Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 061

Thursday, July 11 2002

• Re: Omer question
• RE: The MB and psaq
• Re: The MB and psaq & Tzitzis
• Re: gila rina diza et al
• RE: CH in front of non-Jews
• Re: CH in front of non-Jews
• Re: Gerim
• Re: Fried chicken on the seder night(s)
• Re: torah he
• Re: Bar vs. Bat Mitzva
• Re: Who *wrote* the mishnah?
• Re: Bar vs. Bat Mitzva
• RE: CH in front of non-Jews
• RE: CH in front of non-Jews
• Re: Gerim
• Amazing Piaczsesner, Visualizations, Continued - Amazing Chiddush of the LR
• Re: CH in front of non-Jews
• fanthom maamar 'Hazal in Rashi p. Devarim?
• Re: Who *wrote* the mishnah?
• Re: Bentching: HaKedosho vs. HaGedosho
• Re: fanthom maamar 'Hazal in Rashi p. Devarim?
• Re: fanthom maamar 'Hazal in Rashi p. Devarim?

On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 09:38:01PM -0400, Arie Folger wrote:
: Happened to me, and my then RY, rav Yehudah Aryeh Treger, SIL of RSZA,
: told me I can still count. Don't remember the source (was 13-15 years
: ago). The logic is that even though one accepts Shabbat, he has not
: moved the boundary between day and night, merely drawn the holiness
: of Shabbat into the weekday. In fact, I am sure that somebody who was
: meqabel Shabbat early and then transgressed it intentionally would not
: be liable for sqilah.

How is tefillas minchah more tied to it being chol than omer? Or,
to put it another way, if tosefes Shabbos doesn't detract from Friday
then why can't I daven minchah after kabbalas shabbos? (Or does RYAT
say I can?)

-mi

I should add that I have heard the same as RSM is saying in the name of R'
Gershon Zaks, the CC's grandson.

However, I have come across many, many times that the MB says things
like "bish'as hadechak yesh lehakel" or "ve'ein lehakel lechatchilah".
These sound like a pesak and not someone merely quoting different shitos.

I don't know how to reconcile all the data but, since I follow my rav's
pesakim and not the MB's, it doesn't keep me awake at night. Hashem gave
me children to do that.

Gil Student

Just spoke with Rav Michel Shurkin about these topics

1) Regarding Tzitzis he said that Rav Mendal Zaks had told Rav Moshe
Feinstein that his father had charata concerning what he had written in
the Mishna Berura. This would explain the disparity between the Mishna
Berura and the fact that the Chofetz Chaim did not wear his tzitzis out.

2) He said Rav Moshe was against the practice of wearing the Tzitzis
out because there was no mesora for it.

3) He noted that wearing tzitzis out is probably more relevant today to
protect people in the corrosive moral environment of college and business
and less relevant for those who remain full time in yeshiva.

3)Regarding the Mishna Berura as source of psak. He said that the
change to regard it as source of psak was initiated by Rav Elchonon
Wasserman. After the War the need for a common basis for halacha for the
Orthodox world resulted in a campaign of gedolim that it be accepted as
such - resulting in its current status.

It would seem to follow from this that the Chofetz Chaim would not have
been upset about this change from his original purpose since his prime
orientation was to provide practical sefarim which satisfied the needs
of the people. The needs changed after the War.

                Daniel Eidensohn

At 01:24 PM 7/5/02 -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
>I've found several versions of this bracha which differ by which words
>are preceded by a vav. Anyone have any insights into our current version
>or alternatives (why vav's only on certain words?)

If you go through the Malbim's definitions of each term of simcha (this
is easy if you own a Ha'Carmel) then you will find that the terms follow
a progression from engagement to post-sheva berachos marital bliss -
in an ideal world :-)

You can then explain the vav's with relative simplicity.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

> Quick List of sources that CH applies in front of non-Jews:
>     Rasbam on Chumash Devarim 9:25 and 32:33.
>     Tosefta BK 10:15
>     Bavli BK 113b and AZ 28a
>     Yerushalmi BK 4:3

And SA and Acharonim? JUst curious.

Akiva

On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 03:16:08PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: Quick List of sources that CH applies in front of non-Jews:

The question is whether ikkar CH is the act's effect on others or on
oneself.

To take the antonymn, someone who dies al qiddush Hashem betzin'ah still
was meqadeish Shem Shamayim, no?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 03:21:02PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: IF a Mo'avi or Ammoni is misgayer, the mitzva of "V'ohavttem es ha'ger"
: is in full ettect.

