Volume 31: Number 94
Mon, 20 May 2013
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 17:41:14 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Reform Practice in Orthodox Shuls
Prof. Y. Levine wrote:
> ... What I did not know is that the recitation of Kaddish by
> more than one person at a time in Ashkenaz shuls was first
> introduced in the 19th century by the Reform movement. ...
>
> Orthodox Jews pride themselves in the fact that they follow
> halacha and do not take the approach of the Reform movement
> which has no use for halacha. Yet, we see that virtually all
> Orthodox shuls ... have adopted the Reform practice of more
> than one person saying kaddish at the same time. One would
> have thought at least those with Hungarian roots would not
> have adopted this practice, given the long tradition of
> vociferous opposition to Reform by Hungarian Orthodox Jews.
> Yet, one sees even Hungarian Chassidic Jews like Satmar
> following the practice of more than one person saying kaddish
> at a time.
>
> Dare one suggest that Orthodox Jews now reject this Reform
> practice and go back to having only one person at a time
> say kaddish?
If I'm not mistaken, the practice of having the rav's drasha in English was
also started by the Reform. Indeed, I think the practice of having the rav
speak *at all* (other than Shabbos Shuva and Shabbos Hagadol) was started
by the Reform.
This does not, in and of itself, forever brand the practice as treif. But
it does mean that we need to proceed cautiously. In the final analysis, one
must choose his battles carefully, and when the battles were for Shabbos,
Kashrus, and Tznius, I can easily see why many/most did not make a big deal
over the multiple kaddishes.
RYL's point about the Hungarians, though, is an interesting one. I'd agree
that they are among the most slow-to-change. I'd be interested to hear if
any listmembers know of the history of kaddish-saying among that kehilla.
In any rate, at this point in history, most people of all kehillos regard
kaddish to be a much bigger chiyuv than was ever intended in previous
generations, and I truly doubt whether *any* kehila's people will accept
the idea of being limited to saying kaddish several times a week. (After
all, if it is a large minyan, with many people saying kaddish, there are
only so many to go around, and "so many" often translates as "too few".) I
think a more productive approach would be to enforce the compromise of
having many people say it, but in *unison*.
There are miscellaneous related problems too: What of the people who
can't/don't speak loud enough for others to hear? I wish there was a
solution for what to do when they get an aliyah; giving them their own
kaddish compounds the situation.
And when all is said and done, what's so terrible if a bunch of people say
kaddish, all at different speeds, such that few or no people actually hear
and respond? At worst, they will have said kaddish pointlessly, and we will
not have satisfied the minhag of having a kaddish at that particular part
of the service. But it isn't a bracha l'vatala, nor does it even contain
any Shaymos. I think we're better off putting our energy into more
attentive during Chazaras Hashatz.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
1 Weird spice that FIGHTS diabetes
Can this unusual "super spice" control your blood sugar and fight diabetes?
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/519a609179a60907ab0st04vuc
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 13:58:33 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Yovel
On 20/05/2013 10:08 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> For terumah the Rambam paskens that it
> is only rabbinical today since one needs "everyone" (kol) in Israel
> (not clear what the word "kol" means). Nevertheless, he seems to imply
> that only from the days of Ezra is terumah rabbinical and doesnt
> mention what he mentioned in Yovel that it ceased from when the 2 1/2
> tribes were exiled or at least when the 10 tribes were exiled when
> certainly only a minority of Jews lived in EY.
I don't see this implication there. He doesn't say when terumah stopped
being min hatorah, he just says that even in Ezra's day it wasn't. The
reason Ezra is relevant, and one might think that in his day it must surely
have been min hatorah, is because he's just got through saying that kedusha
shniya, which is permanent, dates from Ezra. So if there was a permanent
kedusha, then surely terumah min hatorah applied; and therefore he tells us
that no, it didn't.
--
Zev Sero A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
the reason he needs.
- Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Lisa Liel <lisa.l...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 14:10:34 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 50
On 5/20/2013 8:50 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> This idea that according to RY, yovel would drift against shamittah was
> argued against, so I backed down. I now think I did so overly hastily.
>
I don't think so.
> Today's Y-mi Yomi, Qiddushin 6a-b (1:2) explicitly understands one side
> of the machloqes as I did.
