Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 92

Thu, 01 Apr 2010

• 1. Re: Moshe's name in the haggadah. (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: Who First Said it? 3 (cgsteinmetz)
• 3. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 4. No Moshiach (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: intelligent design (Richard Wolpoe)
• 6. Re: Moshe's name in the haggadah (Arie Folger)
• 7. Re: intelligent design (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: Moshe's name in the haggadah. (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)
• 10. Re: Timtum HaLev (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 11. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (David Riceman)
• 12. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Micha Berger)
• 13. gebrochs (Eli Turkel)
• 14. Re: Selling whiskey/ bourbon (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Moshe's name in the haggadah (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Moshe's name in the haggadah (Micha Berger)

just read a story this shabbat that RYBS tells about himself.

When a young lad he discovered that Moshe's name wasn't mentioned
in the haggadah. He was so upset at the insult to Moshe Rabbenu that
he started crying at the seder. He father trying calming him down with many
answers that didn't help a young kid. He finally pointed out that Moshe
was quoted in a pasuk which mollified the young RYBS enough that he
stopped criyng though unsatisfied.

RYBS adult answer was that in Egypt Moshe was a mechanical
messenger who followed orders while G-d did everything. Hence, he
is not known as Moshe Goaleynu. Moshe's importance reached a height
at Mount Sinai and his personal contribution as a teacher and so he
is remembered as Moshe Rabbenu.

-- 
Eli Turkel

> From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
> RRW:
> > Nowadays this has morphed into using lulavim as fuel with which 
> to
> > burn Hametz.
> > Who was the first source to suggest this transition?
> 
> I found this today:
> Ben Ish Hai Year 1 P. Tzav mentions burning the aravah/hoshana with 
> the
> hameitz
> 
The source is much older than the BIC. It is already brought in Maseh
Ro'keach Siman 19, Mahril and others.
CGS
____________________________________________________________
Small Business Tools
Compete with the big boys.  Click here to find products to benefit your business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=jivgyzrH1CSDTpU4QxpbzwAAJ
1DzeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMQAAAAA=

R' Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> While we do NOT pasqen this way, it is apparent that eating hametz
> after the time of issur is less stringent than keeping it around

It seems to me the reverse.

We are very machmir against eating chometz after chatzos, and to insure that we don't do so, we stop eating chametz two hours *before* chatzos.

We are also machmir against keeping chametz around after chatzos, but not
as much as by eating. We see this in the deadline for biur being only *one*
hour before chatzos.

There's a whole hour during which we are machmir on eating but meikil on
owning. (Not only does this disprove what RRW seems to be saying, but it is
particularly surprising if both eating and owning are "mere" lavin from
chatzos until evening.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Hotel
Don't stay in a roach motel.  Click here to find great deals on hotels.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=cXkbeGytz9jXsTypToplGgAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATRAAAAAA=

<Hillel said: There shall be no Messiah for Israel because they have
already enjoyed him in the days of Chizkiyahu.
Sandhedrin 99a

[Rashi does say: But the Almighty will himself redeem israel and reign
over them].

How could he make such a radical and astonishing statement?
Or is there something else that we are missing?>>

RYBS stresses the Rshi that R. Hillel did accept Yemot Hamashiach and Olam Haba.
He denied a personal Mosiach and said that G-d himself would save us.

RYBS connected that the Hagaddah. Moshe is not mentioned because he had only
a mechanical part of doing G-d's bidding and G-d performed all the miracles.
Nevertheless, it was important for there to be a messenger and not have G-d
do everything without human intervention.


-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:03 PM, <T6...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> 3.  The universe is the product of intelligent design, i.e, it was
> created.  Exactly what steps occurred between the first moment of yesh
> me'ayin, and how long those steps took, until we arrived at our present
> moment -- may be the subject of debate.  But surely a Torah Jew cannot deny
> the existence of a Designer and still be Orthodox?
>
>
>
>
> *--Toby Katz
> ==========
> *
>

IMHO it's a matter of our limited intelligence and perhaps ignorance of what
actually happened.  Debates are speculative in natrue

We BELIEVE in the Torah narrative - in some level. [Some might posit that
Sefer Yetsira is a more accurate narrative of CREATION than the one in
Breishis and still be very good Jews]

No matter

AISI - What we understand as Jews is Just as Rn Katz stated, the universe is
far too complex to be a random co-incidence.  Deists have insisted that The
CREATOR finished HIS job and left the machine to run on its own.

