Special Features SPEAKING OF THE ECLIPSE... I'm not going to go into the Hashkafa side of eclipses. I want to share with you a halachic issue related to the eclipse, but a brief comment on the Hashkafa side is in order. The Gemara says that eclipses have negative messages for us. While this may be so, it does not negate the awe-inspiring display of nature that is a solar eclipse, and one can take the reminder of the negative in addition to being moved to praise G-d for the wonders of Creation. The Sun and the Moon always "praise" G-d, so to speak, by their unwavering, and seemingly joyous following of G-d's commands. When they coordinate this spectacular display, they call special attention to Creation, to their role in it, and to our role and commitment. Last Shabbat morning, as we announced that Rosh Chodesh Elul would be on Thursday and Friday, and as we prayed to HaShem for a good month to come, we also announced that the Molad of Elul would occur early Thursday morning, at 8 "parts" after 3:00. That is shortly before 3:40am on Thursday, August 12th. The Molad is the moment that the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun, a moment known as conjunction. A solar eclipse can occur only at the conjunction of the Sun and the Moon. With the solar eclipse being on Wednseday afternoon, it would indicate that the Molad of Elul actually occurred then. The discrepancy between the announced Molad and the Molad that we "witnessed" during the eclipse is simple to explain. Our Tradition is to use AVERAGE figures for the Molad to calculate each month's Molad, the beginning and end of the period we can say Kiddush L'vana, and the fixing of our calendar based on the Molad of one Tishrei and the next, with the application of rules set down by the Sages. On average, it takes 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 1 cheilek (part, which is 3 and a third seconds - there are 18 chalakim in a minute, 1080 chalakim in an hour) for the Moon to go through its cycle of phases. The actual time between one "New Moon" and the next (lunation) varies by several hours, plus or minus from the average length of time. This variation is a result of the fact that the orbits of the Moon around the Earth and the Earth-Moon around the Sun are not perfect circles. The velocity of an orbiting body changes with its distance from the bodyaround which it revolves. The world calls this Kepler's Second Law of Planetary Motion; it is really one of G-d's Laws of Planetary Motion that Kepler observed and explained. So there are two moments in time each month that are called Molad. The Molad Emtza'i (based on average) and the Molad Amiti (based on actual position of the heavenly bodies as calculated by astronomers). We use the average figures with the full realization that they do not exactly reflect the reality. This is our Tradition. Okay, that's the background. Here's the question. Kiddush L'vana, according to Minhag Yerushalayim, can be said from 3 full days (72 hours) after the Molad. With the announced Molad being Thursday morning, 3 days later will be Sunday morning, and the first opportunity to say K.L. would be Sunday night, August 15th. Or, can we argue that in the case of this month, with the actual Molad being displayed to all who experience the eclipse on Wednesday afternoon, that we should be able to count three days from then, which would be Shabbat afternoon, making the first opportunity to say K.L. on Motza'ei Shabbat? On the one hand, it can be that our Tradition of using the average Molad is what is followed all the time, with no exceptions to that rule. This, in fact, is the opinion of the Pri Megadim (and others). Knowledge of the actual Molad by calculation, as well as experiencing a celestial event that would indicate the actual timing, are irrelevant. We use average, period (or full-stop). On the other hand, the Maharil (Diskin) and others, say that if on the last night for K.L. there occurs a Lunar Eclipse at, say 11:00pm, and the official deadline for K.L. is 3:00am (this is just an example; the deadline can be before the eclipse, at the same time or after it), then if one sees the eclipse, and understands that he is witnessing the NIGUD (opposition, midpoint from one Molad to the next, after which the Moon starts to wane), then he cannot say K.L. after the eclipse in the hours that would still be available to one who did not see the eclipse (or did not understand what the significance of the eclipse is). K.L. can be said until full moon. That is, until the moon stops increasing in brightness. Yet, even if we KNOW when that actually happens, we can still say K.L. until the "official" deadline (based on average). This is our Tradition. But, says Maharil, if we are talking about more than knowing, if we are talking about experiencing the passing of the NIGUD - and that is what happens during a lunar eclipse - then how can we say a bracha that should be said only until full moon, and not later. When it is only calculated knowledge and not experience, we can "ignore" the actual moment of full moon as a deadline and say K.L. until our Traditional deadline, because our experience does not contradict that. When one looks at the moon as the deadline (based on average) approaches, the Moon will appear to us as full, even if it has started to decrease. We cannot see the slight changes over a couple of hours. We can know when full moon occurs, but we do not experience