Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 019

Wednesday, August 12 1998

• Re: Avodah V1 #17
• Re: Lucoth: Their dimensions: What was written: Actuarial Analysis
• frum jews in rabbinic times
• Re: frum jews in rabbinic times
• learning on 9 av - periodic rote learning
• Luchot
• Re: Zera L'vatala
• Re:Zera L'vatala
• RE: Zera L'vatala
• Re: Avodah, Shalom aleichem!
• Rav Hirsch's Essay On Shmoneh Esray:
• RE: Some (apparently) Rash Statements of Mine
• Geometry and the Aron
• Bal Tashchis
• Re: Zera L'vatala
• Re: Luchos' dimensions
• Rogatchover
• Re: Rogatchover
• hotels and boats
• Re: Zera L'vatala/luchos

Yes, I did send apology to the original poster for accidentally emailing my
critique of his post to the list. My thanks to all who commented.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5890 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 11-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

The fact that the math adds up is not to impressive when dealing with the
aron or the luchos. We know that the luchos and aron existed through miracles
(the luchos had suspended letters (mem sofeis and samech) and the aron
took up no space in the kodesh kodashim) therefore it doesn't bother me
that there would be more letters ,paragraphs, or sentences on one side
because everything would fit if needed. You need to bring a source
(medrash Etc) to justify this claim. Also I believe that the medrash
discusses why honor you parents is on the bein adam lmakom side and not
the bein adam lchaveiro side according to you no such question should
exist. I will be much more accepting of this premise if it's backed with
Torah sources.
Elie Ginsparg





On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Russell Hendel wrote:

> A thorough (and surprising) actuarial analysis of the dimensions of
> the lucoth/aron was provided by me in HebLang about a year ago.
> I will just briefly from memory go over the logic and conclusions (and give
> complete details later if people are interested or after I look it up).
> 
> * The Biblical dimensions are clear...
>         2 1/2 length, 
>         1 1/2 width
>         1 1/2 depth (Ex 25)
> 
> * It explicitly says that ONLY THE LUCOTH were in the ARON (Tnach verse)
> 
> * The phrase "Two tablets" suggest by symmetry that each tablet was 
> the same in dimension.
> 
> * When you put the above together you get that each 
>                 each tablet = 1 cubic cubit
> 
> * One can count the following:
>                 * number of letters in the 10 commandments
>                 * number of words (each word gets one space)
>                 * number of paragraphs (each paragraph gets indentation)
> 
> * Assuming all letters/spaces occupy the same surface area one can
> then derive the actual placement of words on the tablets.
> 
> * The conclusion is that
>         TABLET 1: Had the first 2 commandments
>         TABLET 2: Had the remaining 
> 
> * The above conclusion contradicts folklore that there were 5 on each
> side (The contradiction is justified by simple arithmetic computations)
> 
> * The assignment of a special status to the first two commandments(on
> one tablet) is consistent with 
>         --the first person style (I am the Lord...No other..on My Face)
>         --the Midrash that the first two were said by God (and the rest
>         transmitted by Moses)
> 
> As I said: The above should be sufficient for anyone to go and derive
> the actual structure. But if there is interest (or if I am interested
> and will do it) then I can rederive with all details
> 
> Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA Rhendel @ mcs drexel edu
> 
> 
> [ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
> [ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
> [ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
> 

[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

does any one know of reliable source for knowing the percent of jews
that were 'frum' in mishnaic times?  i.e. the gmara lists a variety of
criteria for am haaretz. I guess we could list levels such as  1] makpid
on tuma/tahara, including eating chulin al tahara
2] makpid on matnot kehuna/leviya 3]I'm not sure what would be below
that.     Was group 1]  ONLY the bnei yeshiva?  Would groups 1 and 2
sort of parralel  chareidi and dati?    What % were zduki ?  what % were
early Xians?  {that obviously became a relatively big problem if a
special bracha was needed}  . My assumption is that by the time the
gmara was codified, who ever remained 'in the fold' to that point was
mamash frum. but maybe i'm mistaken.