From logic w/o emunah, we can see this POV has a hava amina.  OTOH, we - the
Children of Israel - know from Y'tzias Mtzrayin and Mattan Torah that beyond
creation there is Hashgacha, too. So Deism is not kosher for us, while it
might still be Kosher for Gentiles.  Maybe that's the difference between the
Zachor of Shabbos in Vaychuluin Breishis - which even Gentiles must
ackonowledge, and the Shamor or the V'Shamru in Ki Sissa that confirms on
ongoing covenant.


-- 
ZP
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100327/3bc95ce8/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB and others were trying to figure out how broad the prohibition is
of pronouncing kol pessuqa delo psqei Moshe, i.e., a partial verse.

RMB suggested that two words is OK, but not more. Since I am unaware
of that distinction appearing in the Talmud, I assume he made an
implicit reference to the kind of citation that requires sirtut, i.e.,
two words, or perhaps three, are OK without sirtut, but not more.

I would like to suggest another distinction, based on the experience
of reading the Haggadah and derashot: we don't recite partial verses
*in* *a* *liturgical* *context*, i.e., qeriat haTorah, and according
to some / many, tefillah, too.And perhaps an etna'hta or equivalent is
kosher for tefillah (such as in Vayvarekh David, when we segue from
Divrei haYamim to Ne'hemiah), but not qeriat haTorah, which is even
stricter. Eitehr way, I suggest that in an exegetical context (such as
the haggadah), or in a literary context (i.e., when using Scriptural
expressions out of context), there is no problem.

What do teh esteemed list members think?
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Burgeoning Jewish Life in Central Europe
* Raising Consciousness by Dressing Babies Outrageously
* 25 Jahre zu lebenslang fuer den Moerder des Herrn Gerstle
* From Skinhead to Orthodox Jew

R'nTK  is struggling with a report by RET that he participated in a
conference where many issues of Torah and science were discussed and
intelligent design was rejected.

My US$0.02: What people usually think of when debating intelligent
design is not whether or not creation was done by G"d, but rather,
whether there is incontrovertible scientific evidence that the world
could not have developed to the present stage barring the invisible
guiding hand of the Designer / Intelligence. Basically, these are
people who argue that organisms dsplay irreducible complexity, etc.
That is a branch of science that is controversial, and there is less
evidence for that then some want to believe. I understood that it is
that train of thought the conference speakers rejected.

IOW, rejecting the science of ID does not mean one rejects what I
would call the phliosphy of ID, or even better, it does not mean that
one rejects the existence of the Designer.

... apples and oranges.
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Burgeoning Jewish Life in Central Europe
* Raising Consciousness by Dressing Babies Outrageously
* 25 Jahre zu lebenslang fuer den Moerder des Herrn Gerstle
* From Skinhead to Orthodox Jew

Akiva Miller kennethgmil...@juno.com:
> There's a whole hour during which we are machmir on eating but meikil
> on owning. (Not only does this disprove what RRW seems to be saying,
> but it is particularly surprising if both eating and owning are "mere"
> lavin from chatzos until evening.)


First
I had originally understood the passuq "so sochal alv hameitz" NOT like
the rambam - rather that one may not OWN Hameitz after the zman starts
for Qorban Pesach. Now I cannot recall where I got this idea from, so -
at least until I find a source - I simply will not pursue this line of
thinking re: erev Pesach.


Second:
As noted baal hamaor DOES allow eating to be m'qayeim tashbeesu so it's
no slam dunk.

CGS noted this is ONLY aliba d'r. Shimon and we pasqen aliba d'r. Yehudah
instead

I have alredy noted that we do NOT pasqen according to the baal hamaor
anyway.

So how does RAM understand this baal hamaor?