>
Not according to the Korban HaEdah.
> The gemara entertains the possibility that being freed on the 7th year
> means the 7th year since sale.
>
> R Chiya asks, if it meant the 7th year in terms of the world, who
> is being freed by yovel? (All the avadim were freed the year before,
> during shemittah?)
>
> R' Yochanan b Maryyah answers that this question is according to the
> one who says ein hayoveil oleh min haminyan.
>
> beram, keman de'amar hayoveil oleh miminyan shenei shavua
> pe'amim hu ba be'emtza sheni shavua.
>
>
Right. Because a normal shmittah cycle is 6 years of work and then he
goes free at the beginning of the 7th. But according to the view that
Yovel is both the 50th year *and* the 1st year of the following shmittah
cycle, there'd be only 5 years of work prior to shmittah. Normally,
you'd buy an eved ivri in the first year of a shmittah cycle, and he'd
work until the beginning of the shmittah year. But in this case, he'd
work *through* the shmittah year and go free at the beginning of the
year after shmittah.
From the Korban HaEdah:
V'Rabbanan savrei d'ein shnat yovel olah l'minyan shavua ha-ba'a,
ela moneh shesh shanim l'achar ha-yovel, u-va-shanah ha-shevi'it
she-l'achareha -- hee sh'nat ha-shmittah. D'l'Rabannan nicha
teirutzo shel R' Chuna
Aval l'R Yehudah, ika l'meimar she-'itztrich kra she-ha-yovel
motzi'o lilmod minei she-eino nimkar ba-yovel.
D'salka da'ateich amina, keivan dichtiv "shesh shanim ya'avod,
u-va-shvi'it yeitzei", b'chol ha-shmittot airi, v'afilu b'shmittah
ha-rishonah she-l'achar ha-yovel.
U'm'meila ne'emar she-oveid ba-yovel, d'im lav cach, pe'amim she-hu
ba b'emtza shnei shavua, she-harei einan ela chamesh shanim.
L'kach itztrich l'ashmu'inan d'v'shar shnei shavua airi kra, d'shesh
shanim yaavod l'olam, u-va-shevi'it hainu shnat hashmittah.
> Rather than assume this is a machloqes between the Y-mi and the Bavli,
> I return to my original understanding of Rashi "mikan umikan" -- that
> the year of yovel counts both toward yovel's 50 and shemittah's 7. And
> NOT that it counts toward both the first and second yovel cycles.
>
I don't see it as a machloket between the Yerushalmi and the Bavli at
all. They both agree that mi-kan u-mi-kan means the Yovel is both the
50th year of the previous cycle and the 1st year of the next cycle.
Lisa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130520/862c2862/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 15:59:31 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 50
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 02:10:34PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> R' Yochanan b Maryyah answers [Y-mi Qiddushin 6b] that this question
>> is according to the one who says ein hayoveil oleh min haminyan.
>> beram, keman de'amar hayoveil oleh miminyan shenei shavua
>> pe'amim hu ba be'emtza sheni shavua.
> Right. Because a normal shmittah cycle is 6 years of work and then he
> goes free at the beginning of the 7th...
That's not what the words say. Translating my quote:
However, according to the one who says Yoveil counts toward
the years of sabbatical,
sometimes it [yovel] is in the middle of the years of the sabbatical.
A very clear outright statement that yovel drifts -- sometimes it's on
year 1 of the cycle, other times in the middle of the cycle, etc...
> Yovel is both the 50th year *and* the 1st year of the following shmittah
> cycle, there'd be only 5 years of work prior to shmittah. Normally,
> you'd buy an eved ivri in the first year of a shmittah cycle, and he'd
> work until the beginning of the shmittah year. But in this case, he'd
> work *through* the shmittah year and go free at the beginning of the
> year after shmittah....
But that's not the halakhah. Nor the question being answered, which
presumes freedom comes with shemittah. Earlier in the sugya it asks
whether "sheish shanim ta'avod" means that the eved works 6 years from
mechirah, "uvashvi'is yeitzei" tells you shevi'is shel olam. Amar
R Chunah, shevi'is shel olam. Rabbi Yochan bar Maryyah... (and this is
where we came in).
> From the Korban HaEdah:
...
