Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 186

Wednesday, March 10 1999

• Peanut Oil on Pesach
• Shabbos haGadol
• Re:Nusach Ari
• RE: Peanut Oil on Pesach
• Ruach Hakodesh
• re: science and history
• YT Sheini Criteria
• Shabbos Hagadol and V'orvo
• Books and Halchi Authority
• TB's authority
• Re: Re: Geonim vs. Rishonim
• Re: derabbanan - response to YGB
• Re: response to YGB
• Re: derabbanan - response to YGB
• Re: response to YGB
• re: science and history
• tefilah and poetry
• Hillel vs. Shammai
• Shabbos hagadol

When I grew up, Peanut oil was widely used on Pesach - even by those who were 
makpid on kitniyos, etc.

I was wondering what the rationale was.  I have several theories, but no 
definite sources...

1)  Peanuts are not vaday kitniyos, just sofeik kitniyos.  The Chumro was not 
extended to peanut oil.

2)  Peanut oil is differnt than the peanut itself.  A peanut could be made into 
flour, it's oil cannot be.  

1&2) I.e. a combination of the 2 reasons.  Implying that if you do NOT combine 
them, then reason #2 might be heter for:
Corn Syrup
Soybean oil

ie. both are kitniyos, and both are no longer able to be made into flour.

BTW, nowadays, I do NOT see peanut oil around in the Kosher lePesach section.  
Does anybody know what happened?

Rich Wpolpoe

>     A few years ago my father postulated the possibility that we call it
>Shabbos hagadol in order to be hosei milibam of those who were not mikabel
>Torah Shbal Peh who said that memachoras hashabbos (by the omer) means
>Saturday night.  The chachmim were showing that Yom Tov can be called
>Shabbos as opposed to the Shabbos Hagadol that comes every week.
>

Your father was mechaven to the B'nei Yisaschar (who credits the Shemen
haMor).

-Moish

Does anyone on the list know of any current editions of the "Nusach Ari"
of R'Shneur Zalman, besides Kehot's "Tehillat Hashem" Siddur?

Thanks
Raffy
___________________________________________________________________
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

If I recall correctly (IIRC for those who like abbr.), Rabbi Yehuda Kelemer
of West Hempstead last year (or maybe 2 years ago) explained that there were
2 chumros of kitniyos - the original was on plants which can produce flour,
and a follow-up was on all types of legumes (my formulation is probably
defective; this looks like a gzeira on a gzeira). The extent of the chumro
on a particular product depends on which group it's in.

This seems to accord with your intuitive understanding.

The fact that peanut oil is no longer around may simply reflect consumer
demand (i.e. the average uneducated kosher consumer won't buy peanut oil,
not realizing they can, so the stores don't waste the shelf space). You can
see the same phenomenon when the "pesach" stores don't carry certain
household products which at worst are non-food (or even poisonous!) items
which have chometz nuksha in a mixture (or better, non-food kitniyos),
unless the product has certification. And don't get me started on kosher for
passover water.

bein geula l'geula
Avi Pechman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com [mailto:richard_wolpoe@ibi.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 11:48 AM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: Peanut Oil on Pesach
> 
> 
> When I grew up, Peanut oil was widely used on Pesach - even 
> by those who were 
> makpid on kitniyos, etc.
> 
> I was wondering what the rationale was.  I have several 
> theories, but no 
> definite sources...
> 
> 1)  Peanuts are not vaday kitniyos, just sofeik kitniyos.  
> The Chumro was not 
> extended to peanut oil.
> 
> 2)  Peanut oil is differnt than the peanut itself.  A peanut 
> could be made into 
> flour, it's oil cannot be.  
> 
> 1&2) I.e. a combination of the 2 reasons.  Implying that if 
> you do NOT combine 
> them, then reason #2 might be heter for:
> Corn Syrup
> Soybean oil
> 
> ie. both are kitniyos, and both are no longer able to be made 
> into flour.
> 
> BTW, nowadays, I do NOT see peanut oil around in the Kosher 
> lePesach section.  
> Does anybody know what happened?
> 
> Rich Wpolpoe
> 

me: Question: did Hillel have MORE Ruach haKodesh than Shamai?  Rovo more
 than Abaye? who had more Rav or Shmuel?  Shach or Taz? 


