Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 013

Monday, April 8 2002

• Re: shir hayichud
• Re: shir hayichud
• Re: history of hagadah
• Re: haggada authorship
• Hallel on Pesach
• half hallel on pesach
• taking off tefillin before hallel on chol hamoed vs. leaving them on
• t'fillin on chol hamo'ed pesach
• Re: taking off tefillin before hallel on chol hamoed vs. leaving them on
• Re: re - taking off tfillin before hallel on chol hamoed
• Re: taking off tefillin before hallel on chol hamoed vs. leaving them on
• Re: R Yeru'ham on eggs and bassar be'chalav
• Rema like Rashi in YD 92:1
• Re: Methodology of Rema
• Re: Segulos
• Cheisheq vs Ahavah
• Re: Parameters of an ohel
• Re: Some Pesach Yom Kippur Parallels
• Re: This ma'amid is deOraita?
• Re: This ma'amid is deOraita?
• Re: This ma'amid is deOraita?
• Re: This ma'amid is deOraita?
• mi-sherebach

>Does anyone say it daily these days?
>All I recall seeing over the years is people saying it (the segments for all
>the various days of the week - eg. yom sheini, shelishi, etc.) on Yom Kippur
>night.

Ditto.
Seth

From: "Seth Mandel" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
> >Does anyone say it daily these days?
> >All I recall seeing over the years is people saying it (the segments for
> >all the various days of the week - eg. yom sheini, shelishi, etc.) on Yom
> >Kippur night.

> Ditto.

I seem to recall - many many years ago that the North London
Adass Yisroel shul (Yekkes) said it daily.

However, I am not sure of it...

SBA

In v9n9, Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> wrote:
: They also claim that by measuring the size of the azarah and excluding
: the mizbeach etc that not more than a few thousand korbanot could have
: been brought. Each person came with his sheep and it seems with his knife
: and most people slaughtered their own sheep. Assuming an average of
: about 20 people per korban that gives a total amount of 50-100 thousand
: participants.

But I think their estimate of 20 ppl/qorban is off by an order of
magnitude.

It was eaten al hasova. So my guess is that people didn't eat much more
than a kezayis each. Perhaps 100 people or so could join in one sheep.

Also, there was a minhag to make a matzah from a se'ah of flour (!).
This would also imply HUGE chaburos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 9th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                might appropriate

In a message dated 3/20/02 4:37:48pm EDT, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> Generally IIRC the Haggadah is ascribed to anshei knesset hagdola -
> there's a machloket in the gemora (pesachim 116) as to where to begin
> and we also know the ac"h were mitaken tfilot etc(brachot 32). Does
> anyone know of any sources which discuss when the text we have today
> (not just the bare bones) reached it's current state and who contributed
> (if it wasn't fixed in its current state by the Ac"h)

There is also machlokes in the Mishnah as to the nature of Birkas asher 
ge'alanu.
Note that R. Akiva exapnds the Bracha in 2 ways
1) He adds a Bakashah
2) He adds a Chasimah    

In terms of matbei' it is AISI critical to distinguish between a Bracha Aruka 
with a Chasima and and a Ketzra w/o a Chasima.


We know that at least until R. Akiva's time the matter was not so clear - 
UNLESS - you say that changed circumstances allowed for changing the matbie'a 
of Anshe Knesses Gdola.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

The reasons given by Chazal for not saying (the complete) Hallel after 
the first day(s) of Pesach, as contrasted with Succot, seem problematic. 
  Why should the lack of a different number of holiday sacrafices (olot) 
on the days of Pesach lead to a diminshed joy and a diminished need to 
say shira?   I would think, naively, that the continuing reduction in 
the number of oxen olot in Succot might have lead to a diminished need 
for shira more so than the constancy in the Pesach olot?   Furthermore, 
what has the admonition to the angels not to sing shira at the time of 
kriat Yam Suf to do with our singing of shira?   Certainly, the be'nei 
Yisrael said shira at that time.  Why, then, should this rationalize the 
diminshed need to say Hallel?