> Aval l'R Yehudah, ika l'meimar she-'itztrich kra she-ha-yovel
> motzi'o lilmod minei she-eino nimkar ba-yovel.
> D'salka da'ateich amina, keivan dichtiv "shesh shanim ya'avod,
> u-va-shvi'it yeitzei", b'chol ha-shmittot airi, v'afilu b'shmittah
> ha-rishonah she-l'achar ha-yovel.
...
He's saying that an eved bought after yovel gets freed by shemittah
even though it's not a full shemittah cycle from yovel to shemittah.
Not that yovel is year 1 according to R' Yehudah. Just that it isn't
necessarily year 7.
As I quoted, the words of the gemara are "sometimes it is is in the
middle of the years of shavua". The QhE isn't going to make A mean
B.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone
mi...@aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D.
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 15:39:21 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 50
On 20/05/2013 3:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Normally, you'd buy an eved ivri in the first year of a shmittah cycle, and he'd work until the beginning of the shmittah year.
The only eved who goes free after seven years is a thief who is unable to
repay what he has stolen and the kefel; why would thefts be more common in
the first year of shemitah than in any other year?
--
Zev Sero A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
the reason he needs.
- Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:17:13 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 50
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:39:21PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> The only eved who goes free after seven years is a thief who is unable to
> repay what he has stolen and the kefel; why would thefts be more common in
> the first year of shemitah than in any other year?
If this were true it would pose a trivial answer to the Y-mi's question
that isn't offered. The Y-mi asks who is freed by yovel, if shemittah just
freed everybody? The answers offered:
1- According to the shitah (R' Yehudah isn't named) that yovel IS counted
toward shemittah, yovel could be any year of the cycle. So, there could be
time to collect new avadim between shemittah and yovel.
2- A martzeia goes free on yovel, even though he elected not to go free on
yovel. Even according to the chakhamim, he could have had his ear peirced
and added multiple shemittah cycles (plus 1 year) to his servitude.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors,
mi...@aishdas.org but only some of us have the script.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Lisa Liel <lisa.l...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 15:16:43 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 50
On 5/20/2013 2:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 02:10:34PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>
>>> R' Yochanan b Maryyah answers [Y-mi Qiddushin 6b] that this question
>>> is according to the one who says ein hayoveil oleh min haminyan.
>>>
>
>>> beram, keman de'amar hayoveil oleh miminyan shenei shavua
>>> pe'amim hu ba be'emtza sheni shavua.
>>>
>
>> Right. Because a normal shmittah cycle is 6 years of work and then he
>> goes free at the beginning of the 7th...
>>
> That's not what the words say. Translating my quote:
> However, according to the one who says Yoveil counts toward
> the years of sabbatical,
> sometimes it [yovel] is in the middle of the years of the sabbatical.
>
> A very clear outright statement that yovel drifts -- sometimes it's on
> year 1 of the cycle, other times in the middle of the cycle, etc...
>
Of course it's a clear statement if you supply bracketed text that isn't
in the original. Translating your quote:
However, according to the one who says Yovel is included in the
shmittah cycle, sometimes [the eved ivri goes free] in the middle of
a shmittah cycle.
>> Yovel is both the 50th year *and* the 1st year of the following shmittah
>> cycle, there'd be only 5 years of work prior to shmittah. Normally,
>> you'd buy an eved ivri in the first year of a shmittah cycle, and he'd
>> work until the beginning of the shmittah year. But in this case, he'd
>> work *through* the shmittah year and go free at the beginning of the
>> year after shmittah....
>>
> But that's not the halakhah. Nor the question being answered, which
> presumes freedom comes with shemittah. Earlier in the sugya it asks
> whether "sheish shanim ta'avod" means that the eved works 6 years from
> mechirah, "uvashvi'is yeitzei" tells you shevi'is shel olam. Amar
> R Chunah, shevi'is shel olam. Rabbi Yochan bar Maryyah... (and this is
> where we came in).
>
>
>> From the Korban HaEdah:
>>
> ...
>
>> Aval l'R Yehudah, ika l'meimar she-'itztrich kra she-ha-yovel
>> motzi'o lilmod minei she-eino nimkar ba-yovel.