RYGB: >>Don't know, of course, but both the Rambam and Ramchall have 
very detailed gradations of levels in ruach hakodesh which may interest 
you. See also the famous Ramban on BB12 "Chacham adif me'Navi".<<

re: halacho or even peshat, it is doubtful that levels of Ruach haKodesh 
matter.  EG I hold the BY/SA in the greatest of awe.  How many other halachic 
authorities had a Maggid as a Chavrusa?  Nevertheless, the Remo felt 
confident enough to disagree.  (And this might support my thesis that minhog 
supercedes even Ruach haKodesh <smile>)!

re: Rashi, I agree that every word of Rashi IS true.  But not necesarily THE 
peshat.  Rashi's ruach hakodesh gives his peirush the status of Torah, and of 
emes.  But then again, so do the Memros of Abaye and yet we STILL pasken like 
Rovo (ya'al kegam exempted).

It is NOT a stiro to say Rashi had ruach hakodesh, and that his perisuh had an 
extra-ordinary siyatto dishmayo, yett we can also view the possuk differently.  
(Certainly the Ramban did! And notice his utmost derech eretz in that he 
deferentially quotes Rashi before disagreeing.  Likewise, when I teach parahs 
and consiously argue with Rashi, I usually make some sort of apology first). 

How can something be true and not be THE peshat?  The sifrei kodesh are 
primarily Torah in the sense of Instruction, and only secondarily Torah in the 
sense of Law. Every Chazal teahces us a point even 420 <smile>, yet not every 
Chazal is a life-style changer or a Peshat maker.

The Gemoro re: R. Eliezer and the eidus from the river etc. is a great 
paradigm.  

1) On a certain "spiritual" level R. Eliezer is right!
2) Talk about Ruach hakodesh!
3) We stil do NOT paksen like him
4) Yet the Mishno/ Gemoro still give him the deference of quoting him even when 
they disagree with him.  (IOW what he says is  always TORAH even though it is 
no always Halocho!)

Parallel, Everything Rashi says is Torah, though not always the peshat!

Rich Wolpoe

Rabbi Bechhoffer wrote:

<<<
> The problem with a term like "ruach ha-kodesg" is that it does imply
> infalliablity.  For example, there are many (including certifiable
> gedolim) who believed that Rashi's commentary was written with ruach
> ha-kodesh and they therefore went to, what I would consider, implausible
> extremes to defend Rashi against evrey single criticism of the Ba'alei
> Tosafot and the Ramban, for example.  (As an aside I cannot resist

That may be, but since we are sophisticated enough to know that is not
true, we can divorce the discussion of infallibility from that of the
ruach hakodesh of Chazal, no? In fact, even nevi'im (other than Moshe
Rabbeinu) are fallible, as evidenced by Shaul's perception that Shmuel
erred in his nevu'ah vis-a-vis Amalek.
>>>

This is an interesting tangent (quite independent of our current discussion) to
pursue.  I assume that you are basing this on some source in Chazal which I,
if I ever saw it, no longer recall.  However, I personally doubt that Shaul
would have received such a severe punishment for his conduct if he had
had acted as concientiously as this implies.  Without a Chazal to rely on, I
would suggest that the punishment meted out to Shaul reflected the
realization of the Ribbono shel Olam and Shmuel that, despite his fine
personal qualities and imposing stature, Shaul lacked the necessary strength
of character to found the royal dynasty of Israel.  He simply relented to the
popular clamor for a vulgar festival and celebration marking the victory over
Amalek even though he knew that his obligation was to do otherwise.  "Im
katon atah b'einecha, rosh shivtei yisrael atah."  If he had had a
conscientious reason for not fulfilling the Divine commandment, which
predated Shmuel's prophecy, he might not have been rejected so totally.  But
his only defense was to say that he was following the will of the people.  That
just didn't cut it.

