Correspondence of R Akiva Eiger letter 23.

 Rav Shach brings two arguments of Rav Akiva Eiger and and asks on both arguments. This is in the  Correspondence of R Akiva Eiger letter 23.

[The issue is also brought in the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Joseph Karo in the commentaries].

The case is this. Hamez [yeast or leavened bread]  belongs to a gentile that is in the domain of a Israeli, and the Israeli has accepted responsibility and an obligation to pay for it if it is lost or stolen. He can not keep it on Passover. But let's say he did not get rid of it and kept it on Passover. After Passover is it allowed or not to derive benefit from it?

The Yerushalmi [The Jerusalem Talmud] brings two opinions about this. One forbids and the other allows.

The Rambam states the law as the opinion that it is forbidden. Why? It is a law of the sages and any law of the sages we always go by the lenient opinion. Rav Akiva Eiger wants to answer this.

One answer if based on the Mishna:  One stole hamez and it was still in his possession on Passover. After Passover he wants to return it to the owner. He can say (הרי שלך לפניך) "What you own, you can now take."

One way to explain this is that it is not forbidden to derive benefit from the hamez. [The reason is on whom would the law of the sages apply to? Not the person that was the victim of the theft. But not the thief either since even if it would be forbidden he could still say "what you onw now you can take."]

So the law that hamez that Passover has passed over on is forbidden would not apply. This explanation of the Mishna would be like the opinion in the Yerushalmi that hamez of a gentile in the domain of a Israeli is permitted after Passover. But since we see that our Gemara [Pesachim 105] holds the explanation of the Mishna is that even though the hamez is forbidden in use so we do not go with the lenient opinion of the Yerushalmi.

One question I have on Rav Akiva Eigger. is the very idea in itself { even if it would be forbidden the thief could still say "what you onw now you can take."] This is sort of hard to see since the whole question in the first place is is it forbidden?  Presumably this opinion would hold that if teh hamez is forbidden in use then the thief could not say this. 

But that is not the question of Rav Shach. Rav Shach simply brings two Gemaras in Pesachim that show that the explanation of the Mishna is not in question. The hamez is forbidden.

 x96   x96 in midi

Only a court with authentic ordination can sanctify the new moon.

 Since the conjunction of sun and moon was on the 13th I think Passover comes out on the 27 of March. That is Friday night, the night of the 26. That would be like R. Elazar in Sanhedrin page 10 that the new moon does not depend on the court on earth. Rather if the court on earth sanctifies the  new moon at the right time then fine,-but if not, then the heavenly court does so anyway.

Everyone seems to think that the new moon depends on the lower court according to all opinions, but you certainly do not see that in Sanhedrin. Just the opposite. The later opinions of Rav Ashi and Rava go with the idea of R. Elazar. And even if the new moon would depend on the lower court, there has not been a lower court to sanctify it since the middle of the Talmudic period when the authentic semicha died out.

And the idea of Hillel II sanctifying the later new moons is a myth never mentioned anywhere in the Gemara.

Since semicha disappeared during the time of the amoraim [Talmudic sages] the dates were in doubt. Only a court with authentic ordination can sanctify the new moon. During the time of the geonim at some point they accepted the calendar of Meton. But there is no indication that Hillel II sanctified it. 

letters from the early geonim have the dates of their writing to not be in accord with the present calendar, but sometime around the time of saadia gaon you see the present day calendar being accepted. but at least we knw the present day calendar is not from the talmud. 

at least one major reason I went to the Mir in NY was the Musar aspect (learning ethics).

I wanted to mention that at least one major reason I went to the Mir in NY was the Musar aspect (learning ethics). Or at least that was one thing that attracted me to the place. Even though Shar Yashuv is also a very great yeshiva, still the lack of Musar left me feeling somewhat empty. Although I am looking at this from hindsight which can be faulty, still it is clear to me that this small drop of Musar made a world of difference for me. So I would like to suggest in fact the idea of having two Musar sessions per day just like at the Mir. 

Musar has three separate aspects. The books of the rishonim [mediaeval]. Books of the achronim which are also thought to be part of the Musar movement.  Then the books of the actual disciples of Rav Israel Salanter. 

[Obligations of the Hearts of Ibn Pakuda is the best of the books of the Rishonim. As for the later authors, the books of Rav Isaac Blazer are the best. The main one, Or Israel is known. The other was a collection of his writings and only printed once. I saw it in Netivot. But I should mention that the books of all the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter are great in terms of getting an idea of Musar is all about.]

"with most people forgetfulness is a lack. But in my opinion forgetfulness is a great thing. If one would remember everything that happened to him, he could never start afresh."

 

That is based on the statement of Rav Nahman that "with most people forgetfulness is a lack. But in my opinion forgetfulness is  a great thing. If one would remember everything that happened to him, he could never start afresh."

And Rav Natan takes this idea  a bit further and claims that as much as one forgets his past, all the better.

You see this also in the LeM about starting new every day.

This shows the deep insight of Rav Nahman into human nature. It is a profound insight how important forgetting all ones' past is.

maza shumra is a sort of concept that got taken out of context.

 maza shumra is a sort of concept that got taken out of context. The idea comes from the Gemara that dough that is made for dogs is Ok for Passover even to fulfill the obligation of eating maza the first night of Passover if the shepherds eat also from it . that is called "shumra" {guarded}.

You can not imagine they guarded the dough so that the dogs could fulfill the mitzvah!

This all comes down to an important idea of Rav Nahman: not to add extra restrictions.

[I thought to add here that all the restrictions about maza are sometimes exaggerated. All maza is is flour and water baked or fried before 18 minutes is up from the time the flour touched the water and put into  a frying pan with oil at the bottom so it doesn't stick. [not any more oil than that.] The thing is that you have to remember is the it should be בלילה עבה thick dough, not easily poured like you would be making a pancake. Of course the pancake is also ok in terms except that to be "bread" (Hamotzie) the dough has to be thick. A think dough is "mezonot".

The issue of Christianity comes up in a few places. Saadia Gaon, Rav Avraham Abulafia, Rav Yaakov Emden, the Meiri, and a Tosphot in tractate Avoda Zara, and the Ari.

 The issue of Christianity comes up in a few places. Saadia Gaon, Rav Avraham Abulafia, Rav Yaakov Emden, the Meiri, and a Tosphot in tractate Avoda Zara, and the Ari. [That Tosphot is fairly well known because it is the source of the idea that gentiles are not commanded on the prohibition of "shituf". ["joining"]. However I forgot the page  number. But it should be easy to find for anyone who is interested. You just look up the Rema in the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Joseph Karo in laws of oaths and the Beer HaGola will bring the page number of that Tosphot.]

Rav Saadia Gaon brings two problems. That of identifying God and Jesus. Plus nullification of the commandments.  Both of these points are correct.

Rav Avraham Abulafia has a very positive opinion about Jesus, but a highly negative opinion about the Catholic Church. That is more of less the same as Rav Yaakov Emden. The Ari has the same opinion as Rav Abulafia as you can see in the writings of the Ari on the end of Genesis, concerning the burial of Joseph in Egypt.   [That is the idea of the Ari is identical to that of Rav Avraham Abulafia.]

[My own opinion is that I have no opinion except what these sages say. However there are some other opinions that disagree with the above, and when there is a difference of opinion among the rishonim I say אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים אבל הלכה  כהרוב These and those are the words of the Living God, but the law goes by these that I have quoted since they are the majority.]