kol tuv
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

Take a look in the works of Prof. Hugo Mantel.  I believe he discusses this
issue


-----Original Message-----
From: Newman,Saul Z <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org>
To: 'avodah@aishdas.org' <avodah@aishdas.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 1:58 PM
Subject: frum jews in rabbinic times


>does any one know of reliable source for knowing the percent of jews
>that were 'frum' in mishnaic times?  i.e. the gmara lists a variety of
>criteria for am haaretz. I guess we could list levels such as  1] makpid
>on tuma/tahara, including eating chulin al tahara
>2] makpid on matnot kehuna/leviya 3]I'm not sure what would be below
>that.     Was group 1]  ONLY the bnei yeshiva?  Would groups 1 and 2
>sort of parralel  chareidi and dati?    What % were zduki ?  what % were
>early Xians?  {that obviously became a relatively big problem if a
>special bracha was needed}  . My assumption is that by the time the
>gmara was codified, who ever remained 'in the fold' to that point was
>mamash frum. but maybe i'm mistaken.
>
>kol tuv
>[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
>[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
>[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
>

[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

The poskim do not  agree that rote learning is permitted.
There are even parts of davening that aren't said because of the issur
to learn. There are many poskim who do not permit saying pirkay avot on
shabbat 8 or 9 av. (see orach chaim 554 s.4, mishna berura 7 and shaar
hatziyun 11 see also 555 mishna berura 5)


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

The gemara in bava batra 14 learns from the double negative of "ayn
baaron rak" that other things were in the aron. See also Even Ezra
(aroch) shmot 25 16 and Ralbag on Melachim 1 8, (to be fair - tha radak
explains that ther ewas nothing in the aron but the luchot)
Why is it necessary to say that paragraphs in the Luchot had
indentations? (does anyone have a makor as to whether the Luchot were
written with parshiot petuchot and stumot?)

[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

In a message dated 98-08-11 13:26:16 EDT, you write:

<<  Therefore, it
 would seem that the issur is based either on the fact that zera is
 released not through relations, or that the zera doesn't end up in the
 women. (I'm not sure which and I don't know if there is a nafka minah) >>

A nafka mina might be artificial insemination where the husband is the donor.
Here the zera indirectly ends up where its supposed to but is not released
through relations. I think Rabbi Bleich deals with this in his writings.

Kol Tuv
Joel 
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

I don't know if I'm adding anything to Reb Elie's post, but to be a
little more technical- any sexual act which is "derech biah" is
allowed.  (Whether or not it can produce children) In addition to the
examples already mentioned - another act which is clearly unable to
produce children is biah shelo k'darcha which we pasken (I don't know if
it is l'chol hadeos)  is mutar (some say only once in awhile) - however
it is in the parsha of 'derech biah'.

Take care,

Joel
-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com	
W-212-762-2386
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

1. Tosfos brings down two understandings of biah shelo k'darca - one is that
it's permitted "b'akra'i" (=periodically), and the other is that it's
permitted only without hotzoas zera. (I believe this tosfos is in nedarim,
on or around daf kuf).

2. Rambam paskins in issurei biah (toward the end) that it's permitted only
if there's no hotzoas zera.

3. The shulchan aruch seems to follow the approach of the rambam.

4. The shelah (sha'ar ha'osyos, os kuf) indicates that biah shelo k'darca is
a chiyuv misa bidei shamayim even without hotzoas zera. Apparently in
deference to the opinion in tosfos, he concedes to a heter of b'akra'i, but
defines akra'i as once in a lifetime.

I had always understood that the poskim were wrestling with the notion of
mishkvei isha - the torah nearly explicitly states that there's another biah
aside from "normal" biah. This other biah is biah for arayos and for
kiddushin. On the other hand, assuming the maasei er v'onan was biah shelo
k'darca (and not dash bifnim v'zore michutz), biah shelo k'darca becomes
problematic. Hence the compromise - once in a while, or without hotzoas
zera, etc. But the impression one gets when looking through the sugya is
that a heter is NOT forthcoming, and the activity is something to be
avoided.