Poor example, since the stereotypical racist remark "... but I wouldn't
want my daughter to marry one" applies.

: There issur b'kohol is identical to that of a mamzer.

Which is also prejudging someone due to the circumstances of his birth.

The point I was trying to make is that halachah does recognize that people
are born different. And therefore people of certain tribal groups (that
can no longer be identified) had different halachos pertain to them.
Mitigating the severity of the judgement doesn't change the fact that
the distinction is being made.

And while an Amaleiki can redeem himself, there is some issue with Amon
and Mo'av that even conversion is insufficient to mitigate. If it's
nurture rather than nature then why wouldn't an Amoni geir tzedeq be
allowed lavo biqehal Hashem?

To repeat, however: I'm asking about the concept of racism in general.
Obviously none of the groups named in the Torah are identifiable
lema'aseh. However, given that racism appears to be a self-evident
evil in our lema'aseh cases, how do we understand the ta'am of these
mitzvos? (And I mean that given literally; it's not up for discussion.
I doubt I'd allow a post justifying racism sully the Avodah forum.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
> Frying chicken (unless we're talking about schnitzel/cutlets, and maybe
> even then) requires a considerable amount of oil, because of its non-flat
> surface. This makes it very different than frying pancakes or french
> toast, which can be done with minimal oil -- or, in the case of some
> newer pans, no oil at all.
...
> The Mishna Brura 168:56 discusses whether tigun k'bishul or not...
> When I learned this section in yeshiva, I was taught that in any case,
> when the Acharonim mentioned "tigun", they definition of the word presumed
> an abundance of oil, enough to give significant flavor and greasiness
> to the food, and would not apply to most of our cases, where we use only
> enough oil to prevent burning.

Actually, R' Reisman was, in fact, referring to shnitzel/cutlets. When R'
Reisman mentioned that he asked R' Pam, he did so working under the
assumption that we _do_ pasken tigun k'bishul (and that R' Pam responded
accordingly (i.e., "even if we do pasken tigun k'bishul, still.........).

When we fry food, I doubt that it is the amount of oil that makes the
food have a din of "cooked" food. (Although I am sure that it would
taste that much better if we were to use that much oil! :-))

When it gets closer to Pesach, I will ask my LOR. (Assuming that I
have one by then; my shul has still not found a replacement for R'
Tzvi Hersh Weinreb.)

KT
Aryeh

On 8 Jul 2002 at 5:08, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> The gemora(brachot 62a) recounts 2 examples (bathroom and bedroom) of
> studens "invading" their Rebbe's privacy to learn proper behaviors. Is
> there a specific issur against invading another's privacy? The gemora's
> initial concern is azut panim which seems to be trumped by torah he .

The very first RJJ Journal has a lengthy article about this.

-- Carl

R' Danny Schoemann quoted his cousin with an explanation of the difference
between Bar vs. Bat Mitzva:

<<< At 13, a boy accepts / receives the added responsibility of the
time-bound mitzvos. It's this yoke that we celebrate; thrice daily
tefilos, tefillin, lulav, shofar, etc. even when he's too tired / hungry
/ not feeling so well, etc. This added yoke is not given to a bat mitzva
girl. >>>

I don't see it this way at all. As he gets closer and closer to 13, he
is taught that these excuses are less and less acceptable. Hopefully,
he has totally stopped using these excuses at all, some measurable
time prior to reaching 13. And regrettably, humans that we are, some
do continue using them even after 13. (Though I do concede that from a
letter-of-the-law angle, there is a clear difference between before and
after the 13th birthday.)

When I spoke at my second son's bar mitzvah, I explained my
dissatisfaction with explanations such as the above. The best chiluk I
was able to find, between boys pre- and post- Bar Mitzvah, has little
to do with the chiyuvim themselves, but more with the fact that he now
does them publicly and can be motzi others. Hopefully, it is a long time
now that the boy has been careful to never miss minyan, and to always
answer the mezuman -- and so has his sister. The new thing which happens
at Bar Mitzvah is that he can now *count* for and/or *lead* the minyan
and mezuman. And this is a stage which his sister will never reach.

I'll admit that a Bas Mitzvah is capable of being motziah her parents
-- or even her community -- in Kiddush, which she could not do prior to
reaching this point in life. But we're discussing the development of the
customs, and is unavoidably tied up more with what people actually do,
than with what is technically doable. Thus my conclusion is that the Bar
Mitzvah celebration is not so much about new obligations in mitzvos,
and more related to the boy's taking a public position in the adult
community. The girls acquire almost as many mitzvos as the boys do, but
never take a public position in the adult community, and therefore no
public celebration was ever relevant (at least not until recent decades).