As an afterthought, doesn't Moshe's mistaken scolding of Aharon show that
even Moshe was not infallible?
<<<
> mentioning that my daughter's fourth grade Chumash teacher told her
> class that Rashi had ruach ha-kodesh so that everything in Rashi is
> true.  When Shifra repeated this to me, I told her that she was very
> lucky to have a teacher who knows more than the Ramban did.)  Now at
> some level, I have no problem agreeing that Rashi was blessed with ruach
> ha-kodesh in writing his commentaries, but as I once before suggested, I
> have difficulty distinguishing between ruach ha-kodesh on that level and
> the level on which Beethoven was, in my humble opinion, gifted with
> ruach ha-kodesh when he wrote his ninth symphony and his late quartets
> and the other sublime masterpieces of his later life when he was
> virtually stone deaf.  And if somebody wanted to suggest that Bach and
> Mozart were also divinely inspired, I for one would not argue to the
> contrary. So I readily acknowledge that Rashi and Chazal et al. were

OK, so I understand that you equate the "divine inspiration" of Chazal
with that of Beethoven.
>>>

Let's be careful.  I said "I have difficulty distinguishing" between the "divine
insparation" of Chazal and that of Beethoven.  Certainly there must be a
difference, but miserable creature that I am, I cannot describe what the
difference is.

<<<
Without descending into quagmires of accusation and counter accusation,
do
you understand how many of us find that equation impossible, and why we
regard that very diminishing of Chazal? (I am intenionally understating
here, because I don't want anyone to think we are c"v having anything
other than a respectful excahnge of views, highlighting the differences
between our schools of thought). 
>>>

I appreciate and respect your forebearance in the face of my provocation. 
On the other hand, why should a comparison to one of the greatest geniuses
and most heroic personalities in human history be considered in any way
disrespectful or diminishing (c'v) of Chazal?  Is not a gentile who studies
Torah (presumably the seven Noahide laws) on the level of the Kohen
Gadol?  If Beethoven was the beneficiary of divine inspiration, on how much
higher a level must he have been?  Why is admiration and reverence for
Chazal inconsistent with the reverence due to the "spark of divinity" that
gentiles are clearly also endowed with?

<<<
> divinely inspired, but I do not therefore feel bound to accept that they
> were thereby shielded from error.  Beyond that, I don't see the point in
> delving further into the inner workings of my psyche.  Besides, if we
> did delve further, one or more esteemed members of the list might get
> really upset with me (us?) 
> 

True, true. But let him get a little more upset for a tad :-).

Your and my personal views would not be of consequence were I not
convinced that we are not yechidim, but rather representatives ofdiffering
schools of thought with many more adherents that we
tips-of-the-icebergs. That is why I find this exercise useful - and
engaging.
>>>

As do I.  But I'm not sure that we can get very much further by exploring my
views about the nature of divine inspiration, since we have obviously
reached, if not surpassed, the limits of my knowledge on that subject.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

RYGB:>>
I don;t like pretend. Like any red-blooded American, I can't stand
authority wielded arbitrarily. If I understood YT as pretend, I would be
completely behind the Reform efforts to abolish it (r"l).<

My response is (like a broken record by now) Minhog Avoseinu beYodeinu.  That is
the chief Halachic criteria at this point in time.

Hypothetical Question:  If we could prove beyond a doubt that everyone was a 
boki in davening, would that eliminate Chazoros haShatz?

My answer is "No way".  (It might allow for a re-structuring of Chazaors haShatz
but not eliminating it.  I.e. this is how I unerstand how piyyutim and Selichos 
were incorporated into CH, by virtue of the fact that we do NOT literally used 
it bo be motzi einom beki'im anymore...)

IOW, halacho takes on a life of its own.

We do allow for certain kullos re: YT Sheini, (especially re: meisim RL).  But 
the accuracy of our calendars does not obviate the established minhog.  What 
can? Only a bona fide Sanhedrin could!

BTW, wrt to RYGB's thesis re: Ruach hakodesh, I suspect a link between Sanhedrin
sitting in the lishko hagozis and its authority to change halocho and Torah 
she'bal peh.  That the same 70 zekeinim in golus wcould not have the same 
authority -  possibly lacking a certain collective ruach hakodesh?  (Micha, 
perhaps you can elaborate on yavne, usha, etc.)