it - except during a lunar eclipse. Taking the Maharil's resoning (or rather my understanding of the Maharil's opinion) and applying it to a solar eclipse, I would like to suggest the following: Regularly, we are unaware of the occurrence of the Molad. It happens when the Moon is not visible to us on Earth. All we are aware of is a longish period of time when we cannot see the Moon. We know that some time between our seeing the last crescent of the Moon before sunrise and our seeing the first crescent after sunset,the Molad occurred. But we do not experience it. We actually ignore it and use the Molad as calculated using the average figures. Fine. Even if one knows when the Molad Amiti occurs, it is ignored. But when there is a solar eclipse, it is as if the heavens testify to the occurrence of the Molad. May we count three days from then and say Kiddush L'vana? I have spent considerable time asking and discussing this question with several people this past week, but have not been able to come up with a clear p'sak to be able to say K.L. on Motza'ei Shabbat. The eariest time for K.L. is when one can "enjoy" the light of the Moon. By fixing this time as three days after the Molad (average), there can be some months when we can say K.L. on less than a three-day old Moon. (Because the Molad Emtza'i can be several hour before the actual.) And that's considered bright enough tosay K.L. If so, I want to argue, three days after the eclipse is certainly enough time to say K.L. On the other hand, in cases of doubt we opt not to say a bracha. Especially in this case, when we can say it the next night (and many nights thereafter) without the doubt. On the other hand (that's back to the first hand), Rambam is of the opinion that K.L. can (and should) be said the first time you see the Moon. That is often well before the Moon is bright enough to "light up the Earth". Also, Motza'ei Shabbat is a favorite day for K.L. On the other hand, we don't follow the Rambam on this. And there are plenty of opinions that we really should wait until 7 days after the Molad. Therefore, I reluctantly conclude that one should stick to the standard procedure for the beginning of K.L. and consider Sunday night to be the first opportunity. When I consulted the author of one of the books and computer programs on Kiddush HaChodesh, he got excited about the question, leaned in the direction of using the eclipse to determine the Molad this month and agreed that Motza'ei Shabbat should be the first K.L. night. He lamented that we didn't have enough time to asksome major poskim. He is hopeful, that by the next time this situation comes around, we will have a definitive p'sak on the question. I imagine that some readers gave up on this article a while ago. I hope that those who got this far enjoyed the topic. I also hope you share my thrill that the eclipse of '99 generated discussion of a halachic nature, as well as giving us pause to think about G-d and His world. THE JERUSALEM INSTITUTE OF JEWISH LAW R. Emanuel Quint, Dean Lesson #2. Acting Beyond the Requirements of the Law Before embarking on the particulars of Jewish Civil Law (in future articles), the reader should recognize that no matter how just and perfect God’s law is, God Himself wants the Jew to achieve a higher standard in his dealings with his fellow man. This higher standard is known as lifnim mishurat hadin. The Talmud (Berachot 7a) relates that the High Priest R. Yishmael b. Elisha entered into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur and a very startling incident took place. He saw an allegorical symbol of the Glory of God and the vision said, “Yishmael, My son, bless Me.” Whereupon R. Yishmael answered “May it by Your will that Your Mercy may overcome Your sterner attributes and that You behave toward Your children with the attribute of mercy and that for their sake You go beyond the boundary of judgment, lifnim mishurath hadin.” There is one more incident in the Talmud where God is involved in the doctrine of lifnim mishurath hadin. If one isto pray in private on Rosh haShana, the Talmud advises that he should pray the additional prayer (Musaf) after the first three hours of the day. The reason given is that God judges man according to strict justice during the first three hours and during the next three hours He judges man lifnim mishurath hadin. (See AvodahZarah 4b). In tractate Shabbat we learn that the verse This is my God and I will glorify Him (Exodus 15:2) teaches us to imitate God, just as He is gracious and compassionate, so must we be gracious and compassionate. I believe that we must also imitate Him in acting lifnim mishurath hadin. Especially in our business dealings can we glorify His Name by acting lifnim mishrath hadin. There are five incidents in the Talmud discussing lifnim mishurath hadin involving people. Two of them involve the Amora, Rav Papa. A certain man sold a field to R. Papa because he thought that he needed the money. After the sale the man realized that he did not need the money. R. Papa permitted the man to rescind the sale, returned the land and took back his money. The Talmud sys that this is not a precedent since R. Papa may have acted lifnim mishurath hadin (Kethuboth 97b). In another incident involving R. Papa where he was eating a meal together with his son and another person. The son finished eating first and R. Papa and the other person interrupted their meal to answer the son’s