At any rate, I' withdraw and recant that aspect of my post because it
does not work well at all unless I can muster some sources to support it

OTOH I do reject the notion that we equate the issur hametz on EP as =
to P itself. This is contrary to everthing I have learned

EG bateil b'60 does work on EP, and mashehu starts only on P - except
Rambam might hold that both are davar sheyeish lo matirin. Even here
Rambam is m'haleig on Passover that it applies to BOTH b'mno and
sh'eino mini. I have zero evidence he holds that aspect on EP

ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 19:55 -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 09:42:20PM +0200, Simon Montagu continued our
> exchange:
> : > : Moses' name appears at the end of a pasuk in RYHG's derasha, and the
> : > : derasha is based on the beginning of the pasuk. I have always assumed
> : > : that the original girsa only quoted "Vayar' Yisrael et hayad hagedola"
> : > : and later versions added the rest of the verse. I have no sources, but
> : > : it makes sense to me.
> 
> : > I'm not sure we were ever nohagim to read half a pasuq.
> 
> : "'Tam ma hu omer? 'Ma zot'"
> 
> The din against quoting parts of pesuqim is for more then two words.

The haggadah quotes more than two words for the tam. The paseuk in the
chumash says "v'hayah ki-yishalcha bincha machar leimor mah-zot,
v'amarta alav b'chozek yad hotzianu Adonai miMitzrayim mibet avadim",
and the haggadah quotes starting at mah-zot until the end of the verse,
including the words "v'amarta alav" (even though they seem to be
introducing a quotation of a verse). 

> RRW argued, bringing other examples, that perhaps an esnachta is
> sufficient phrase separation from this rule. And "Vayhi erev" is starting
> Qiddush from the word after an esnachta.

Also note, that the partial quotation for the tam neither begins or ends
on the atnach [etnachta], because the atnach [etnachta] is on the word
mah-zot. In fact, the word leimor which precedes mah-zot has a
shofar-holech [munach].

--Ken

Micha Berger wrote:
> However, today's Y-mi Daf Yomi has the story of Rebbe's gift of a mezuzah,
> and I noticed something new in it.

> Peah 1:1 4a has Rebbe giving the mezuzah to Artibon...

This Yerushalmi seems to stand in direct contradiction to the widespread 
opposition that we find in the Seforim in regard to giving or selling a 
mezuzah to a non-Jew, as for example, in the Ben Ish Chai Shana Shni'a 
Ki Savo:

??? ?? ??? ?? - ????? ??? ???? - ???? ?? ???

???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???, ?? ???? ??? ?? 
????? ????? ???? ???? ????, ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ????? 
????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???, ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? 
??"?, ??? ????? ???????? ?"?:

???? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ???, ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???????, ???? ??? 
??? ??????, ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????, ???? ?? ??????? 
?? ???????, ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????, ???? ???? ??????? ?????, ?????? 
????? ?? ???? ????? ???"? ??"?, ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??? 
????? ????, ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???"? ??"? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? 
??, ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???"?, 
?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?????, ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? 
?????, ????? ???"? ??"? ???? ?"?, ???? ????? ??? ????? ????, ??? ??? 
?????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????, ???? ??? ?????? 
??????? ????? ????"?, ??? ????? ?? ???? ????"?, ???? ??????, ??? ?? ??? 
???? ????"?, ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????"? ?? ??, ???? ????? 
?????? ?? ?????? ?????:

Me:
>: Not all minhagim fit this paradigm.  Take glatt, back in the day when
>: Jewish butchers sold mainly to Jewish consumers, so that every treifah
>: was a monetary loss, and back in small towns where they slaughtered one
>: or two cows a week.

RMB:
> Umm, that was an entire kehillah. As you write, the loss was absorbed so
> it seems they could manage. The fact that 100 mi away in some other town
> someone else would have eaten the meat doesn't change the feasability of
> the minhag. It's not today, when economic and social groups span large
> swaths of a continent.

For another example, consider haverut (as described in the mishna).
Hullin temei'in were an essential part of an economy driven by scarcity.
If more than a few people were makpid on eating hullin b'tohorah then
people would starve since, in the days before pesticides, a large
proportion of grain would be infested with rodents.

David Riceman

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 09:09:07AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: For another example, consider haverut (as described in the mishna).
: Hullin temei'in were an essential part of an economy driven by scarcity.
: If more than a few people were makpid on eating hullin b'tohorah then
: people would starve since, in the days before pesticides, a large
: proportion of grain would be infested with rodents.