Akiva Miller

RMB posted rav Steinberger's shi'ur on who wrote the mishnah. The
following is an excerpt of the arguments in favour of a late commitment
to writing, interpersed with my comments:

>     b) Rebbi himself (in Baba Metzia 33b) says that one should run
>     to learn the Mishna, lest it be forgotten. If it had been written
>     already in his times, that would prevent forgetting (see Rashi there).

The mishnah is a very incomplete work. Even assuming that in his day
all disagreements could have been legislated away (they still had a
Sanhedrin IIRC), halakhah has many more details than is comprised in
mishnah. In fact, as a thorough theoretical treatment of halakhah,
mishnah is fairly poor.

Instead of being abstract treatments of halakhah, the beraitot and
mishnayot are the chapter headings, or case summaries, of actual problems
or of problems set by the RY to his academy as a means of demonstrating
a principle, or to investigate particular halakhot. Had the mishnah
been intended as a definite book for preserving definite halakhah,
the halakhot would likely have been presented in an abstract fashion,
with rare case studies only presented as examples of more difficult
sections. In reality, while there are abstract treatments of halakhot,
the bulk of mishnah is case based.

Instead, I suggest (and this was probably done previously by others) that,
as Rambam permits, individual batei midrash had their own collection of
beraitot; think of them as the minutes of the rosh hayeshivah, possibly
but not necessarily writen by an officially appointed scribe. Students
may also have kept personal copies for later review. Nonetheless, only
the beraitot were written down, while the bulk of the study was oral. At
any rate, there was no official book, published to anybody, and no army
of copyist working to churn out copies for every beit din or synagogue.

These beraitot, having been written by different authors, woulod have had
quite some ambiguities and even inconsistencies, as the reosh yeshivah
himself was not the author. Also, the bulk of the teachings were oral,
and the beraitot were used as chapter heading, much like the Talmud has
long discussions following entire or excerpts of mishnayot. Memorizing the
beraitot may have been the prefered way of studying them, as they could
then act as a mnemonic device for the entire discussion. Furthermore,
since there was no officially published book of beraitot, most students
would not have had regular access to it.

Getting backto the gemara in Bava Metzi'ah, even with a mishnah the TSBP
could be forgotten. Learning mishnah, as Rebbi refers to it, meant likely
more than just the text, also the commentary/working out of the sugya.

Read on.

>     c) Had Rebbi written it, the Talmud (in Gittin, ibid. and elsewhere)
>     should have mentioned it.

This is a strong argument, unless Rebbi's publication was not as major a
deal by that time. If indeed beraitot were already being written, merely
writing the mishnah would not have been such a big deal; publishing
it would be. However, if mishnah was merely a handbook to assist in
learning TSBP, and also was mostly quoting from earlier works, even the
publication would have raised fewer eyebrows. Nonetheless, this needs
to be addressed in depth (read, I got to hit the books first).

>     d) R' Yehoshua ben Levi, a close student of Rebbi, is the one who
>     vehemently opposes the writing down of the Aggadata. Obviously he
>     did not see any problem with Rebbi's conduct either.

As rav Stewinberger himself points out, Rebbi being nasi+av beit din
(was he both?)and the importance of preserving halakhah can amply
explain this. I will also add that according to those authorities
who read aggadeta as a collection of esoteric teachings cloaked in
story language would definitely understand why we should refrain from
writing down aggadeta more so than halakhah. Furthermore, mishnah
without sugya is still basic halakhah, so that the casual reader will
gain something. Aggadeta, OTOH, is pretty useless without the key to
decipher, and the esoteric teachings should surely be held out of the
hands of the masses and even out of the minor TCs.

>     e) In Shabbat (115a): Targum -- translation, of Iyov is not holy
>     enough to warrant its saving on Shabbat, since its writing is
>     illegal. Targum is Oral Law and should be kept oral, according to R'
>     Yossi there. The author of this very ruling there is Rebbi! This
>     proves that the Oral Law had not been written yet in his times.

Proves nothing. May be Rebbi would have said the same about the mishnah,
as he didn't intend it to be the definite work of TSBP, but rather a
list of chapter headings re oral discussions and case studies.