invitation to say Grace. R. Papa’s son should have waited until at least two of the people finished eating to say Grace, and in any event if the second person had finished he should have waited for his father to finish. But R. Papa was acting lifnim mishurath hadin (Berachot 45b).I think that this may be the reason that when we finish a tractate of Mishna or of Talmud (siyoom) and we say the concluding ritual prayers, we mention the ten sons of Rav Papa. I think that the Sages who put together the concluding ceremony wanted us to learn a profound lesson. Although we have concluded the study ofa particular tractate, in addition to knowing the cognate subject matter of that tractate, did we also learn that we have to act beyond the boundary of judgment? We learn that a person should act lifnim mishurat hadin regarding those close to him. In another incident the Amora Samuel was walking in the wholesalers market and his student R. Yehuda asked him if an object was found where they were walking would it belong to the finder or would he have to announce his find? Samuel answered that the finder could keep the find. R. Yehuda asked Samuel if the loser appeared on the scene and identified the object would the finder have to relinquish it to the loser; Samuel answered that the finder should return the object. After R. Yehuda questioned Samuel that the second ruling seemed to contradict the first ruling, Samuel answered that his second ruling was in keeping with the principle of lifnim mishurath hadin. The concept is here shown to be applicable to commercial situations involving ownership of property. One of the other incidents in the Talmud regarding lifnim mishurath hadin deals with the old sage R. Yishmael b. R. Yosi who was walking down a path and saw a woodcutter who was resting. The woodcutter asked R. Yishmael to help him load wood upon his shoulders. R. Yishmael asked the woodcutter the value of the wood and when told its value he gave the woodcutter such an amount so as not to have to help the woodcutter load the wood, which R. Yishmael would not have done for himself. When R. Yishmael was about to leave he declared the wood ownerless so that if anyone would find the wood he could take it without being guilty of theft. When the woodcutter heard R. Yishmael declare the wood ownerless, he quickly reacquired the wood and once again asked R. Yishmael to help him load the wood on his shoulders. Once again R. Yishmael bought the wood. The story continues relating how the old R. Yishmael finally got out of having to help load the wood. The Talmud asks (Baba Metzia 30b) why did R. Yishmael have to buy the wood. He could simply have refused to help the woodcutter load the wood since he would not have done such an act for himself because of his age and prominence. The Talmud answers that R. Yishmael was acting lifnim mishurath hadin. The Talmud and the commentators give several verses as the source of acting lifnim mishurath hadin. "And you shall make known to them the path in which they should go" (Exodus 18:20); "That you may walk in the way of good men" (Proverbs 2:20); and, "You shall do that which is fair and good in the eyes of God" (Deut 6:18).It may be surprising that the cases where the doctrine of lifnim mishurath hadin is mentioned are not the types that one may expect when the doctrine is mentioned. We might have thought that it would be mentioned in connection with martyrdom or great works of charity or going great lengths to do a mitzva. Instead all the incidents are rather prosaic when compared to great heroism. This teaches that it is in our everyday lives in our dealings with our fellow men that we are called upon to extend ourselves beyond the requirements of the law. There is a dispute among the codifiers of halacha as to whether or not one can be compelled to act lifnim mishurath hadin. By studying the civil laws of God we can strive to make lifnim mishurath hadin the normal way of doing things so that there will no longer be a question as to whether one can be coerced to so act. Knowing that we must meet high standards in our everyday dealing with our fellow man we can now embark on the study of the halacha civil law system. Ed. note: Reader response to the first "Lesson" in this series by Rabbi Quint has been very favorable. We are pleased with the feedback, and we hope that the series will not only provide interesting and informative reading, but also lead to improved behavior of many. Who's the Boss? Yes, of course it's G-d. Not what I meant. I was thinking of humans, fellow Jews. Who's supposed to be the boss? Our sedra opens with the command to appoint judges and, let's call them policemen, deputies, whatever. The Sho't'rim carry out the instructions of the judges. Nice idea, but many problems and pitfalls. We are commanded to use proper criteria in selecting judges. Judges are commanded not to be afraid to render a verdict. They are warned against taking bribes, showing favoritism, perverting justice. There are precise rules of testimony to maximize the chances that justice is properly served. Even when Moshe Rabeinu selected the first seventy judges, he settled for qualities below the standards suggested by Yitro. How about a king? That's a command too. But the mitzvot of the Melech come with the introductory comment - "...And you will say, let us take a king like all the nations around us." There are many rules concerning the king to maximize the