And was "al taharas heqdeish" ever a minhag hamaqom or minhag avos?

:-)|,|ii!
-Micha

over chag I saw a sefer put out by chabad quoting the LR as saying that
there is no problem dipping matzah in soup as it will be eaten within 18
minutes in any case

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 09:19:11PM +0000, RAM kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: There's a whole hour during which we are machmir on eating but meikil
: on owning.

Isn't that logically necessary? It is rare we eat chameitz that no Jews
owns. Wouldn't geneivas aku"m have to be involved?

I think of these dinim in the same terms as harchaqos. Particularly
given "kol ha'okhel matzah beErev Pesach ke'ilu bo'eil arusaso beveis
chamav". It's not that one is an extension of the issur of achilas
chameitz and the other of bal yeira'eh, but both a more viceral distancing
(harchaqah) from chameitz, progressing as we got closer to Pesach itself.

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 07:33:46PM -0400, R Meir Shinnar wrote:
: The discussion between RMB and RZS that minhagim should in some sense
: be possibly universal seems to revolve around the following more
: general issue (and I am sorry to RMB if I misrepresent his position).

To which, on Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:45:21PM -0600, R Daniel Israel
replied:
: If the chumra is not to sell chametz, then your analysis holds.  If,
: OTOH, the chumra is not to sell chametz unless there is hefsid merubah,
: we may find that everyone can keep this chumra, however the result will
: in general be that only shopkeepers sell chametz.

What you're describing is that this version of the minhag is that one
can sell taaroves without a hefsed merubah, but chameitz gamur only when
there is a hefsed merubah. So that rather than hefsed merubah trumping
the minhag, it's part of the minhag itself.

The arguments I gave against this were:

1- Today, with refrigeration, mass production and distribution, large
pantries and refrigerators, most homes own more chameitz gamur than
store owners of yesteryear. It's no longer a matter of people having to
buy each day that day's groceries.

2- The storeowner isn't told that he may only sell 95% (or whatever of
his chameitz) as the last 5% aren't merubah.

But in reality, the thought never crossed my mind that the minhag was
that complicated to begin with.

Returning to RMS's post:
: There is a long section (IIRC 10 ma'amar) in Sa'adya Gaon's Nivhar
: be'emunot vedeot where he examines different ethical and religious
: positions - and rejects them because of particularity - because he
: insists that any moral/ethical/religous position, to be defensible as
: a valid position, has to be something that the entire community could
: (at least in theory) adopt - that if a position is only viable because
: it is dependent on other people not adopting it, that is proof that
: the position is not a correct position - even if in practice, only a
: few people actually adopt the position (this is different than the
: Kantian imperative, but it is related)

: That, I think, is in essence what RMB is arguing...

It's likely I'm thinking that way unintentially, given my small exposure
to Kant.

On a conscious level, I was thinking more halachically-legalistically. A
minhag needs for a minhag to be nispasheit and the opposing concept of
ein hatzibur yachol laamod bah. Added to that the notion that minhagim are
ratified, not enacted.

I would be interested in a conversation about the difference between R'
Saadia Gaon's position and Kant's Categorical Imperative.

To start the ball rolling, I think RSG is giving the possibility of
being categorical as a necessary criterion, something true of any moral
choice, but not its *defining* feature.

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 2nd day
mi...@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Chesed: What is constricted
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           Chesed?

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 06:43:36PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: RMB and others were trying to figure out how broad the prohibition is
: of pronouncing kol pessuqa delo psqei Moshe, i.e., a partial verse.
: 
: RMB suggested that two words is OK, but not more...

Except that I am not so much suggesting as trying to catch us up to
where the last conversation on this topic ended. RRW was mechavein to
the Chasam Sofer (*not the Chazon Ish*, I misremembered) that kol pesuqa
includes an esnachta.

The two word thing was also from that conversation.

I was also wondering about where the pasuq uses quotes. As in, if HQBH
says "ve'amarta eilav" is there a problem saying those words without the
rest of the pasuq?