However,  an investigation of the language of the Torah and its 
expectations of the practice of Israel during Pesach and Succot reveals 
a clear difference in these two pilgrimage festivals.  In Emor (Lev. 23: 
40) we read the following relative to bringing the lulav and etrog to 
the mikdash in Succot, "..and you shall rejoice before Hashem, your G-D 
for seven days.  You shall celebrate it as a festival to Hashem for 
seven days..."   We see here that the Succot festival was meant to be 
celebrated joyously at the Mikdash for the full seven festival days.   
In constrast, in Re'ay (Deut. 16: 7) with regard to our pilgrimage 
obligations after the first day of Pesach we read, " ..and you may turn 
back on the morrow (the second day of Pesach) and go to your tents."   
Here we see that permission is given to returning from the pilgrimage to 
the Mikdash on the second day of the festival.   Why such a distinction? 
  It is tempting to see this as an accomodation to the agricultural 
needs of the people who are involved in bringing in the barley harvest 
at the time of Pesach (If left in the field, the mature crop could rot 
subsequent to the occasional rain at this time).   Succot, in contrast, 
comes at a time when everything has already been brought inside and the 
people are no longer worried about the future of their crops.   
Therefore, there is a realistic requirement to have all the heads of 
households (at least) celebrate the entire Succot in the Mikdash with 
shira and Hallel in thankfulness to Hashem's bounty.   Whereas in 
Pesach, such joy and lengthy celebration is not realistic.   Most people 
would be expected to leave the Mikdash at first opportunity after having 
brought and eaten the Pesach sacrafice.   Therefore, the joy in the 
Mikdash for the rest of the festival is diminished, as is the 
requirement for Hallel.

While the above solution seems almost obvious, it is not brought 
anywhere in Chazal or commentators  - to my knowledge.   Why not?   It 
would seem that in the times of Chazal,  the attendance in the Mikdash 
was not much dependent on the agricultural situation (or the discussion 
developed only after the destruction of the Temple).   Perhaps the more 
compact and limited territory of Judea in the times of the second Temple 
lead to a short pilgrimage journey so that one week of celebration in 
Jerusalem was not such a worrisome factor for the barley harvest.   
Perhaps barley was a less important crop in those days compared to 
biblical times. Any real knowledge of demographics and agricultural 
practices in Judea in Roman times would be appreciated.   In any event, 
it would seem that  Chazal  were not aware of Temple attendance 
distinctions between Pesach and Succot,  and therefore sought other 
bases for the ancient distinction in the saying of Hallel during the two 
festivals.

Yitzchok

<Many contemporary and past Baalei Halacha have grappled with why we 
say chatzi Hallel on Shivi shel Pesach. Some look at the uniform 
nature of the karbanos as opposed to Sukkos or focus on the issur 
shirah to the melachim because of the blood shed. Here is a different 
critique based on the Yishuos Yaakov and Haggadas Siach HaGrid( RYBS 
on Haggadah).>

The answer I discussed in shul (based on achronim) is that full 
Hallel is said either because its a chag with work prohibited (e.g 3 
regalim) or else because a miracle happened on that day (eg 
chanukah).
On Pesach since all the days have the same korban it is considered 
one long chag (no schechyanu on 7th day) and so one Hallel on the 
first day is enough. Since succot has different korbanot each day 
therefore each day has its own kedushah and so Hallel is recited each 
day. 
However, we still should say Hallel on the 7th day of pesach because 
of Kriyat Yam Sof. For that the medrash answers that since the 
Eygptians died we don't say (full) Hallel
-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 04/08/2002

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 09:33:11 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject: taking off tfillin before  hallel on chol hamoed

The M"B(OC 31:7) discusses this issue and use a (to me) a strange language
- - after stating the above he says (emphasis mine) "VACHSHAV NAHAGU EIZEH
ANASHIM lsalkam achar kedusha shel tfilat yud chet umikol makom tzrichin
lizaher lkaven lshmoa chazarat hatfila"

1. Does this imply the universal practice (which seems more logical to
me) prior to these "anashim" was to have a brief break between chazarat
hashatz and hallel(as we do on rosh chodesh prior to musaf)?

2.If yes, why was the new "minhag" allowed to displace the old and what
was the process that allowed it?

