[Avodah] Is having a good time ossur

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:19 AM, D&E-H Bannett <dbnet at zahav.net.il> wrote:

> Re: <<If you read Rishonim and  omit Acharonim the  issurim
> on Sefirah seem limited to:     1. Taspores       2.
> nissu'in      3. some kind of mleacha [shabasos tihyena]>>
>
> Others added that the aveilut appears only in the geonim.
> is interesting to note what the geonim said.
>
>  Natronai Gaon says only that one does not marry from Pesach
> to 'Atzeret. (That's the entire sefira. There is no discount
> that makes it a net ban of only 33 days.)
>
> Hai Gaon adds an additional issur: One does not do m'lakha
> from sunset until Shacharit.  (And that is the entire
> night!)


That is because AISI [and RambaN in HUmash seems to suggest that this is  a
quasi hulo shel mo'ed  and would have spanned  ALL 49 days.

So the list makes sense:

   1. Marriage
   2. Some limitation onf melacha
   3. and Taspores [see Elu megalchin]

the nexus between hulo shel mo'ed and Aveilus is veru comelling. It breaks
down when you asser movies, ball games, music etc. becasue the
correspondence to hulo shel mo'ed evaporates.  That is why the list in Tur
and Kitzur is so telling. it fits a pradigm taht acharonim either ignored or
were ignorant of.

>
>
> And these are the only limitations they mention.  With all
> the chumrot that have been added over the generations, one
> wonders why one of the originals was reduced from 49 to 33
> days and the other has been completely forgotten.


It's a gmara tht the talmiddim died unilt "pras shavuous"
Divided the 49/50 by 3 and you get 33 etc.
Bu your right. If my hypotehis holds  33 is irrelvant.
ARIZALheld that the ONLY heter for taspores was erev Shvuos. I dunno why but
it sure fits this paradigm neatly.


 I've seen
> attmpts to explain this loss of an issur by conjecturing
> that R' Hai meant that one shouldn't do m'lakha until after
> counting the omer!  Do they think that R' Hai didn't know
> how to write what he meant and when he wrote "until morning"
> he meant something altogether different?
>

That is why looking at original sources is so important.  But oddly Kitzur
SA  elimnates MOST of the acharonisher stuff [except that he also assers
dancing at a  s'eudas Erussin]


>
> BTW, this was discussed on list in the past and should be in
> the archives.
>
> David
>


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080425/6bf8ab1e/attachment-0002.htm>