>     f) There are many cases where that the exact version of the Mishna is
>     in dispute by the Amoraim. Had it been written, they could solve the
>     dispute by checking the text. ("Hakdama BeDarkei HaMishna" from the
>     author of "Etz Chaim" quoted by R"I Chagiz in his "Hakdama" to the
>     Mishna. See also "Itur Sofrim" of Rav Kook in "Avnei Nezer", there).

Assuming, as I posited above, that beraitot were written before the days
of Rebbi, what did Rebbi innovate? I believe he summoned representatives
of the important yeshivot to ask them for their account of a particular
halakhah. These individuals based themselves on the beraitot, many of
them recorded in writing, but since the beraitot were not always verbatim
quotes of the RY, and even when they were verbatim, being only chapter
headings there would be considerable ambiguity in them. Rebbi sorted the
material and arranged it according to the 6 sedarim, and kept a certain
level of connecion with the earlier beraitot by keeping the mnemonics and
often literally quoting them. Preserving the ambiguity of the texts would
have afforded him support even of those who disagreed with his reading,
and would emphasize the predominantly oral character of TSBP.

>     g) A written book always has cross and back references to other
>     previous/parallel or different passages. Since we almost never find
>     such references, obviously the Mishna had not been a written book
>     when it was authored by Rebbi ("Etz Chaim", ibid.).

Written TSBP published for posterity was a new thing, even if it wasn't
necessarily considered a radical innovation from a halakhik point of view
(may be it was, may be it wasn't). But being a new thing from a published
book perspective, one may expect that the inexperience with the medium
(experience would only come when seeing students peruse the work) may
have caused the author and his staff to be cautious and not expect the
student to flip pages (the student was, after all, expected to study
the oral sugya that was assumed with the mishnah).

Arie Folger

In a message dated 07/09/2002 4:49:20pm EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> The new thing which happens
> at Bar Mitzvah is that he can now *count* for and/or *lead* the minyan
> and mezuman. And this is a stage which his sister will never reach.

This is the reason I heard given for why we make a big deal about his
being oleh -not for him but so that the community is aware of his
status for the function of being counted for a minyan. Question -
Why is a boy(or girl) reaching the age of mitzvot encouraged to make a
celebration much like R' Yosef offered (iirc in kiddushin) if they could
make him into a metzuveh voseh?

KT
Joel Rich

At 01:10 AM 7/9/02 +0300, Akiva Atwood wrote:
>> Quick List of sources that CH applies in front of non-Jews:

>And SA and Acharonim? Just curious.

I didn't go further. But I believe in Hil. Aveida u'Metziah you will
find it. I am mystified by your motivations here...

>> And SA and Acharonim? Just curious.

> I didn't go further. But I believe in Hil. Aveida u'Metziah you will
> find it. I am mystified by your motivations here...

Curiosity? A desire to know the actual *halacha*? What the actual *psak*
is b'zman ha zeh?

Akiva

At 08:33 PM 7/9/02 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
>And while an Amaleiki can redeem himself, there is some issue with Amon
>and Mo'av that even conversion is insufficient to mitigate. If it's
>nurture rather than nature then why wouldn't an Amoni geir tzedeq be
>allowed lavo biqehal Hashem?

You are ignoring Amoni v'lo Amonis, etc. This is not a racial thing!

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Correspondent A writes:
>Two of the responses said very similar concepts:
>> My understanding: HKBH's world is the real one - and His hand is real; our
>> world, and therefore our "hands", are NOT real, they're just the
>> representation/facsimile of reality made available to us.  And
>> In my humble opinion all of life is imaginative and the question

And
>> In my humble opinion all of life is imaginative and the question
>> is to which imaginative palimspet do we ascribe.

> I find it interesting that people are using this new world concept in
> relation to HKBH and the world. About 5 years ago a friend of mine
> came to me and said, "It's like the whole world is Virtual Reality
> and we can't see the real thing which is the perspective from HKBH". A
> little while after that the popular movie "The Matrix" came out with
> this exact new philosophy at its base. Of course I am not condoning or
> even recommending the film, just commenting on how popular this idea has
> become. It seems to me that this is a secular belief that has crept its
> way into our consciousness because of the good analogy it gives us. But
> it seems that many people have taken this too far.

