conceived of
    as distinct -- but possibly harmonious, even sometimes mutually
    beneficial -- traditions of rational inquiry.

The truth is that science has little to say about where a hypothesis
come from. It gives little guidance for deciding what features are worth
observing, what we should give our attention to. And once we see a pattern
that needs explanation, it is left to human creativity to come up with a
hypothesis. Science is a means of weeding out subjectivity from possible
answers, but the means of coming up with those answers are very human.

In particular, the entire enteprise of science rests on a tradition of
theism -- whether the personal beliefs of an Aristotle or Newton, or the
culture that produced an Einstein. Without a personal reason for assuming
that the universe opperates reasonably, rather than attributing lightning
to Thor's or Zeus's moods, can that hypothesis invention get started.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Go to top.

Message: 9
From: hankman
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:57:36 -0400
Re: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R.

From: Micha Berger
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:16 PM
> But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the
> Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without
> hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that
> retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...)
> 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh
> and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in
> the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel
> question:

> Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal
> ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy?

> He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a
> king to have in order to be effective and fair.

My own initial impression unlike REMT is that the Rambam in 3:10 was not
limiting this to only rotzeach, but dealing with case of max punishment
or similar punishment and kal vechomer for cases of lesser punishment,
however on rereading the Rambam after reading REMT I can see his point
of view, but I am not sure I am fully convinced. I did a quick look
around and found that the Or Sameiach on the Rambam at 3:10 has a long
discussion on this issue as to whether the melech only has this power for
a rotzeach where it is a danger to the rabim but not to enforce laxity
of bein adam lamokom such as dinei shabbos, or if there was a breach
even in these other areas whether the melech could act extra judicially
there as well. There is a reference to a Y. Sanhedrin that implies that
Dovid hamelech wold have executed for mishkav behama al pi eid echod --
so not just rotzeiach. See also the Rambam H. Rotzeiach P 2:4-5 where he
broadens this extra judicial power to beis din as well but under horoas
sha'o rather than takonas olam. (Not sure if the different label implies a
difference in the respective extra judicial powers or not). See the Kesef
Mishna there who mentions a case of chilul Shabbos. My simple reading
there is that the Rambam seem to equate the reach of the extra judicial
power of b"d to that of the melech to punish when found necessary either
due to horo'as shao or takonas olam respectively. (Not clear to me if
the different reasons lead to a different scope or not).
But it seems that yeish lekan veyeish lekan.

I hear your point about moreiach being a good reassurance that his pesak
is correct even if not really necessary to render his judgment.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster

Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:38:55 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Psak source wanted

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote:
: It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh,
: saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei
: eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations
: used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only
: use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the
: calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael...

: Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but
: I'm not sure of that), writes something similar...

Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn anything

In practice, we follow the calculations of R' Saaadia Gaon, who was in
Aleppo at the time, and not R Aaron Ben-Meir in Y-m ih"q. The big debate
of 922 was the topic of an article by RYGB and RAZZ reposted here

The Rambam (Qiddush haChodesh 1:8) limits the authority to someone in EY
("ki miTzion teitzei Sorah...") or if the one clearly most able to do
it received semichah in EY, he can continue setting the months and ibur
shanos in chu"l -- until someone of comparable stature arises in EY.

This seems taylor-made for R Saadia Gaon, who went to yeshiva in Teveriah.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch


Avodah mailing list



Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)

< Previous Next >