As far as derech biah is concerned, the term requires definition, inasmuch
as Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzenski in Achiezer pronounces condoms as the
contraceptive device of choice (when the use of contraception is warranted),
since using one is still derech bi'ah. My impression is that most modern day
poskim shy away from the condom because it is NOT derech bi'ah (it's the
topological equivalent to eitzim v'avanim).

Suffice it to say, I take exception to the implication that we pasken that
bi'ah shelo k'darca is mutar. I would further like to exhort those posting
on this and any other topic that, since we don't know who's reading these
exchanges, certain declarations may be relied upon l'mayseh (even though
that's not the purpose of this forum), and extreme caution should be used so
as not to give the impression of a psak (especially in an area where people
might be looking for a heter).

Avi Pechman

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Margolies [mailto:margol@ms.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 4:38 PM
To: avodah@aishdas.org
Subject: Re:Zera L'vatala


I don't know if I'm adding anything to Reb Elie's post, but to be a
little more technical- any sexual act which is "derech biah" is
allowed.  (Whether or not it can produce children) In addition to the
examples already mentioned - another act which is clearly unable to
produce children is biah shelo k'darcha which we pasken (I don't know if
it is l'chol hadeos)  is mutar (some say only once in awhile) - however
it is in the parsha of 'derech biah'.

Take care,

Joel
-- 

Joel
Margolies

margol@ms.com	
W-212-762-2386
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

Hello everybody!

Just back from Israel and England - enjoyed immensely - but only back, as
of yet, in Detroit. BE"H tomorrow back in Chicago. will try to get back in
the swing of things, but it looks as if the merger is going smoothly, B"H,
and a big yuasher koach to Micha.


KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

I am giving a lecture tonight on Rav Hirschs essay on Shmoneh Esray

A web version of a Power point file may be found on the web at
http://www.sju.edu/~rhendel/prayer.htm
http://www.mcs.drexel.edu/~rhendel/prayer.htm

Rav Hirsch derives the content of the 18 blessings from the Korbanoth.
This is a wonderful introduction to his symbolic methods on korbanoth.

I can also email the text file to anyone who is interested

Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA Rhendel @ mcs drexel edu
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

Someone wrote me off list re my last two postings and asked me
to be more respectful of Midrash (which I normally am)

* One issue was what I called the>>legend<< that 5 of the tables
were on one side and the other 5 commandments were on the other side

This is the first I hear that there is a Midrash to this effect. 
I honestly thought this was a popular (christian) legend. If anyone
could give me an explicit source for the Midrash I would be greatful

* I derived TTFoTH from TF and called it an ornament. The person writing
to me thought I was disagreeing with the known midrashic derivation
from foreign languages.

Actually BOTH THE ABOVE POSTINGS were posted elsewhere and I only
mentioned them since I don't like to cross reference.

However I assure everyone that the goal of my original posting was to
DEFEND the standard Midrash.

Since I offered to give complete details if people asked and since one
person thought i was being disrespectful I will be happy to repost this
(I am going away for two days but will try and repost on Thursday)

I suppose I should be careful in the future when I cross reference

Perhaps it would be best to simply give the URL (as I did tonight for
my lecture on Rav Hirsch)

In both of the above cases I was trying to defend chazal. I will be happy
to give the complete analysis in a day or two

Russell Jay Hendel; pHd Asa rhendel @ mcs drexel edu
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

Russell Hendel <rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu> wrote:
: * The Biblical dimensions are clear...
:         2 1/2 length, 
:         1 1/2 width
:         1 1/2 depth (Ex 25)

The dimensions given are the outside dimensions. The inside held a bit less.

: * It explicitly says that ONLY THE LUCOTH were in the ARON (Tnach verse)

In addition, the gemara records that the pieces of the first luchos were also
in the aron. I presume they dealt with this pasuk.