3. Do any shuls allow for such a break to accommodate those who would
like to concentrate on chazarat hashatz?

4. Any written or unwritten shut on the above?

Moadim Lsimcha
Joel Rich
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
FYI, IIRC, the old Ashkenazic minhag was to leave the tefillin on for the 
whole davening on Rosh chodesh and chol haMoed - and not to remove them 
before musaf or hallel.

IIRC, This is mentioned / discussed in 'Gedolei hadoros al mishmar minhag 
Ashkenaz' by R. Binyomin Shlomo Hamburger and also in 'Minhogei Vermayza'. I 
believe I have posted about it in the past.

I know someone who does that today (leaves them on until end of davening on 
aforementioned days).


Mordechai

SBA asks:

> Our (Oberlender-?) minhag is that on the 1st (week)day of CH Pesach -
> when they lein Kadesh Li Kol Bechor, the Tefillin are only removed
> after Krias Hatorah.

> Anyone else do that?

This is also the minhag in Strasbourg (what they call minhag ashkenaz,
which is the minhag --roughly speaking -- of the communities along the
Rhein).  Since I don't know exactly what "Oberlender" refers to, I
don't know whether this is the same minhag or not.

Mike Stein

Mordechai wrote:
>FYI, IIRC, the old Ashkenazic minhag was to leave the tefillin on for the
>whole davening on Rosh chodesh and chol haMoed - and not to remove them
>before musaf or hallel.

I'm pretty sure that the Levush writes that one should take tefillin off 
before Mussaf on Rosh Chodesh.  I think he explains that regarding mussaf 
Rosh Chodesh is a Yom Tov.

>I know someone who does that today (leaves them on until end of davening on
>aforementioned days).

R' Dovid Lifschitz used to do this, but I thought it had more to do with his 
being old and not having enough time to take the tefillin off.  Maybe I was 
mistaken about his reason.

Gil Student

In a message dated 4/5/02 1:18:11pm EDT, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> Our (Oberlender-?) minhag is that on the 1st (week)day of CH Pesach -
> when they lein Kadesh Li Kol Bechor, the Tefillin are only removed
> after Krias Hatorah.

Oberlander = German Minhag 
in that on the first day only due to krias Hatorah dealing with Tefillin 
Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:54:43AM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: >I know someone who does that today (leaves them on until end of davening on
: >aforementioned days).

: R' Dovid Lifschitz used to do this, but I thought it had more to do with his 
: being old and not having enough time to take the tefillin off.  Maybe I was 
: mistaken about his reason.

IIRC, RDL would not take off his tefillin unless he had time to put them
away bechavod. Similarly, in Nefesh haChaim, RHS says that RYBS holds that
one should wear tefillin through Rosh Chodesh mussaf rather than taking
them off and leaving them out. (Although RYBS notes that saying "Keser"
in nusach Sfard (and Sepharad) while wearing tefillin is a tarta disasrei.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 11th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                strict justice

In YD 87:5, the Mechaber passkins like the Rashba (i.e. egg has both
yolk and egg white even "me'urot b'giddin" mutar l'ochlan b'chalav). Rashi
as understood by the ROSH: "af im nigmar ha'chelmon [yolk] levad chashiv
gemurot." HOWEVER there are those who understood the shitta of Rashi as:
nigmar gam ha'chelbon [egg white] elah d'klipatan rakah".

Josh

From: Arie Folger <afolger@ymail.yu.edu>
> Ordinarily, Rema (I mean rav Moshe Isserlis) differs from BY where
> Ashkenazi practice has been [different]
 ...
> In light of this, it is rather surprising that in the beginning of YD
> 92 he follows the opinion of Rashi (admittedly an Ashkenazi rishon)
> that a chunk of meat, not fully immersed in its stock, that received a
> splattering of milk, is considered in isolation of the rest of the food
> in the pot, while the vast majority of poskim, including Ashkenazi ones
> whom he likes to quote (he himself noted in his Darkhei Mosheh that Issur
> veHetter rules like the majority), ruled like Ri (no less an Ashkenazi
> than Rashi).
 
> Why did Rema rule to be stringent in this case as there was no strong
> precedence for this particular stringency?