...
: I would like to suggest another distinction, based on the experience
: of reading the Haggadah and derashot: we don't recite partial verses
: *in a liturgical context*, i.e., qeriat haTorah, and according
: to some / many, tefillah, too. And perhaps an etna'hta or equivalent is
: kosher for tefillah (such as in Vayvarekh David, when we segue from
: Divrei haYamim to Ne'hemiah), but not qeriat haTorah, which is even
: stricter. Eitehr way, I suggest that in an exegetical context (such as
: the haggadah), or in a literary context (i.e., when using Scriptural
: expressions out of context), there is no problem.

I have a hard time accepting that qerias haTorah, which is a ritualized
learning program, is more liturgical use of pesaqim than the Hagadah,
which is also a ritualized learning program.

For that matter, qerias haTorah was established a qiyum of talmud Torah,
whereas Maggid is sipur yetzi'as mitzrayim. If anything, wouldn't it be
the seder which is closer to liturgical than learning?

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 2nd day
mi...@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Chesed: What is constricted
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           Chesed?

More on the topic, from our friends (or in one of us's case, nephew) at
Kollel Iyun haDaf. Insights for Taanis 27b
<http://shemayisrael.com/dafyomi2/taanis/insites/tn-dt-27.htm>. Look at
example #1 in the question.

Note the Magein Avraham (answer a), who makes a particular *exception*
for liturgical use. And, as it felt more natural to me, the Hagadah is
considered liturgical -- but that's why you *can* split pesuqim.

    DIVIDING A VERSE IN THE TORAH

    QUESTION: Rav and Shmuel argue about how to divide five verses between
    two people during the Torah reading, since each person must read at
    least three verses. Rav says that they *repeat* a verse: the first
    person reads the first three verses, and the second person repeats
    the last verse that the first person read, and continues with the
    last two verses. Shmuel says that they *split* a verse: the first
    person reads the first two and a half verses, and the second person
    reads the last two and a half verses.

    The Gemara says that Rav does not agree with Shmuel because he holds
    of the principle that "any verse which Moshe did not divide, we are
    not permitted to divide." This principle is generally understood
    to mean that any time a verse from the Torah is read or quoted,
    it must be read in its entirety. The Halachah follows the opinion
    of Rav (Shulchan Aruch OC 423:2), which implies that we also rule
    that whenever reading a verse from the Torah, we must read it in
    its entirety.

    The problem is that there are many verses from Tanach that we say in
    different contexts which are partial, and not complete, quotations
    of verses (see RAV JOSEPH PEARLMAN's comprehensive discussion of
    this topic in HA'MEIR, 5753). The following are some examples of
    such instances.

    1. In the Hagadah of Pesach, there are several verses that are quoted
    but not in their entirety:
    Devarim 6:3, in the paragraph, "Said Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah."
    Devarim 6:20, in the paragraph, "The wise son."
    Shemos 12:16, in the paragraph, "The wicked son."
    Shemos 1:22, in the paragraph, "And our labor."
    Shemos 3:9, in the paragraph, "And our oppression."
    Divrei ha'Yamim I 21:16, in the paragraph, "And with an outstretched
    arm."
    The second half of Devarim 6:21, "Avadim Hayinu" ("... we were
    slaves"), is quoted as the opening phrase for the paragraph of
    Avadim Hayinu, without quoting the first words of that verse,
    "v'Amarta l'Vincha..." ("And you shall say to your son...").

    2. In the Kidush of Friday night, only the second half of Bereishis
    1:31 ("Vayehi Erev Vayehi Voker Yom ha'Shishi") is recited.

    3. In the Kidush of Shabbos morning, those who do not say the entire
    paragraph of "Zachor Es Yom ha'Shabbos" nevertheless say the last
    words of Shemos 20:11, "Al Ken Berach Hashem Es Yom ha'Shabbos
    va'Yekadshehu" -- an incomplete verse!

    4. During Shacharis, when we return the Torah after Keri'as ha'Torah,
    the Chazan says, "Yehalelu Es Shem Hashem Ki Nisgav Shemo Levado,"
    the first half of Tehilim 148:13, and then we recite after him,
    "Hodo Al Eretz v'Shamayim," the second half of that verse. How can
    we recite an incomplete verse?

