[Avodah] Q re tonight's RYReisman shiur on the chamah

[Micha Berger]

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:30pm EDT, R Michael Poppers wrote:
: One of RYR's Qs essentially was "If 'B'Tishri nivra ha'olam,' why do we say
: Bircas haChamah in Nisan?" w/ his answer being (based on a Tos'fos in BT
: Rosh haShanah 27) that we hold like R'Eliezer (b'Tishri) in the world of
: machshavah and like R'Y'hoshua (b'Nisan) in the world of ma'aseh...

First, let me HIGHLY recommend
<http://www.dafyomi.co.il/rhashanah/halachah/rh-hl-011.htm>

Also, we mix our usage of tequfos, Shemu'el and R' Adda. Mas'as Binyamin
Points this out, and links the two mixtures. He simply says that you
see from one (the use of two different approximations depending on
context) that the other is okay as well.

BTW, looking at the Rambam pointed to there (Berakhos 10:18), we see
that the event is sunset the night before. As is also the shitah of
Rabbeinu Yonah (DH haRo'eh Chamah). The berakhah is made on the first
sunrise AFTER the tequfah is back where it was (approximately).

As for it being at sunrise, that would be shitas R' Eliezer, that things
were created in their initial state. Thus the first sunrise in a year
where the tequfah began at the beginning of the night is a repeat of
maaseh bereishis. R' Yehoshua holds the sun was created at noon. (BTW,
R' Eliezer Ehrenpreis suggests this underlies the machloqes about the
halachic date line.) Notice that we're being inconsistent even within
this one machloqes -- the time of year according to R' Yehoshua, but
the time of day according to R' Eliezer.

Li nir'eh the whole thing is being treated mythically. I don't mean to
reopen the whole literal Bereishis 1 question. Not "myth" in contrast to
actual events. I mean that the concepts are being used as concepts with
no concern as to whether it matches history. Or even, for that matter,
internal consistency.

The whole think is just a way to construct a zeicher (zechar? <g>)
maaseh bereishis. It's the fact that these ideas are bouncing around in
our heads that's relevent, not which idea corresponds to history or
is consistent with our estimates for dinim that require more precision.

:                             My Q is: don't we calculate the average molad
: going back to Tishri rather than Nisan?  Now, Googling a bit, I see that
: R'Micha had some comments a few years ago re the starting point for molad
: calculations (see http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol14/v14n071.shtml#19 ;

And I still am convinced of them.

: (http://www.hamodia.com/inthepaper.cfm?ArticleID=143 ) as having an answer
: for my Q, and I quote: "Other commentaries offer different explanations for
: the fact that we reckon the astronomy-based halachos from Nisan but count
: years from Tishrei, with some explaining that although the sun and moon may
: have been created in Tishrei, the beginning of their cycles was actually
: the equinox before - but it was a 'theoretical' equinox. Similarly, the
: animals were created fully matured and the trees fully grown, and the sun
: and moon were also created in the middle of their cycles. So even though
: they may have been created in Tishrei, their cycle had theoretically
: started on the previous (theoretical) equinox, in Nisan. The Rishonim use
: this reasoning in regard to the first molad (phase) of the moon, taking
: into account the theoretical molad that 'happened' before the actual
: creation of the moon (see Tosafos Rosh Hashanah 8b litekufos)."...

Clearly the molad we were given was that of the Nissan before yetzi'as
Mitzrayim. Said so in yesterday's haftorah. I assume therefore that molad
Tohu was back-calculated for its (relative) ease, so that the year offset
to the benchmark is the year number, AM. That was the answer I gave before.
(It also answers how there are tannaim who imply a different age of the
universe in their parshanut [eg by changing the age of someone at an
event the SO uses in his calculation]. The molad isn't proof of the Seider
Olam, it was reverse-engineered assuming the SO.)

That isn't similarly true of birkhas hachamah. The berakhah is derabbanan,
and it was tannaim who had to decide what kind of "full cycle of the
sun" would be noted by it. There was no pre-existing number for them
to reverse-engineer. How does one simply assume the parallel?

Also, I'm not sure I agree with this description of the Tosafos. Tosafos
seem to be speaking of "sof maaseh bemachashavah techilah" and when HQBH
planned it all. (Throw in numerous kavayachol's as appropriate.) The
author for Hamodia is rendering it as being about human thought, and our
creating a theoretical start date.

Cycles don't have an intrinsic "start". There is no meaning to "although
the sun and moon may have been created in Tishrei, the beginning of their
cycles was actually the equinox before - but it was a 'theoretical' equinox."
Without it being the actual time of creation, what makes one point in a
circle (oval, really) the beginning over another?

Besides, the idea is a return of the sun to where it was created. Not to
where it was hypothetically. How is one commemorating maaseh bereishis
by commemorating a hypothetical pre-bereishis event?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha at aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507