Rich Wolpoe

Still unanswered:
When was the hafotoro of V'orvo instituted as the Haftoro for Shabbos Hagadol 
(at least for many communities)?

It seems possible (even likely that the name precedes the institution of the 
Haftoro and would therefore eliminate it as the original soure for the name.

Rich Wolpoe

>>Therefore, tannaim argued with zugos, and rishonim with geonim, as those 
periods
were separate eras historically, but did not have such a book to distinguish
them in terms of halachic authority.

- -mi<<

OK, how is it that the Rambam's Sefer haMitzvos rejects the Halochos Gedolos's 
(obstensibly Geonic) paradign?  It seems he consider the Behag an equal, no?

>> Ben Waxman <bwaxman@foxcom.com>

No it sounds Maimonidean, as in the introduction to the MT where the Rambam
writes that the Gemara is authoritative because it was univerally accepted.<<

Is the Rambam's theory debated at all?  Is it qualified?  Could other texts (eg
TY, Tosefta, Mechilto, Sifro, Sifrei mitigate or override the TB?)

Also, at what point in time did TB become IT?

Rich Wolpoe  

RMB writes:
<I had taken it for granted that what separates to eras WRT halachic
authority is that Adas Yisrael reached consensus on some seifer as being
largely authoritative. See v1n52
(http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol01/v01n052.html#15)
for more explanation as to why I think it's so.>

Since R Micha raises the issue, let me recall my own claim that the
historical periods were not separated by the production of an authoritative
sefer - except for tanaitic mishnoh and the coincidence of the ending of the
amoraic with the related (but not heinu hach) "closure" of the gimoroh-which
it wasn't, quite - and thus the shulchon oruch was safely within the period
of acharonim. I.e. the authority of SO was due to mass acceptance, not to
his membership in a particular historical period.  For those who wish to
review the details of such claims, see Vol 1#49 (and the reference therein
to a longer post in mail jewish), also 1:53.  I agree with RMicha that
rishonim felt little compunction about disagreeing with gi'onim, though
occasionally paying lip service to their special status.

Mechy Frankel			michael.frankel@aishdas.org    

In a message dated 3/9/99 9:48:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, C1A1Brown@aol.com
writes:

<< Is there an intuitive Ruach HaKodesh to Chazallic pronouncements - or
 not?Are there, to paraphrase another post, spiritual worlds that Chazal
tapped
 into with their enactments?<<<
  >>

I think we are getting into a different kind of sticky ground. Ruach Hakodesh,
as understood in the Gemara, was not possessed by Chazal, and certainly not by
the Rishonim. But the authority given to Chazal, whichever  generation, by the
Torah, allows Chazal the right to extend pre existing Kedusha from an already
mandated holiday, to one that isn't Torah ordained, such as Y"T sheini. This
is the reason why some like to discuss Mitvot D'rabbanan in terms of related
D'Oraysas, such as Krias Hamegilloh being related to the Mitzvah of
remembering Amalek, as someone reminded us recently on a previous post.

Jordan 

>>>For Avodas Hashem. Sorry, I don't understand your perspective: Is the
enhanced experience of a Yom Tov less of a nafka mina than the
ramifications of whether mego is koach ha'ta'ana or ne'emanus?<<<

Apples and oranges.  The latter has OBJECTIVE nafka minot l'din (as I heard in
the name of the Rav, a chakira with no nafka minah is not a chakirah.  If
there was no machloket Rambam & Ra'avad you wouldn't need R' Chaim).  The
former represents your SUBJECTIVE experience of Y"T - certainly admirable, but
hardly proof to those who do not share your set of experiences.  That is to
say: I certainly respect the chassid who can recite the l'shem yichud and
contemplate how he is being meyached olamos and being m'takein pirud and
shviras hakeilim and who knows what else, but I am happy having no part of it
myself and can arrive at my appreciation of mitzvos in other ways. 
 