Are you talking about s'if 1?  Taz there seems think he's ruling like
Rashi to rule extra stringently: 

Ri: if half in, considered all in.
Rashi: parts above & below waterline considered separately
Darchei Moshe: part above needs 60:1 against milk.  If top part not 60:1,
  that becomes assur, then assers bottom part.  Bottom doesn't help top,
  top assurs bottom.  Then the bottom part can spread the issur throughout
  the soup, (again needing 60:1 against?), which can asser the whole thing
  easily.

Tas says to see "his book 25:49" as to why he paskens like Rashi over Ri.
Does he mean Toras Chatas?

In a message dated 4/2/02 3:16:07pm EDT, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> Ordinarily, Rema (I mean rav Moshe Isserlis) differs from BY where
> Ashkenazi practice has been more stringent, or, in less common instances,
> more lenient than the major halakhik codifiers. Thus, Rema quotes Sha'arei
> Dura, hagahot Sha'arei Dura, Maharshal (both in his Issur veHeter and in
> his work on Shas), Morde'hai, Or Zaru'ah, etc. where BY quotes Rambam,
> Rashbah, Rosh, Ramban, Semag, Semak, Ba'al haIttur, etc.
> 
> To a certain extent, this is the result of the fact that Rema wrote
> glosses to the BY's works, which already quoted the major halakhik
> codifiers. Nonetheless, I doubt that he was out to quote the forgotten
> works, or the stringent. He uses words derived from the word minhag too
> often to think that he was doing any less than stating minhag Ashkenaz.
> 
> In light of this, it is rather surprising that in the beginning of YD
> 92 he follows the opinion of Rashi (admittedly an Ashkenazi rishon)
> that a chunk of meat, not fully immersed in its stock, that received a
> splattering of milk, is considered in isolation of the rest of the food
> in the pot, while the vast majority of poskim, including Ashkenazi ones
> whom he likes to quote (he himself noted in his Darkhei Mosheh that Issur
> veHetter rules like the majority), ruled like Ri (no less an Ashkenazi
> than Rashi).
> 
> Why did Rema rule to be stringent in this case as there was no strong
> precedence for this particular stringency?
> 
> Kol tuv,
> Arie Folger
> 

The tension between Masorah and Lamdus/Sevara/Shita is an interesting one

FWIW, I would be interested in statistical analysis of the Rema vs. BY  I am 
not so convinced that the Rema is actually more frequently machmir than BY.  

I have no specifics on this.  But as we know that in general, rules are not 
hard and fast.  Rema does not follow his own methodology 100% of the time, 
nor did Bet Yosef for that matter. 

AISI, rules are really defaults and not rules.

Rema IMHO generally ratified the Minhag Ashkenaz - especially as articulated 
by the Maharil, R. Yaakov Weil etc.  - and that entire school of Late 
Rishonim and Early Acharonim.  At one time, the Mordechai was perhaps the 
single most influential Poseik in Ashkenaz. And BTW, Nearly all of them were 
direct or indirect Talmiddim of the Maharam MiRothenburg.

And even within this school of the Maharam there were many diverse opinions - 
E.G. Trumas Hadeshen and Maharil do not always agree.  

AISI, the Rema helped to solidify Ashkenazic practice and to give authority 
to Minhaggim that were not always in harmony with the simple pshat of the 
Bavli.


As I posted last year, the Rema's primary task in the Mappah was to show 
where Asskenazi practice differed.  What is startling is that he does not 
ALWAYS point this out. See Orach Chaim 53 {IIRC} where Rema does not dispute 
the Aleph/Ayyin dictinction of the mechabeir.

Remember the Rema was a poseik, too and not MERELY a repository of Asheknazic 
Minhag. E.G. the Rosh promotes many Ashkenazic practices but rejects others.  
The Rema deviates only upon occasion, and AFAIK never based upon Kabbalah 
{alone}

FWIW Hassidism rejects much/most of the Maharil's school, although I have 
seen Hassidic works quote the Maharil in terms of enshrining Minhag.  Go 
figure that one! :-)

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Micha Berger wrote:

> I had said earlier in this thread that I was artificially defining segulos
> to refer to rules about the effects of non-physical causality. A catch-all
> for things that are both not sechar va'onesh nor teva.