    ANSWERS:

    (a) The MAGEN AVRAHAM discusses this problem in several places (see
    end of OC 51, beginning of OC 282, and OC 422:8). In OC 282, he says
    that whenever we recite verses during Davening, in the context of
    praises and supplications, the principle does not apply and we may
    recite parts of verses. This explains how we can recite a partial
    verse when returning the Sefer Torah and when reciting Kidush (see
    also CHASAM SOFER, OC #10). It also explains how we can say in the
    Hagadah, "Avadim Hayinu" without the beginning of the verse, since
    that paragraph is merely paraphrasing the verse in the context of
    a narrative discussion. However, this does not explain all of the
    instances where we recite partial verses, such as in the Hagadah
    when we cite the verses as proofs for certain Derashos.

    (b) The MAGEN AVRAHAM, in OC 422:8, quotes the KOLBO who suggests
    that this principle applies only to verses in Torah and Nevi'im,
    but not to verses in Kesuvim. This is also proposed by the ME'IRI
    (Sukah 39a). This would answer only those instances where we recite
    incomplete verses from Kesuvim (such as Divrei ha'Yamim I 21:16 in
    the Hagadah, and Tehilim 148:13 when returning the Sefer Torah).
    Also, it is not clear why we should differentiate verses in Nevi'im
    from verses in Kesuvim (see TOSFOS in Rosh Hashanah 34a, DH Maschil,
    and the RAN there who assert that Nevi'im are different than Kesuvim
    in certain Halachic matters -- see, however, TOSFOS YOM TOV in Rosh
    Hashanah 4:6 who says that the Ran rescinded this view; in contrast,
    see RAN in Megilah 27a, TOSFOS in Bava Basra 13b, RAMA YD 284.)

    (c) RAV REUVEN MARGULIOS (NEFESH CHAYAH, Milu'im, 51:7) writes that
    the principle that "any verse which Moshe did not divide, we are not
    permitted to divide" does *not* mean that we must quote a verse in
    its entirety. Rather, it means that we are not allowed to *end* a
    verse in a place where Moshe did not end it. We may *start* a verse
    in the middle, omitting the first words, but we must continue from
    whatever point the quotation begins until the end of the verse.

    This understanding of the principle is expressed by the phrasing of
    the principle itself. The words, "Kol Pesuka d'Lo Paskei Moshe..."
    literally mean, "Any *stop* which Moshe did not do stop, we are
    not permitted to stop." The emphasis of the rule is on *stopping*
    the verse at a point at which did not stop the verse. However, we
    may *begin* the verse from wherever we want! (Y. TAUB and Y. SHAW
    in THE MALBIM HAGGADAH, Targum Press, p. 84, fn. 20.)

    This explains all of the partial quotations of verses in the
    Hagadah; in every instance, they are quoted until the end of the
    verse, and are only missing the beginning words of the verse! This
    also explains the partial verses quoted in Kidush of Friday night,
    Shabbos day, and when returning the Torah after Keri'as ha'Torah.
    (The Chazan, who says the first half of Tehilim 148:13, presumably
    continues and says the second half together with the Tzibur.)

    RAV JOSEPH PEARLMAN of London points out that this answer does not
    seem to be accepted by the Acharonim (see also RASHBA in Berachos
    14b), since they do not use it to answer their questions regarding
    certain incomplete verses that we recite. The NETZIV (Meromei Sadeh,
    Berachos 12b) also does not agree with it.

Notice, BTW, that none of the examples are from the portion of Magid
based on Rav's notion that mashchilim begenus umesaymim beshevach refers
to going from AZ to avodas Hashem. And it's Rav who says qol pasuq.

Could it be simply that the other parts of Maggid come from hagados
written by qehillos that simply didn't hold like Rav (talmidim of
Shemu'el, those who emphasized the derashah of Vidui Biqurim, and Rabban
Gamliel's talmidim)?

And then, when someone in the amoraic or geonic era decided to say
"all of the above", their Maggid was folded in as-is.

This only answers the historical question, as we do follow Rav which
would have made it impossible for the baal hagadah to fold in the partial
quotes as-is.

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 2nd day
mi...@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Chesed: What is constricted
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           Chesed?


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 92
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."