>>
>
>> D'salka da'ateich amina, keivan dichtiv "shesh shanim ya'avod,
>> u-va-shvi'it yeitzei", b'chol ha-shmittot airi, v'afilu b'shmittah
>> ha-rishonah she-l'achar ha-yovel.
>>
> ...
>
> He's saying that an eved bought after yovel gets freed by shemittah
> even though it's not a full shemittah cycle from yovel to shemittah.
> Not that yovel is year 1 according to R' Yehudah. Just that it isn't
> necessarily year 7.
>
No, he's saying that you might have a hava amina that the six years of
work stated in the pasuk would be six years even in the first shmittah
following Yovel, in which case the eved would go free in the year
*following* shmittah.
Look, there are two ways to read this Gemara. One way creates a
machloket between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. And contradicts the
Korban HaEdah. The other way doesn't.
> As I quoted, the words of the gemara are "sometimes it is is in the
> middle of the years of shavua". The QhE isn't going to make A mean
> B.
>
The word "hu" in the Gemara refers to his going free; not to the Yovel.
Lisa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130520/679c0b3d/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:31:30 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 50
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:16:43PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> A very clear outright statement that yovel drifts -- sometimes it's on
>> year 1 of the cycle, other times in the middle of the cycle, etc...
> Of course it's a clear statement if you supply bracketed text that isn't
> in the original. Translating your quote:
> However, according to the one who says Yovel is included in the
> shmittah cycle, sometimes [the eved ivri goes free] in the middle of
> a shmittah cycle.
"Hu ba" is "the eved ivri goes free"? The noun in the sentence, about
which "hu" would apply is "hayovel". "Keman de'amar HAYOVEL oleh....
pe'amim hu ba..."
Nor does "ba" talk about going free.
And even if I found your read plausible, nothing actually addresses the
issue being raised unless the freedom ended up on a different year
according to R' Yehudah than according to the chakhamim. Our need
for a second answer is because not counting yovel toward shemittah
gives us a situation for the slave being freed in a year other than
shemittah + 1 that we otherwise wouldn't have.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great,
mi...@aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great --
http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:23:23 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 50
On 20/05/2013 4:17 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:39:21PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> The only eved who goes free after seven years is a thief who is unable to
>> repay what he has stolen and the kefel; why would thefts be more common in
>> the first year of shemitah than in any other year?
>
> If this were true it would pose a trivial answer to the Y-mi's question
> that isn't offered.
What do you mean by "if this were true"? Is there anyone who holds otherwise?
--
Zev Sero A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
the reason he needs.
- Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 15:26:38 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 50
On 5/20/2013 2:39 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 20/05/2013 3:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> Normally, you'd buy an eved ivri in the first year of a shmittah
>> cycle, and he'd work until the beginning of the shmittah year.
>
> The only eved who goes free after seven years is a thief who is unable to
> repay what he has stolen and the kefel; why would thefts be more
> common in
> the first year of shemitah than in any other year?
It's not that. It's that buyers are more likely to buy in the first
year, because that way they get 6 years of work. If they buy in the 6th
year, the guy goes free the next year. It's bad business.
Lisa
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:37:41 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 50
On 20/05/2013 4:26 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> On 5/20/2013 2:39 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 20/05/2013 3:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>>> Normally, you'd buy an eved ivri in the first year of a shmittah cycle, and he'd work until the beginning of the shmittah year.
>>
>> The only eved who goes free after seven years is a thief who is unable to
>> repay what he has stolen and the kefel; why would thefts be more common in
>> the first year of shemitah than in any other year?
>
> It's not that. It's that buyers are more likely to buy in the first year,
> because that way they get 6 years of work.
So what do you think would happen (according to this opinion) to thieves in
the subsequent years? They get passed in at auction because nobody will buy
them?!
> If they buy in the 6th year, the guy goes free the next year. It's bad business.
No more than buying a field in the 47th year of yovel. The Torah says
explicitly that the price of land reflects the time left on the meter,
because it really represents a diminishing number of crops. And of course
the same is true, lechol hade'os, about a thief being sold in the lead-up
to the yovel; the price will drop as yovel approaches, and fewer years of
work can be expected. So according to this opinion, the same would be
true of the shemitah cycle - the price of thieves would be at its highest
right after shmitah freed the last batch, and decline over the next seven
years.