This is still a problem.  Have you established that anyone believes in
teva (as
you understand it) and also believes in what you call segulos?
 Now it may be that kishuf fits your definition of segulos.  I know of
two basic shitos:

(1) The philosophers (e.g. the Rambam): God can perturb the natural
order through miracles.  In the absence of miracles the natural order is
not perturbed.  Kishuf does not work, but is nonetheless prohibited.

(2) The mekubbalim (e.g. the Ramban): The natural order can be
perturbed, and the laws for perturbing it are built into the natural
order.  The Ramban says that he believes kishuf works because he has
observed it and it is an everyday phenomenon.
  I suggested an anology with transistors which you dismissed without (I
suspect) considering it: transistors are consistent with the laws of
nature, but they are not found in nature and can be produced only
through human intervention.  For the Ramban kishuf is not a violation of
the laws of nature, it is a misuse of them which can be produced only
with human intervention.  It nonetheless fits your definition of teva.

So who can you show us who believes that both teva and segulos exist?

> To get back to my point, these things aren't merely "popular
> concepts". They appear in the gemara. Advice about pregnant women and
> cracks or donkey urine. Our example. Vechulu.

But a naive reading of the gemara indicates that it believes all of
these to be
natural phenomena.  It is you who are divorcing them from teva.

> The sources of emes that are thus identified: Toras nigleh, nistar and
> science, must coexist. The Newtonian revolution means that we have a new
> model for teva, and the same model must be able to coexist alongside
> Kabbalah, since it too is emes. Somehow the mesorah we have recieved
> in Aristotilian terms must be able to make sense in the new scientific
> language.

  Yes, this is a real problem.  The only source I know which addresses
this is the
Ramchal in his introduction to aggadta (printed at the beginning of Ein
Yaaqov).  I know of no one who has done a detailed job of it (though
I've never
had the privilege of studying R. Elie BenAmozagh's peirush on humash -
perhaps he
discusses it - does anyone know?).
  If you are introducing your definition of segulos as a means of
addressing this problem I believe you have already failed.  Maybe you
should try again with a different approach.

> : (4) this extra information reduces your bechira.
>
> I also find (4) to be a consequence, not an assumption.
>
> It's a consequence of (3), and of the assumption that bechirah includes
> choosing whether or not one believes one is more than merely a bright
> mammal. This model of bechirah is found pretty far back, though.

Sources? As I said the bechira-as-knowledge paradigm is Socratic, but I
don't
know any Jewish sources.

> BTW, since one does name 4 olamos or groups of olamos, I presume the Ramban
> have these be fuzzy sets (using the phrase non-technically).

I don't recall the Ramban ever naming them.  There are allusions in the
Zohar,
but it is basically a Lurianic doctrine.

> :> In any case, your model doesn't explain Abayei's chaqira. He explicitly
> :> says that the connection between spilled beer (which I guess you /should/
> :> cry over) and povberty is NOT teva but INSTEAD it's segula.
>
> : I don't recall the terms teva or segula in that gemara. It is you who
> : assign it that particular theoretical superstructure...
>
> But I'm asking about the notion, not the word "segulah". As I said, I was
> calling the notion "segulah" only because I needed something to call it.

The gemara, very simply, is discussing whether sheidim exist, not
whether they
are unnatural.

David Riceman

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>

<<Speaking of which....
At Yam Suf, Rashi notes the use of lashon yachid for the Mitzriyim 
 by commenting "beleiv echad ke'ish echad". However, the famous Rashi 
 at Har Sinai describes the unity of BY as "ke'ish echad beleiv echad".>>

        Baruch shekivanta. Pachad Yitzchok Pesach Maamar 41,  nearly
exactly.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 4/2/2002 3:16:10pm EDT, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> My question is where do we find that being an ohel makes an object
> mekabel tumah? An ohel allows tumah to spread under it, but that is
> irelevant WRT kabalat tumah, as a me'hubar lakarka (f.e. a house) is
> not mekabel tumah, even as it is maahil.
> 

See Rambam Hil. Tumas Meis 5:12 (E"T Erech Ohel Hameis), Umisaymim Btov,

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

R' Elazar M. Teitz:
>: 6) Concluding with "leshanah haba'ah biYrushalayim habenuyah".

