Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 6

Mon, 12 Jan 2015

• 1. Re: measurement error (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Rav Chisda/Yechezkeil (Micha Berger)
• 3. BH, some good news! (Micha Berger)
• 4. A Definitive Answer to When We Are Permitted to Use the Secular Calendar Datr (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: measurement error (Kenneth Miller)
• 6. Re: cutting tephillin retzuos (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: A Definitive Answer to When We Are Permitted to Use the S ecular Calendar Datr (Kenneth Miller)
• 8. Re: Fascinating, Little Known History of a Mi Shebeirach Reve aled: The Hidden Story Behind A Shabbos Practice (Kenneth Miller)
• 9. Re: cutting tephillin retzuos (Kenneth Miller)
• 10. Fascinating, Little Known History of a Mi Shebeirach Revealed: The Hidden Story Behind A Shabbos Practice (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Rabbis and Politics (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Re: cutting tephillin retzuos (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: cutting tephillin retzuos (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: cutting tephillin retzuos (Simon Montagu)
• 15. Re: cutting tephillin retzuos (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: cutting tephillin retzuos (Zev Sero)
• 17. No Reshus haRabbim Today (Micha Berger)

In an appreciated bit of siyata dishmaya, my Arukh haShulchan yomi
sechedule <http://www.aishdas.org/luaach> brought me to a primary source
on this subject -- AhS OC 363:32-35. The he.WikiSource.org ("Vikiteqst")
copy is at <http://j.mp/1DMRNlm>

So, I'm keeping what I was intending to write in my drafts folder until
I process this better. And to help that processing, I am sharing an
overview of my understanding of these 4 se'ifim.


There are midos metzumtzamos and midos murvuchos, which differ by 1/2
etzba per amma. (E.g. 41-2/3 amos when it comes to techum Shabbos.) This
is not an issue of safeiq, but a variability built into the nature of
measurement itself.

According to the Rambam, the Ba'al haMa'or, the Rosh, the Tur and the
SA, one uses whichever is more machmir for each in every instance. So, a
break in a mechitzah can't be 10 small amos. A mavui must run 4 big amos,
and can't be 20 small amos high. But if the mavui and the mechitzah are
of the same chatzeir, they must be consistent. (Added in se'if 35.)

According to the Rashba, the Ritva, and probably Rashi, each din has
to be consistent, not just each situation. So, since in kelaim most
times wide measuring would be the more machmir, one always uses wide
measuring in kelaim. For sukkah and mavui, one similarly consistently
uses narrow measuring.

And because this is not safeiq, but the nature of measuring, this is
true even for mavui. We do not invoke safeiq derabbanan lequlah.

But then in se'if 34 he says something I do not follow, but key to
our discussion.

When dealing with mavui, where there is only one mavui and therefore one
measuring process to be used for everyone, the above applies. However,
when the measurement is only for one person's use, tbey should be
measuring for himself, with his own norms.

And here he adds a touch of subjectivity: a person should measure how
far he himself could walk. And the rule of carrying in rh"r a distance
of no more 4 of one's own amos is brought into that umbrella.

The reason for the general rule is to cover the personal amos of the
people who will be using the measuring.

BUT, and this is why I do not follow, he opened se'if 32 by telling us
the variability is 1/48 of the total (1/24 of an etzba per ammah). Which
is far less than the variability in forearm lengths in most groups of
people. For example, my own sukkah is used by Yoni, who stands 6'3" and by
my own 5'3" -- and my arms are on the shorter side, even proportionally.
When we hold up elbows together, my ammah ends just past his wrist. Not
within 47/48 of eachother.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What you get by achieving your goals
mi...@aishdas.org        is not as important as
http://www.aishdas.org   what you become by achieving your goals.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Henry David Thoreau

Two+ weeks ago, on Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:31am EDT, RJR asked:
: Rav Chisda was a third generation amora. In the 3 cases where the gemara
: questions learning a seeming torah requirement from a source in Nach (and
: each case is a quote from Yechezkeil), it quotes Rav Chisda ending with
: "gemara gmirei,vata Yechezkeilv'asmecha akra"...

: Question- this issue arises in many places in the Gemara - why is the
: question only raised by quotes from Yechezkeil and why is the answer
: quoted from the 3rd generation?