> According to the RamChal - certainly in Derech Hashem and I believe
> also in Da'as Tevunos -- OH"B is not some phantom spiritual world. It is
> rather this world rebuilt after it lays fallow for 1000 yrs between 6000
> and 7000. He says this is when T'chiyas Hamaisim occurs and everyone who
> has made it that far will then be in existence for all of eternity. He
> explicitly states that because the body was used in helping the soul
> reach it's desired state, it (the body) must also be rewarded in OH"B. He
> emphasizes that the body will be in a new form in OH"B but it will still
> be a physical body. The composition of the body at that time would be
> similar to that of Moshe Rabainu's face when he cam e down from Har Sinai.

> I believe this is also in conjunction with the Medresh that tells us
> that Adam's body before the Chait was similar to our fingernails.

> According to this viewpoint, the body and the physical world of the
> present is not a phantom existence, it is an absolute reality. But it is
> only one stage (stage 2 of 3) in the overall scheme of things. Because
> spirituality does exist even in this stage - OH"Z, we have the ability
> of cultivating our current bodies to experience and see the spiritual
> as well, lifting us from the physical that we are steeped in.

> This in fact was the entire purpose of Chassidism to start with -- to
> enable the common man to use his body correctly and convert its barrier
> quality into more of a lens with which to see the real -- or complete
> -- world.

Correspondent B writes:
> Concerning visualizing Hashem - see the sicho Naso 5743
> par. 22 p. 1599 (link provided), concerning the Raavad.
> http://www.otzar770.com/library/display_page.asp?nPageNumber=1599&cPartLetter=B&nBookId=17

Please check this out. It's only one page in very easy Hebrew. (Cut
the entire reference, from the http through the 17 and paste it in
your browser.) This is indeed worth seeing. It provides theoretical
justification for the Piaczsesner's parctical eitzah - essentially a
metaphysical application of the theory of relativity to the worlds of
perception of HKB"H, i.e., how you perceive Hashem is reality to you, and
applying eilu va'eilu (major chiddush: even to an immature and erroneous
perception - his evidence is that since we begin to learn Chumash with
a five year old, knowing that his perception is likely to be material,
we must regard this perception as a legitimate variation of emes) -
you come to the conclusion that perception shapes reality in spirituality.

Not sure I accept this chiddush. But fascinating!

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

At 08:35 PM 7/9/02 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
>: Quick List of sources that CH applies in front of non-Jews:

>The question is whether ikkar CH is the act's effect on others or on
>oneself.
>To take the antonymn, someone who dies al qiddush Hashem betzin'ah still
>was meqadeish Shem Shamayim, no?

What is reality :-) ?

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Rashi on Devarim 1:1 quotes a maamar 'Hazal amar rabbi Yo'hanan, 'hazarnu
'al kol hamiqra velo matzinu makom sheshmo Tofel veLavan, ela ...

This maamar of rabbi Yo'hanan does not exist in TB, TY, Mishnah,
Tosefta, or any of the well known and not so well known halakhik and
aggadic midrashim. Just ain't there. Yalkut Shim'oni has statements in
similar spirit, but nothing in the name of rabbi Yo'hanan, and nothing
exactly worded as Rashi's statement. Is this a late rabbi Yo'hanan? A
mistake of some copyist? I don't know, but it ain't there.

OTOH, the concept Rashi tries to illustrate with that quote is amply
worked out in a variety of midrashim, and nicely captured in Yalkut
Sim'oni (which is itself full of fanthom statements, but this one seems
well documented).

Arie Folger

On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 12:54:14PM -0400, Arie Folger wrote:
: The mishnah is a very incomplete work. Even assuming that in his day
: all disagreements could have been legislated away (they still had a
: Sanhedrin IIRC)...

Judging from the number of machlokesin between beis Shammai and beis
Hillel that survived for generations (there were still Shammutim a
generation before Rebbe, if not his generation as well), I don't think
Sanhedrin worked that way. At least not after the fall of the lishkas
hagazis.

The change of Sanhedrin's power to pasken when they left the lishkas
hagazis could explain why we needed a bas qol to tell us to hold like
beis Hillel. As Tosafos ad loc point out, even without Shamayim's
intervention, the halachah would be like beis Hillel because they
were the rabbim.

: Getting backto the gemara in Bava Metzi'ah, even with a mishnah the TSBP
: could be forgotten. Learning mishnah, as Rebbi refers to it, meant likely
: more than just the text, also the commentary/working out of the sugya.

Rebbe in BM 33b probably meant memorizing beraisos. The lashon "mishnah"
and its Aramaic equivalent "masnisin", is usually used for the repetition
of a memorized text of this sort. Tani tana kamei deR'... (Which refers to
the repeater as the "tana", not the one being repeated. Even though the
rav they're in front of was often an amorah, and therefore the anonymous
memorizer was of that era. I wonder when the meaning shifted.)