>The Brisker Rav felt strongly that "hab'nuyah" should not be said,
>as quoted in the Hagadah MiBeis Levi (Brisk).

Hello, 

What reason is given for this?

Thanks,
Avraham Cohem

In a message dated 4/2/2002 3:16:10pm DT,  afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> Nu, so what's deOraita? Is
> this an odd case of 'hozer vene'ar outside of hil. Pesa'h?

> Note that even though there are opinions that ma'amid of cheese with meat
> is not void, ever, that is irrelevant to my question because at any rate
> the unvoidability of a ma'amid is deRabbanan, not deOraita. (is it?)

AIUI the Geder of Davar Hamamid is that it is considered B'ein hence it is as 
if one was being Mivashel the original Cholov in the Keiva, not like in 
Chozer Vneior (which has many applications Y"D 99:6) which the original Issur 
is considered Bottul yet can be awakened, here it is not Bottul rather it 
doesn't Ossur.

WRT Davar Hamaamid Doireisoh or Drabonon is a Machlokes see E"T Erech Davar 
Hamaamid.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Sunday 07 April 2002 14:45, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
> AIUI the Geder of Davar Hamamid is that it is considered B'ein hence it is
> as if one was being Mivashel the original Cholov in the Keiva, not like in
> Chozer Vneior (which has many applications Y"D 99:6) which the original
> Issur is considered Bottul yet can be awakened, here it is not Bottul
> rather it doesn't Ossur.

Wait, didn't you just say that it is a gezeirah? If so, the non battul aspect 
of Bb'H would not make it become a deoraitah ever, as a gezeirah does not 
give rise to a deoraita (excluding any arguments WRT lo tasur min hadavar 
asher yagidu lekha :-)).

> WRT Davar Hamaamid Doireisoh or Drabonon is a Machlokes see E"T Erech Davar
> Hamaamid.

Thank you for the tip. I was trying to stay out of that ma'hloket and assumed 
that it is derabbanan, which what I believe we pasken like. To rephrase the 
question, is there any eveidence that the Pri Meggadim holds that ma'amid 
deoraita? I also guess I will answer this question myself once I check said 
article in ET and recheck his intro to Bb'H.

Arie Folger

In a message dated 4/8/2002 12:00:31am EDT, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> Wait, didn't you just say that it is a gezeirah? If so, the non battul aspect 
> of Bb'H would not make it become a deoraitah ever, as a gezeirah does not 
> give rise to a deoraita (excluding any arguments WRT lo tasur min hadavar 
> asher yagidu lekha :-)).

If we could isolate the original molecules, then cooking them would be
Doireisa, that is what Davar Hamamid accomplishes, so even if it is a
Gzeira (the P"M deals with this in the M"Z 87:3 and Shaar Hataruvois
Chelek 3, he holds that regular Davar Hamamid is Drabonon) the Gzeira
makes them isolated, and hence these Molecules are considered cooked
separately, (akin to the issue of whisky after Pesach, difference between
Ikroi Min Hatorah, see Kuntres Achron (9) in S"A Horav O"C 442)

RYZ:
> If we could isolate the original molecules, then cooking them would be
> Doireisa, that is what Davar Hamamid accomplishes, so even if it is a
> Gzeira (the P"M deals with this in the M"Z 87:3 and Shaar Hataruvois Chelek
> 3, he holds that regular Davar Hamamid is Drabonon) the Gzeira makes them
> isolated, and hence these Molecules are considered cooked separately, (akin
> to the issue of whisky after Pesach, difference between Ikroi Min Hatorah,
> see Kuntres Achron (9) in S"A Horav O"C 442)

Interesting. The PM, I believe, is the one who holds that 'hatzi shi'ur of 
Bb'H is assur min haTorah. However, according to most, this would not be 
deOraita.

Arie Folger

Does anyone know the history of the misheberach's that we add
in the dacening (sick, childbirth etc). When and by whom
were they introduced,
What nonstandard ones exist? I am aware of the one for those
who don't speak in shul (I believe by Tosaphot Yom Tov).
What other ones exist?

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

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


[ 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         ]