>>>I don;t like pretend. Like any red-blooded American, I can't stand
authority wielded arbitrarily. If I understood YT as pretend, I would be
completely behind the Reform efforts to abolish it (r"l).<<<

False analogy.  Reform deny the objective authority of Chazal, which is
irrelevant to how you subjectively experience Y"T sheni.  One can certainly
say Chazal weilded authority without contemplating various olamos without
resorting to calling that 'arbitrary', no?

>>>The bracha: AKB"V. See also the Or Gedalyahu on Chanuka, in the section on
"L'shana Acheres."<<<

Were you correct the Rishonim would not have had such a hard time justifying
those words on Y"T sheni.  

The biggest kashe I have is in what masechta do Chazal justify their position
by resorting to the fact that the din has to be so to be metakein the olamos,
etc?  

-Chaim

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:

> I think we are getting into a different kind of sticky ground. Ruach
> Hakodesh, as understood in the Gemara, was not possessed by Chazal

I keep referring to the Gemara in BB 12 of "Chacham adif me'navi", the
Ramban says that the Gemara means that Chazal "yod'im ha'emes b'ruach
hakodesh she'b'kirbam!" So...

YGB

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

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> Apples and oranges.  The latter has OBJECTIVE nafka minot l'din (as I

By OBJECTIVE you mean halachic.

> heard in the name of the Rav, a chakira with no nafka minah is not a
> chakirah.  If there was no machloket Rambam & Ra'avad you wouldn't need
> R' Chaim).  The former represents your SUBJECTIVE experience of Y"T -

By SUBJECTIVE you mean areas of Avodas Hashem and Aggada.

I think your distinction between OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE is SUBJECTIVE.

> appreciation of mitzvos in other ways.

What are these ways?

> False analogy.  Reform deny the objective authority of Chazal, which is
> irrelevant to how you subjectively experience Y"T sheni.  One can
> certainly say Chazal weilded authority without contemplating various
> olamos without resorting to calling that 'arbitrary', no? 
> 

No. What authority do the Chachmei HaTalmud - not those of the Sanhedrin,
but beyond - wield if not based on subsequet acceptance. And why should I
accpet them if they are no different than you and me - or, if that be
presumptive - than Beethoven and Einstein.

> Were you correct the Rishonim would not have had such a hard time justifying
> those words on Y"T sheni.  
> 

Their problem is the "tzivanu" - not the "kideshanu".

> The biggest kashe I have is in what masechta do Chazal justify their
> position by resorting to the fact that the din has to be so to be
> metakein the olamos, etc? 
> 

Gee. Where do Chazal justify their authority?!

> -Chaim
> 

YGB

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

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, David Glasner wrote:

 
> This is an interesting tangent (quite independent of our current
> discussion) to pursue.  I assume that you are basing this on some source
> in Chazal which I, if I ever saw it, no longer recall.  However, I

See Yoma 22b and Malbim Shmuel 1:15:9.

> personally doubt that Shaul would have received such a severe punishment
> for his conduct if he had had acted as concientiously as this implies. 

Why not? What about a Zaken Mamreh - a tragic, heroic figgure if there
ever was one, no?

> As an afterthought, doesn't Moshe's mistaken scolding of Aharon show
> that even Moshe was not infallible? 

Of course he was - only his nevu'os were infallible.

> Let's be careful.  I said "I have difficulty distinguishing" between the
> "divine insparation" of Chazal and that of Beethoven.  Certainly there
> must be a difference, but miserable creature that I am, I cannot
> describe what the difference is. 
> 

I am not impressed by humility :-). Why don't you look up either the
Ramchal in Derech Hashem 3:3 or Moreh Nevuchim 2:45 with their detailed
gradations of Ruach HaKodesh and get back to us?