--
Zev Sero A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
the reason he needs.
- Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@xgmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 23:11:21 +0300
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Electricity on Shabbas - R' Asher Weiss
> What RAW considers a melakha is the fact that by operating electronic
> circuits, the device comes alive, so to speak, and performs meaningful
> tasks. If you want to probe, a better comparison would be what he would
> think about a hydraulic or mechanical computer, like a Babbage engine:
> http://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/ .
I believe the concept of "coming alive" is already mentioned by CI as
part of his issur of boneh and possibly makeh bepatisch
--
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 20:16:53 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Electricity on Shabbas - R' Asher Weiss
R' Arie Folger wrote:
> R'nCL inquired about R' Asher Weiss' definition of significant
> action in electronic and electric devices.
> ...
> What RAW considers a melakha is the fact that by operating
> electronic circuits, the device comes alive, so to speak, and
> performs meaningful tasks. If you want to probe, a better
> comparison would be what he would think about a hydraulic or
> mechanical computer, like a Babbage engine:
> http://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/.
If Charles Babbage's "difference engine" is a melacha, then wouldn't a
player piano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_piano) be in the very
same category?
For that matter, I vaguely recall some mishnayos which describe devices
whose mechanism was based on an hourglass, designed to perform some
action after a set delay. Wouldn't this too count as "significant"?
I fear that I'm missing something very basic to this whole discussion. Are
the Lamed-Tes Melachos to be reduced in importance to being 39 mere
examples of Significant Action?
Akiva Miller
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Lisa Liel <lisa.l...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:51:16 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 50
On 5/20/2013 3:31 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:16:43PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>
>>> A very clear outright statement that yovel drifts -- sometimes it's on
>>> year 1 of the cycle, other times in the middle of the cycle, etc...
>>>
>
>> Of course it's a clear statement if you supply bracketed text that isn't
>> in the original. Translating your quote:
>>
>
>> However, according to the one who says Yovel is included in the
>> shmittah cycle, sometimes [the eved ivri goes free] in the middle of
>> a shmittah cycle.
>>
> "Hu ba" is "the eved ivri goes free"? The noun in the sentence, about
> which "hu" would apply is "hayovel". "Keman de'amar HAYOVEL oleh....
> pe'amim hu ba..."
>
> Nor does "ba" talk about going free.
>
"Hu" is the end of the slave's service.
Lisa
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:01:07 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 50
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 04:31:30PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
:>> A very clear outright statement that yovel drifts -- sometimes it's on
:>> year 1 of the cycle, other times in the middle of the cycle, etc...
:
:> Of course it's a clear statement if you supply bracketed text that isn't
:> in the original. Translating your quote:
:
:> However, according to the one who says Yovel is included in the
:> shmittah cycle, sometimes [the eved ivri goes free] in the middle of
:> a shmittah cycle.
: "Hu ba" is "the eved ivri goes free"? The noun in the sentence, about
: which "hu" would apply is "hayovel"...
: Nor does "ba" talk about going free.
To clarify, a translation without brackets:
However, according to the one who says Yovel is included in the
count of years of sabbatical, sometimes it/he comes in the middle
of the years of a sabbatical.
How is that ambiguous?
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 04:51:16PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> "Hu" is the end of the slave's service.
But that is arbitrarily assigning a pronoun to a noun not under
discussion. There is no mention of the end of the slave's service, as
a "hu" to be referring to. Whereas the yovel is not only a noun under
discussion, it is the last candidate prior in the self-same sentence.
If you insist that the QhE is speaking specifically of yovel being in the
year 1, even so he means "sometimes yovel is in the middle", as years 2
to 6 are only 5 years of servitude, not 6. But I don't see indication
the QhE is saying it's specifically year 1, rather than the part you
quote saying "e.g. year 1". He spends all that time on this case,
but also (beginning of the 2nd long line of that d"h in the Vilna ed
at <http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14142&;st=&pgnum=391>)
"debeshe'ar shenei shavua' airi qera" -- any of the other 6, not just
the first.
Note also the Penei Moshe (2nd narrow line), "... lif'amim hayoveil
qodem hashmitah..."
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 94
**************************************
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..."
A list of common acronyms is available at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)