Can't it be something balebatish, like R' Chisda had a personal fascination
with seifer Yechezqeil?

In any case, I find it humerous that you're asking why it was left for
a middle-era amora to articulate the notion that there was Torah given
as Sinai that had to wait for Yechezqeil for an asmachta.

The observation tickles my love of going meta.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

Ayalah Shapira (Ayalah bat Rut) is breathing without a respirator!

This is the 11 yr old who received 3rd degree burns over much of her
body from a Molotov Coctail thrown into the family car 2 weeks ago.
(Her father, driving, had minor burns.)

Not that we're anywhere near taking her off Tehillim and Mi sheBeirach
lists, but I thought we all could handle sharing some good news after
this past weekend.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Eliot

Please see http://tinyurl.com/orzervp

YL

R' David Riceman wrote:

> I cited SZKS as an example precisely because it's a clearly
> delineated Biblical standard, which Hazal translate into a
> different, easily measurable standard.

I agree that SZKS is indeed a good example of this. But I think it is far
from the only example. I would say that "uvkumecha" is not any more clearly
delineated than "tochlu matzos": Just as one might think that he could say
Shma no matter what time of day he gets up, so too one might think (and in
fact many DO think) that one can eat whatever quantity of matzah that he
wants. But in both cases, the Torah establishes a specific shiur, and
Chazal translate it into a measurable standard.

> Why is it that the mishna already uses sundial time for SZKS but
> even the SA uses phenomenal time for when to daven ne'ilah?

I was surprised to find that this accurately refers to Shulchan Aruch
623:2, in the Mechaber, Rama, and Mishne Brura, who refer only to the sun
being at the treetops, and also make reference to sunset and tzeis. But
Shaar Hatzyiun 623:5 does mention Plag Hamincha.

On the other hand, Neilah is "only" d'rabanan, and so the lack of precision is not as relevant as it would be for a d'Oraisa.

> Certainly there are examples in hilchos Shabbos of things that we
> can do because bnei mlachim do them on weekdays.

Any specific examples? The only comparable example I can think of goes
l'chumra: Maachal ben Drusa'i. Since this recognized subset of the
population (criminals in general? or one particularly well-known criminal?)
used to eat his food barely-cooked, we would now violate Bishul D'Oraisa
EITHER by changing a food from raw to barely-cooked OR by changing it from
barely-cooked to fully cooked (according to the majority opinion in Rav
Eider XIVa16 on page 258).

By the way: It seems to me that Maachal ben Drusa'i is an interesting
example to bring into this discussion, because it is particularly resistant
to "translating into a different, easily measurable standard." One might
think that "1/3 or 1/2 cooked" meets that definition, but did you ever
consider how to apply that shiur in practice? Specifically: If a given food
takes two hours to cook, I personally think that at the 60-minute mark, it
is still just warming up, and is not even close to one-*third* cooked. Just
a few minutes ago, I saw the views of the Chazon Ish and of Rav Moshe
Feinstein on this question, in the last six lines on the bottom of page 257
in Rav Eider's Halachos of Shabbos.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
The #1 Worst Carb Ever?
Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar (Don't Eat This!)
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54b2682de2b62682d3bc4st02vuc

On 01/10/2015 08:11 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> A problem with translating barzel as iron is that the Torah was given in
> the Bronze Age. So to understand the prohibition as being limits to
> iron and steel would be to believe that HQBH was warning Betzalel's
> work crew not to use tools they didn't have the technology to make anyway.

I don't understand.  Are you seriously suggesting that "barzel" does *not*
mean iron?!  On what basis?  AFAIK at that time only six metals were known,
and all six are listed in the pasuk in Mattos, so what could "barzel" mean
if not iron?

As for steel, man dchar shmeih?

In any case, they certainly did make things out of iron, both eating tools
and tools that could be used for killing, as in "ve'im bichli varzel hikohu".


> My theory above, which admittedly requires ignoring a Torah Temimah,
> would mean that the pasuq is saying that metal shortens lives and doesn't
> belong on a mizbeach, and thereefore would lead to the din about bentching
> referring to knives of any metal.