Perhaps related, the kodesh hakdashim was 10 amos across. However, there were
also 5 amos on either side of the aron. The whole 10 amos, was less than the
sum of its parts, 5 + 1-1/2 + 5 amos.

: * One can count the following:
:                 * number of letters in the 10 commandments
:                 * number of words (each word gets one space)

In addition, Rav Chaim Brisker suggests that the first matan Torah didn't have
a concept of Torah sheBa'al Peh -- it was all written biChsav on the luchos. 
This means the number of letters on the first luchos was probably infinite.
No problem, since Hashem carved them.

After the eigel, our relationship to the Torah changed. Instead of having all
of the Torah, but written externally to us, we became the parchment on which
it is "written". A deeper but less broad relationship.

: * Assuming all letters/spaces occupy the same surface area one can
: then derive the actual placement of words on the tablets.

If the letters were in Ashuri, we know this to be very false. A shin is far
wider than a vuv or yud. The already quoted text in Mes. Megillah ("mem
visamach shebaluchos") implies it was in Ashuri. Less often quoted is the
parallel in the Yerushalmi that say it was the ayin and tes that had middles
that floated unattached to the rest of the stone. I don't know which k'sav
only has ayin and tes as fully closed letters. However, in Ivri, ayin and tes
are much like aleph and tav (respectively) but with a circle around them. They
are the only letters that are derived from others in this way.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5890 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 11-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Avodah wrote:
> From: kennethgmiller@juno.com (Kenneth G Miller)
> (Note: The above question was inspired by my beloved ezer k'negdi, who
> saw me reaching for a third helping of dinner, and said, "I think that
> putting that food into your stomach might be a worse bal tashchis than
> merely putting it in the garbage.")

This is a view in the Gemara, in Shabbos 129a and 140b, for example.
				Mordechai

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congregation Ohave Shalom, Pawtucket, RI: http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas & Leave the Keywords at Home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

Elie Ginsparg *does* understand my question. He wrote that <<< one can
have relations with a pregnant woman and in fact halacha requires the man
(mitzvas onah) to have relations with his pregnant wife, even though this
relationship can't lead to pregnancy. >>>

My understanding is that the above halacha results from the pleasure
which the wife will get from the act. That is why the zera is not
considered "wasted", despite the impossibility of the zera leading to
pregnancy. Therefore, my question relates to the situation (mentioned in
Orach Chayim 240:1) where the relations are solely for the purpose of
preventing him from lusting for sin. I don't understand why that is
sufficient to constitute a purposeful use of the zera. How is it more
purposeful than masturbation?

Akiva Miller

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

Dr. Hendel's Actuarial Analysis of the luchos is dependent on <<<
assuming all letters/spaces occupy the same surface area >>>, and he
concludes that <<< TABLET 1: Had the first 2 commandments; TABLET 2: Had
the remaining >>>.

I see no resume to jump into this assumption that the letters and spaces
were of equal size. So much has been written about the symmetry of these
ten dibros (comparing 1-5 vs 6-10; matching 1& 6, 2 & 7, etc) that is
very difficult to translate this "luach" as "board", when "chart" or
"table" is so much more appropriate. And this chart would be useless
without two columns of five rows each.

Why is it difficult to choose the option of variable size letters and/or
spaces?

Akiva Miller

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

Obviously I am behind the times, but the precise details on the
Rogatchover are in R' Zevin's Ishim v'Shittos pp. 91-92:

"All his days were an unbroken chain of Torah study. His mouth literally
never ceased speaking Torah in the simplest sense, not as a metaphor. They
say that it is for this reason that he nver had his hair cut and would
grow them wildly, so he should not need to sit for that time with his head
uncovered and cease Torah study. Even on 9 Av he would speak Torah without
letup. He would usually be 9 Av in his birthplace, Rogatchov, because
during those days fell his father's yahrzeit, for which he would come from
Dvinsk to Rogatchov. All the people of the city, great and small, would
come to greet him and converse with him, and he would spend the fast
talking divrei Torah with them. Furthermore, when his first wife died in
Warsaw and the gedolim of the city came to be menachem avel, he would
lecture before them for hours in Torah. None of the consolers dared to
remind him of the aveilus. His uncle, however, once noted this to him and
he responded:

"'Certainly, this is an avira, and when I get punished on my other sins
they will punish me on this sin as well. But I will accept the punishment
on this sin with love and will, and the Torah is worth being punished over
it..'"