chances of things work ing out okay for all concerned. One gets the distinct feeling that having a king is potentially problematic. A prophet. What about a prophet? Sounds okay. Someone like Moshe. That's what Moshe told us. At least it is G-d Who chooses prophets. We choose judges and kings, and we don't always choose well. The Torah issues the strongest warnings about false prophets. OTOH, we may not overly test a true prophet. Problems. Who's the Boss? The real answer is G-d. Not just because He is. But because if our judges follow G-d's commands, and if they follow G-d's rules of justice, and if they are truly G-d fearing, Torah sincere Jews, then we'll be okay. Better than okay. And if a king of Israel is truly G-d fearing, and if he writes his Sefer Torah and uses it as his constant guide, then we'll be fine. And if we are truly G-d fearing and follow the Torah the way we should, then we will know how to properly identify our prophets and listen to them, because they bring us the word of G-d. It all boils down to being straightforward and honest in our relationshipwith The Boss. Mitzva Watch There is a tricky balance that must be struck vis- a-vis prophecy. We must be exceedingly careful to utterly reject the false prophet, yet we must harbor no suspicion of the true prophet (once he have demonstrated his "credentials") - to do so would weaken the link to G-d's Word. A prophet cannot change the Torah. If he does, then we know that he is a false prophet. A prophet cannot command us to do an act of idolatry. If he does, he is a false prophet. But a prophet can command us to violate a mitzva on a temporary basis. If a (proven) prophet were to command us to violate the Shabbat - just this one time, we must (not just "may") violate the Shabbat. If we don't, we are liable to the death penalty. That is serious. It is difficult for us to identify with prophecy on a practical basis, because "we are so out of practice". Nonetheless, prophecy is a very significant part of the fundamental beliefs of Judaism. CLARIFICATION: Soup Nuts & Croutons on Shabbat A brief comment about croutons in the Kosher Kolumn of two issues ago prompted several requests for clarification. So, here it is... Separate factors will combine to the conclusions at the end of this piece. The pot in which the soup is cooked is designated a KLI RISHON, first vessel. The ladle used to put the soup into bowls is a KLI SHENI, 2nd vessel. The bowl in which the soup is served to the individuals at the Shabbat table is a KLI SHLISHI, third vessel. If the ladle is left in the pot of soup between uses, it becomes a KLI RISHON like the pot itself. This means that the individual bowls are KLI SHENI. If the ladle is kept out of the pot between servings, then it keeps its status as a KLI SHENI and the individual's bowl of soup is a KLI SHLISHI, as mentioned above. If one pours the last serving of soup from the pot into the bowl, the bowl is a KLI SHENI. If the soup is poured or ladled into a soup toureen (large, covered soup server that is brought to the table), and then dished out into individual soup bowls, the soup bowls will be a KLI SHLISHI. In general (with the exception of things that cook very easily - not applicable to this presentation), cooking does not take place in a KLI SHLISHI. This means that things put into (even very) hot soup are not subject to cooking and pose no Shabbat problem. A solid food that has already been cooked, is not considered to cook again, even if placed into hot soup in a KLI SHENI. On the other hand, food that has not yet been cooked - even if it has been baked - is considered to cook in a KLI SHENI. Food that is deep-fried is considered cooked. Soup nuts are usually prepared by deep frying. Croutons are sometimes baked and sometimes deep-fried. If your soup bowl is a KLI SHLISHI, you can put soup nuts or croutons or Challah, matza, crackers into the soup with no problem. If your soup bowl is a KLI SHENI, you would have to wait until it cools down a bit before putting any baked product into the soup. Cooked foods, such as rice, spagetti, soup nuts, can be put into soup in a KLI SHENI, even if it is very hot. One more point, related to soup on Shabbat, but not to soup nuts. When the pot is on the (covered) fire, it should not be covered or stirred or seasoned or ladled from. All of these actions can increase cooking, which is not allowed on Shabbat. The pot should be removed from the fire, becoming a "KLI RISHON that is NOT standing on the fire", and the above actions can be done, except for seasoning with something that is subject to cooking. This is by no means the whole story of soup on Shabbat. There's the question of putting the pot back on the stove after serving from it, the use of a wet ladle, and other issues. But for now, enjoy your croutons... and Shabbat. PIRKEI AVOT There are four Shabbatot before Rosh HaShana. We read/learn the first perek this Shabbat, then the second one next week, and on the two remaining Shabbatot we will double up, Gimmel-Dalet and Hei-Vav, so that we can complete Pirkei Avot for the fourth time since Pesach. Outside of Israel, they read/learn the sixth perek this Shabbat, and they will double up for the next three Shabbatot. This last time, we should learn Perek with the awareness of Elul and the imminent Yamim Nora'im. It will definitely affect our learning. We should see some "new" things in Avot, this time around. [The Sho'f'tim Homepage]
|