Ignoring a Torah Temimah is not a problem.  He was not any kind of authority.
But the problem is you're ignoring an explicit pasuk!  If it meant metal it
would have said so.  You can't just make up an issur de'oraisa without *any*
support from the pasuk!

What is so "definitive" about that answer? It seems to me that the article
is not only not definitive,but could have explained itself better. For
example, he refers to the views of the Chasam Sofer:

> He explained that the Jewish people count the months from Nissan,
> the month of the exodus from Egypt and the year from the creation
> of the world. These two events are the cornerstones of Judaism.
> They represent the belief that Hashem created the world and His
> special connection to the Jewish people through the exodus.
> According to the Ramban the mitzvah of "Ha'chodesh ha'zeh la'chem
> rosh chadoshim" instructs us to count from Nissan to remember these
> great miracles.

I could argue that this pasuk tells us how to count months within any given
year, but says nothing about counting the years. I could also argue that
April and November et al are artificial units of time, and are not "months"
in the context of that pasuk.

But even if I were to concede both of those points, where and how does
"Hachodesh hazeh" instruct us to count from creation? It would actually be
telling us to count from Yetzias Mitzrayim, and in fact that's what we did
do for a very long time. What's his source to connect this pasuk to
counting from Creation?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Odd Trick Fights Diabetes
"Unique" Proven Method To Control Blood Sugar In 3 Weeks. Watch Video.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54b3afe53e03b2fe56f12st03vuc

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> RYBS held that one may only make a mi sheBeirakh for a choleh
> sheyeish bo saqanah.

Igros Moshe O"C 1:105 allows tefilla and Tehillim on Shabbos, but only for
a choleh sheyesh bo sakanah, and only if the choleh personally requested
it. He does not mention the "Mi Sheberach" specifically.

The view of MB 288:28 is not clear to me. At first he clarifies the Rama,
that one may make a bracha for the health of a choleh [This sure sounds
like a "Mi Sheberach" but he doesn't call it by that name] on Shabbos, but
only if the choleh is in sakanah. And then he goes on to say that when one
says a Mi Sheberach [now identified specifically by that name] for a choleh
she'AYN bo sakanah, he must include the words "Shabbos hee miliz'ok".

Apparently, the MB doesn't require that phrase when the choleh IS in
sakanah. But when the choleh is NOT in sakanah, it's not clear to me
whether the MB allows the Mi Sheberach l'chatchilah, or whether he only
merely insists on including "Shabbos hee miliz'ok" for situations where the
people will be saying the Mi Sheberach regardless.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Odd Trick Fights Diabetes
"Unique" Proven Method To Control Blood Sugar In 3 Weeks. Watch Video.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54b3ac9019f352c8f76fast03vuc

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> A problem with translating barzel as iron is that the Torah
> was given in the Bronze Age. So to understand the prohibition
> as being limits to iron and steel would be to believe that HQBH
> was warning Betzalel's work crew not to use tools they didn't
> have the technology to make anyway.

My admittedly cursory research says that although you are correct about
Matan Torah coming before the Iron Age, that only means that bronze was
more useful or popular at that time. Archaeology could be the problem you
suggest, but only if iron were *unknown*, not merely by being less useful.

And, just as one example to show that iron *was* known and used, Wikipedia
(https://en.wikipedi
a.org/wiki/Iron#Wrought_iron) says: "Items that were likely made of
iron by Egyptians date from 2500 to 3000 BCE." and "Samples of smelted iron
from Asmar, Mesopotamia and Tall Chagar Bazaar in northern Syria were made
sometime between 2700 and 3000 BCE."

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> AFAIK at that time only six metals were known, and all six are
> listed in the pasuk in Mattos, so what could "barzel" mean if
> not iron?
and
> In any case, they certainly did make things out of iron, both
> eating tools and tools that could be used for killing, as in
> "ve'im bichli varzel hikohu".

It is very common in Hebrew, and other languages, for a word to have both a
general meaning and a specific meaning. For example, depending on the
context, "simcha" might be a very general sort of happiness or a very
specific kind of happiness. So too,it is obvious to me that in Mattos
"barzel" must be iron, but in your other pasuk it might possibly mean any
sort of metal. (I'm not saying that it *does* mean any sort of metal in the
second reference, only that it is not a good proof text for this case.)