See also Hil Talmud Torah. Knowing the halachah is "mishnah"; knowing
its mechanics is "gemara". Particularly before these words came to refer
to particular books.

:               .... If indeed beraitot were already being written, merely
: writing the mishnah would not have been such a big deal; publishing
: it would be....

It's hard to picture that a text that existed in print that became the
basis of all of both shasim (and therefore presumably of much of the
conversation recorded in the gemara) didn't get massively copied.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

RDS asks re. HaKedosho vs HaGedosho in birkat ha-mazon.

1. From the gemara in Berakhot 48a-b we know about the Rahem al
Yisrael ... ve-al ha-Bayit and the Boneh Yerushalayim parts of the
third berakhah. No mention is made of the "middle" section. (Compare
Saadia Gaon and Rambam's siddurim as well). In fact, see A. Marmorstein
in *Ha-Tsofeh le-hokhmat Yisrael* 10 (1926) pp. 213-5: genizah fragment
(perhaps by R. Maimon, father of Rambam) shows that the section beginning
Re`enu zuneinu parneseinu... was said only on shabbat (by some) but not
during the week (by anyone) and therefore R Hiya's answer in Yerushalmi
Shabbat 15:3 (15b) or more clearly in VaYikra Rabbah 34:16.

2. The line "le-yadkha..." is a late addition to the berakhah, even later
than the addition of the everyday Re'enu section; it is not found in the
earliest forms of the berakhah. Even later than the le-yadkha line is the
additional word gedushah. The shabeshta of Kedu/oshah is apparently even
later than that. (See B Fishler in *Leshonenu la-`am* 37(1986) pp. 264ff).
Those early nusha'ot (early Sephardic, as opposed to modern Sephardic)
that do first include the le-yadkha formulation do not have "kedu/oshah"
or "gedushah" just "le-yadkha ha-melei'ah veha-rehavah" (modern Sephardic
nusah has in addition the 2 above also "ha-ashirah ve-hapetuhah" only).
Romaniot nusah added adjectives like ha-tovah, ha-seve'ah. Again, no
mention of kedu/oshah or gedushah. (see L Finkelstein in *JQR* 19 (1928)
236ff) Exactly how late an addition our word is is not clear.

3. See Fishler's article for a facsimile of the manuscript siddur on
klaf written for, and used by, the Besht by his nephew. The word used
there is clearly Gedushah.

4. *`Arukh ha-shulkhan* OH 188:6

5. *Barukh she-amar* (by the ba`al Torah Temimah) pp 211-212

6. *Nefesh ha-Rav* (by RHS) p. 148 re RYBS saying haGedushah

7. As RSM is always quick to point out, however, no doubt the Holy
One's Hand is Magnanimous and Generous enough to allow for such minor
differences of custom esp in re His praise.

Bi-tefilah le-Parneseinu u-Mekhalkeleinu she-yarvihenu mi-kol tsaroteinu,
YD

On 10 Jul 2002 at 15:15, Arie Folger wrote:
> Rashi on Devarim 1:1 quotes a maamar 'Hazal amar rabbi Yo'hanan, 'hazarnu
> 'al kol hamiqra velo matzinu makom sheshmo Tofel veLavan, ela ...
> 
> This maamar of rabbi Yo'hanan does not exist in TB, TY, Mishnah,
> Tosefta, or any of the well known and not so well known halakhik and
> aggadic midrashim. Just ain't there....

Shavel has the girsa as Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai and sources it as Psikta
Zuta, Dvarim Rabba (Lieberman Edition) 9, and says to also see Zchor
l'Avraham (note 1) and Minchas Yehuda 5.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

On 10 Jul 2002 at 15:15, Arie Folger wrote:
> Rashi on Devarim 1:1 quotes a maamar 'Hazal amar rabbi Yo'hanan, 'hazarnu
> 'al kol hamiqra velo matzinu makom sheshmo Tofel veLavan, ela ...
> 
> This maamar of rabbi Yo'hanan does not exist in TB, TY, Mishnah,
> Tosefta, or any of the well known and not so well known halakhik and
> aggadic midrashim. Just ain't there....

Shavel has the girsa as Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai and sources it as Psikta
Zuta, Dvarim Rabba (Lieberman Edition) 9, and says to also see Zchor
l'Avraham (note 1) and Minchas Yehuda 5.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

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


[ 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         ]