> I appreciate and respect your forebearance in the face of my
> provocation.  On the other hand, why should a comparison to one of the
> greatest geniuses and most heroic personalities in human history be
> considered in any way disrespectful or diminishing (c'v) of Chazal?  Is
> not a gentile who studies Torah (presumably the seven Noahide laws) on
> the level of the Kohen Gadol?  If Beethoven was the beneficiary of
> divine inspiration, on how much higher a level must he have been?  Why
> is admiration and reverence for Chazal inconsistent with the reverence
> due to the "spark of divinity" that gentiles are clearly also endowed
> with? 
> 

This is an interesting discussion, and one I am willing to take up in
greater detail, but, superficially, Torah itself imparts a kedusha and a
more kadosh chochma, than any secular knowledge can ever impart. The
distinction between the bracha on a Chacham mei'Chachmei Ha"Umos and one
on a Chacham me'Yisroel alludes to this dichotomy.

YGB

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

>>>Interesting.  Be'pashtus isn't our MAIN source for Davening in Tanach, i.e
sefer Tehillim (or Tehillos if you prefer), replete with poetry?<<<

You pulled me out of context!  Of course tefilah is poetically beautiful and
emotionally inspiring.  However, see the Brisker Rav (Ch. haGriz al HaTorah)
where he writes that composing tefilla l'doros required a din navi.  Rabban
Gamliel needed Shmuel HaKAttan to write the Birchas HaMinim bec. the gemara in
Sanhedrin says Shmuel was fit for nevuah but his dor wasn't worthy.  Its not a
coincidence that Channah, whose tefillah is the basis of much of Hil tefillah,
is one of the 7 nevi'os.

What is clear also is that this is a special din in the composition of tefila
- legislating in other areas of torah she'ba'al peh did not require nevuah,
but that's for the YGB discussion : - )

CB
 

A recent email asked if Hillel had greater ruach hakodesh than Shammai.

In Graetz's history, the debate between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai was over
the existence of midos shehaTorah nidreshes bahem. Graetz selectively quotes
the story of Hillel meeting b'nei Biseira to make it look like that marked
the introduction of d'rashah to the halachic process. (In short, he uses this
claim to create a Hegelian thesis/antithesis pair to drive the evolution of
halachah and history through the entire tannaitic history.)

R SR Hirsch addresses his former student's book at length. In one article
(printed as a chapter) he shows that the story, when cited in full, shows
that BB certainly knew about d'rashah already, and questioned Hillel's usage
in that particular case. Another point RSRH makes is that he counts all
the machlokesim B"H and B"Sh, and shows that only 1/3 are even in d'Oraisos,
and of those B"Sh is more likely to invoke d'rashah than B"H.

A third point RSRH makes is relevent. Hillel and Shammai themselves only had
three unresolved machlokesin, none of them on d'Oraisos. And, the multiplicity
of their talmidim's machlokesin is because of "lo shimshu", NOT a philosophical
difference between the teachers.

Since C sees itself a child of the historical school, Graetz's portrayal
of Hillel as the inovator, as the creator of fluid halachah, and as the
victor in terms of halachic authority makes this portrayal of Hillel is
very appealing to them.

I therefore think it important that we be clear in the distinction between
Hillel and Beis Hillel WRT the whole issue.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287        MMG"H for 10-Mar-99: Revi'i, Vayakhel-Pekudei
micha@aishdas.org                                       A"H O"Ch 302:21-303:3
http://www.aishdas.org                                  Eruvin 47b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.       Shmuel-II 14

The follwing post appeared:

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 21:47:24 -0800
From: SAMUEL A DREBIN <sadbkd@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Shabbos Ha-gadol

In Shulchan Oruch Ha'Rav the reason given for the name "Shabbos Hagodol",
is that the Bechoray Umos Ha'Olam came and asked about the lambs etc.
When they were told that the Bechorim would be killed as well, they went
to Paroh and told him to let the jewish people go. When he refussed they
revolted and killed many of the Mitzri leaders/fathers. Hence Le'makai
Mitzrayim Biv'chorayhem.  Based on Shabbos Peh-Zayin: Tos- Vioso Hayom
(Shemos Rabah).
END OF Previous POST

My question for clarification: is the suggestion then that the bechorim were
the eldest, the "gadol" in each family, hence the name, or is there
something else. e.g. a great and significant Shabbos, made so on account of
the rebellion?
NW

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]