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Odd Trick Fights Diabetes
"Unique" Proven Method To Control Blood Sugar In 3 Weeks. Watch Video.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54b3b6ceca8f936ce6d9cst04vuc

At 12:41 AM 1/12/2015, you wrote:
>RYBS held that one may only make a mi sheBeirakh for a choleh sheyeish bo
>saqanah.

I once heard Rabbi B. Hamburger say that one should not say the Yehi 
Ratzon found at the beginning of Birkas Hachodesh in our siddurim 
since it is a bakasha and one is not to make a bakasha on Shabbos.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150112/3909cd91/attachment.htm>

Olam Qatan had a piece by Rav Ido Rachnitz (spelling?), who is a dayan
and researcher at the Machon Mishpatei HaAretz, on the role of rabbis
and government decisions. Much of his conclusions are based on the works
of Rav Yisraeli and Rav Kook. To summarize:

1) When talking about a halachic question, rabbanim have to be the ones
making the decision. However the decision made should be the main
line opinion, not minority opinions. (Note: I really don't know how
many halachic questions the government decides. The government decides
procedures, not halacha).

2) When the question is a value judgement, rabbanim have a role as
advisers but the final decision must be made by the relevant government
official or body. While rabbanim understand the values or Torah behind
a question (or in other words, the da'at Torah), they don't know the
practical implications of a decision. Therefore it is for the anshei
ma'ahseh to be the final arbitrators (quoting Rav Kook).

Ben

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:57:44AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: My admittedly cursory research says that although you are correct about
: Matan Torah coming before the Iron Age, that only means that bronze was
: more useful or popular at that time. Archaeology could be the problem you
: suggest, but only if iron were *unknown*, not merely by being less useful.

I think this is overly rigorous. HQBH bans barzel from the mizbeiach
because it's used for killing. Even if iron was known, it certainly
wasn't the primary metal used in weaponry. Why would Hashem identify
iron with killing more than the metals that were more commonly used?

(BTW, according to http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=
ab66
the Hittites were the first people to work iron, and their success
due to their being the first to figure out how to get it hard enough
to use in weapons and chariots. This happens some time between
1500 and 1250 BCE (although Lisa might argue with those dates),
but well before yetzi'as Mitzrayim. But again, that doesn't make
iron the primary metal people killed echother with. Just of interest.
It may shape how we understand the Avos's relationship with Benei Cheis.

So I would still think that the translators are right, that in our
pasuq the meaning is metal in general.

...
: It is very common in Hebrew, and other languages, for a word to have
: both a general meaning and a specific meaning. For example, depending
: on the context...

Which was my intent. Thank you. That's why I limited my context to what
barzel means in this context, regardless of usage in Bamidbar 21:22,
where "barzel" appears in a list of types of metal.

However, nechoshes, also on that list, refers to copper, bronze and
brass (and I presume any other copper alloy). I therefore assumed that
even in its limited sense, "barzel" would include steel (iron alloys)
once they're invented.

Still, this too is a linguistic oddity. Why would the default metal
be iron before iron took center stage?

Personally, I would point to other examples. E.g. the terms for soul --
nefesh, ruach, neshamah -- which can mean soul as a whole or particular
functions of the soul.

Or "apple" in King James' English, which refers to both a particular
fruit and fruit in general, leading to mistakes about the type of fruit
of the eitz hadaas. Similarly the French "pomme", reflected in modern
Hebrew's "tapulach" which is an apple, but with a modifier can be a potato
(tapuach adamah) or orange (tapuz = tapuach zahav). Although not true
of tapuach itself, since without a modifier it does only mean apple.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 01/12/2015 10:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> So I would still think that the translators are right, that in our
> pasuq the meaning is metal in general.

Which translators?  AFAIK *nobody* translates it as anything but iron.
"Metal" was simply a mistranslation by a poster here on Avodah, which
repliers just went with unthinkingly.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah
<avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> So I would still think that the translators are right, that in our
> pasuq the meaning is metal in general.
>
> <snip>
>
> Still, this too is a linguistic oddity. Why would the default metal
> be iron before iron took center stage?

