Avodah Mailing List

Volume 43: Number 43

Sun, 13 Jul 2025

• 1. New Year for Trees (Akiva Miller)
• 2. (1) Re: The Census Numbers In Bmidbar, and (2) Half-Truths (Joseph Kaplan)
• 3. Re: (1) Re: The Census Numbers In Bmidbar, and (2) Half-Truths (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: name calling (Micha Berger)

.
In Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Yomi, today begins Siman 173, Hilchos Orlah. I was
surprised to find that - according to the Kitzur - the critical dates for
establishing the age of a tree are 16 Av and 1 Tishre.

Tu B'Shvat is not mentioned at all by the Kitzur in this siman!

ArtScroll's footnote #8 does mention that under certain circumstances the
third year is extended past 1 Tishre, and fruit remains Orlah until Tu
B'Shvat, but otherwise there is no mention of it here at all.

In the very last se'if of Siman 139 (Hilchos Chanuka) the Kitzur does write
that Tu B'Shvat is the "New Year for trees", but he doesn't explain the
relevance of that.

Aren't the calculations of Orlah the whole point of Tu B'Shvat? I thought
that a tree's age is determined by its stage of growth as of its first Tu
B'Shvat, not 1 Tishre. What nuance am I missing here?

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20250709/fa8551cd/attachment-0001.htm>

Saying ?Hashem is lemaalah min
hazeman? doesn?t really answer any questions or give explanations because
we humans don?t understand what lemaalah min hazeman means. While I
understand what each word means, I have no idea how such a concept can
possibly work. So I interpret Hashem being lemaalah min baseman as simply
saying that we don?t understand what God is and therefore don?t understand
how omniscience and free will can both be true at the same time except as a
matter of blind faith. But I?d rather say the latter than use words that
aren?t, at least to me, particularly helpful. 

Joseph
Sent from my iPhone

On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 04:32:04PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote:
> Saying "Hashem is lemaalah min hazeman" doesn't really answer any
> questions or give explanations because we humans don't understand what
> lemaalah min hazeman means...

Fortunately, we can reason with ideas we barely understand. For example,
I am writing this on a computer which operates based on the behavior of
semiconductors as "explained" by Quantum Physics. You cannot mantally
picture QM's version of an electron, valence levels, or anything else
that goes into the engineering of a chip. But humans were able to take
the scraps we do know and engineer things with it.

Similarly, we don't need to be able to picture existence that is "lemaaleh
min hazman" or even to know the concept in the abstract to significant
extent to still be able to reason with it.

How does Hashem know today what I will do tomorrow?

I cannot tell you very much, because of that whole Timelessness thing.

But, I can tell you there are fundamental problems with the clause "Hashem
knows today". And so a question about it only seems to work. How is the
question broken? Perhaps you are dissatisfied with how much we can say how
broken it is. I think there is more we can say than you seem to believe;
but I don't need to go there. Just knowing the question cannot possibly
work is enough to know it doesn't need an answer.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Integrity is choosing to practice our values
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   rather than simply professing them.
Author: Widen Your Tent                  - Brene Brown
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 06:18:31AM +0300, R Joel Rich wrote:
>> as it is taught in a baraita: One who calls another a slave shall be
>> ostracized. One who calls another a mamzer incurs the punishment of forty
>> lashes. If one calls another a wicked person then the insulted person may
>> harass him in all aspects of his life.

> In light of this halakha, it is
> clear that the court will not force the accused to respond to this insult
> by taking an oath.

> Any thoughts on which is worse and why the specific punishments?

I went to the source -- Qiddushin 28a.

Rashi ("yehei benidui", "sofeig es ha'arba'im") says that this a
descending sequence. Nidui is worse than malqos, which is worse than
the victim having license to harass the slanderer back.

Meiri (<https://www.sefaria.org/Meiri_on_Kiddushin.28a.3>) emphasizes the
middah keneged middah aspect. Slaves don't get to be part of free-people
society. Avdus is a king of "arur", as in "arur Kenaan.. vayehi Kenaan
eved lamo". And therefore he is arur.

Calling someone a mamzer opens that person up to getting malqos for "lo
yava mamzeir". So, the rabbanan have the course give the slanderer malqos.

Whereas slander is harassment. It might even be that the victim may hit
him, as in Moshe asking "Rasha, lamah takeh rei'ekha?"

The Meiri reminded me of eidim zomemim. Because a sladerer is getting
"ka'ashe zamam la'asos le'achiv".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 There's only one corner of the universe
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   you can be certain of improving,
Author: Widen Your Tent      and that's your own self.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF             - Aldous Huxley


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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)