This is  a classic example of "aveira lishma."

YGB


Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

Interestingly different response then shraga and shaul.  Two thoughts
concerning which I 'd appreciate input
1) With the greatest of respect- Do the schools of thought quoted by shraga
and shaul represent an example of our previous thread concerning rewriting
history to suit our needs/desires? Does this illustrate a danger that an
incorrect conclusion may be drawn from such rewrites?
2)What are the boundaries of avira lshma?Is it up to each individual to decide
if this 'heter' applies to him? How does this interface with the issue of
marit ayin(to the extent people see action and assume its always ok)?

Kol tuv
Joel

In a message dated 98-08-12 09:09:57 EDT, you write:

<< "'Certainly, this is an avira, and when I get punished on my other sins
 they will punish me on this sin as well. But I will accept the punishment
 on this sin with love and will, and the Torah is worth being punished over
 it..'"
 
 This is  a classic example of "aveira lishma."
 
 YGB >>

The reason that I have heard  behind the story of the Ragotchover is that  we
find that by avelut and also by Yom Kippur that Chazal only prohibited washing
for tanug (pleasure) but to remove suffering it is permitted. (Look in Yorah
Deah 381)  So to by the Ragotchover for him not to learn Torah would of given
him tremendous suffering - so therefore he was allowed to learn not for
pleasure - simcha, but to remove his suffering.

Kol Tuv,
Shraga My father (Rav Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Baltimore, MD) tells this story
> of the Rogatchover Gaon with an added explanation. He quotes a yerushalmi,
> and bli neder I will ask him where it is, that if a Talmid Chochom
> is "lahut Acharei Toraso" that it is mutar for him to learn even bavailus.
> He used to respond that the Rogatchover apparently paskened like the
> yerushalmi for there is no indication that the Bavli disagrees with this
> heter.  His comment about having the olam habba... is not really even a
> joke if you look into it deeper.  I certainly would not mind having the
> olam habba of one who is "lahut acharei Toraso"
> Shaul Weinreb
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

1. Is there a need to make an eruv when staying in a hotel for shabbos (in
order to carry from your room into the halls)? Or are the room furnishings
(which are there even if you don't want them to be and are heavy (e.g. bed)
or muktza (e.g. tv set)) sufficient to give the hotel owner/management
tfisas yad? Would it matter if the owner/manager were not Jewish?

2. Is there any reason why an eruv cannot be made on a cruise ship (to
enable you to carry from your cabin to the common areas on the boat). Or, is
an eruv even necessary on such a boat (see question 1).


Thanks.
Avi Pechman
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

Even if we accept the assumption that the issur of zera lvatala is
dependant on the women benefiting from the act, I'm not sure why this
itself doesn't explain the chiluk--ie. when one has relations with ones
wife regardless of his intent (whether they be lofty kabbalistic intents
of chibur hanashamos or just to avoid sin) the wife's benefit is the same.
this is to the point where the gemara by yael says(yevamos) 
that she wasn't neheneh
because good for the bad is bad for the good (or something like that), but
stam the act is pleasurable for the wife even if the mans intent is to
avoid sin, this obviously is different then when the man acts alone.
Therefore , I see that you have really answered your own question.
	Regarding the luchos: I found (with the help of a cd rom) three
different sources which say that there were five commandments on each
tablet (bamidbar rabbah parsha 14, d.h. byom astei) (shir hashirim rabbah)
and
(yalkut shimoni, veschanan remez taf taf caf hey d.h. vhar) I didn't find
any medrash which said that there were two on one and eight on the other
Elie Ginsparg

[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]