Which pasuk? The pasuk in Yitro which I thought we were talking about
says "harbecha"; it doesn't name any specific metal. It's the Mechilta
that defines gazit as "she-hunaf aleihem barzel", and it's no oddity
that iron was the default metal for Hazal.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 08:35:31PM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote:
: Which pasuk? The pasuk in Yitro which I thought we were talking about
: says "harbecha"; it doesn't name any specific metal. It's the Mechilta
: that defines gazit as "she-hunaf aleihem barzel"...

The Mechilta is paraphrasing the end of Devarim 27:5:
    Uvanisa shem mizbeiach Lashem E-loekha mizpach avanim
    lo sanif aleihem barzel.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 01/12/2015 02:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 08:35:31PM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote:
> : Which pasuk? The pasuk in Yitro which I thought we were talking about
> : says "harbecha"; it doesn't name any specific metal. It's the Mechilta
> : that defines gazit as "she-hunaf aleihem barzel"...
>
> The Mechilta is paraphrasing the end of Devarim 27:5:
>      Uvanisa shem mizbeiach Lashem E-loekha mizpach avanim
>      lo sanif aleihem barzel.

And in case you still think "barzel" in this pasuk could mean any metal,
the Rambam also writes "barzel", and there can be no question that by his
time that had no meaning but "iron". When he means "matechet" he says so.
http://mechon-mamre.org/i/8101.htm

I have seen three justifications for making community areiruvim, on the
basis that a true reshus harabbim deOraisa is rare to non-existent today.

1- The best known is Rashi's comment about 60 ribo. The number of places
where 600,000 people travel is severely limiting. Especially if you hold
that one doesn't count people riding in vehicles.

Historically, this shitah was considered weak by the textually inclined,
as there was no known source in Chazal. You're not going to find the
Rambam mentioning it. BUT...

Ulla, says 600,000 (Shabbos 6a, if we trust the Behag, the Meiri and
the Vatican codex over our girsa of the gemara) is the same person who
(in an uncontested text, Berakhos 58a) says there is no rh"r deOraisa
in Bavel. See
http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/2006/01/part-1-shishim-ribo-myste
ry-solved.html
http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/2006/01/part-2-shishim-ribo-myste
ry-solved.html
and
http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/2009/06/reprinting-of-berlin-e
dition-of-behag.html
for a discussion of the Behag and his reliance on Ulla. Including an
image of the Vatican MS corresponding to our Shbbos 6a, with the line
in question highlighted.

And realize that of all manustripts of this antiquity, the Vatican MS
is most likely to resemble Rashi's.

2- The shitah normally called the Chazon Ish's, which notes that the
way cities are built today, streets are lined with buildings and
therefore omeid merubah al haparutz.

See http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila/eruvp3b.htm from the qunterus
that later grew into RYBS's "Eruvin in Modern Metropolitan Areas".
Although I disagree that it's the CI's chiddush rather than his just
being the famous name we tend to cite it under.

3- The AhS accepts the common practice of community eruvin as being so
near universal, it is "as if a bas qol came down and permitted them." BUT,
this doesn't mean that the AhS endorsed the common explanation for the
pesaq (#1, without the manuscript work).

Rather, the AhS argues that it's a difference in city planning. See
OC 345:17-24.

In se'if 19 he is medaqdeiq from Shabbos 96b, to reach the conclusion in
se'ifim 20 and 22 (21 goes in a tangent to explain how what he says in
20 fits melekhes haMishkan) that our cities are different because they
are built on a different city planning paradigm than the seratya upelatya
based norm of cities in Chazal's Eretz Yisrael. But his discussion runs
long enough (17-24), and the Arukh haShulchan so often revisits shitos
he personally rejected for the sake of understanding those who didn't,
that I could have lost side of his masqana along the way.

I think the AhS would hold a reshus harabim is a single central square
that all roads that leave the city run through and all houses directly or
indirectly open to it. Chazal's model is where houses open to chatzeiros
which open to mevo'os, all a tree built around two major inter-city roads
and a central common square -- the rh"r. Our grid-works of streets simply
do not contain a reshus harabim, regardless of 60 ribo.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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



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


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


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

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.)