Volume 28: Number 64
Thu, 28 Apr 2011
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: David Cohen <ddco...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:16:14 +0300
Subject: Re: [Avodah] ashkenazi minhag
R' Eli Turkel wrote:
> The origin of the halacha is that a community should not be split (lo
> titgodedu). In the old days if an Ashkenazi would
> move to Bagdad would he start investigating what are original local
> minhagim or not? As far as I know anyone who wears tefillin in shul
> in EY on chol hamoed violates lo titgodedu. Even a visitor from chul should
> put on tefillin at home.
>
That's true, if we're talking about an individual putting on tefillin in one
of our existing shuls, in which nobody else is doing so.
The analogous question in this discussion, however, is whether a community
could decide to establish a new shul in EY in which everybody will put on
tefilin on chol hamoed.
As demonstrated by "List B" in my previous post, there are many instances in
which even when it comes to multiple Ashkenazi shuls, we assume that there
are "two battei din in one city," and that different shuls keeping different
minhagim does not violate "lo tisgodedu." (And that is considering just the
Ashkenazim...). The question here is really whether we can use the heter of
"two battei din in one city" to justify the coexistence of different customs
in certain instances ("List B"), yet at the same time maintain that
divergence from the customs on List A violates "lo tisgodedu." An argument
could be made that once there are already "two battei din in the city,"
there should be no problem opening up a third (*i.e.* one that does not keep
to "List A").
-- D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110427/f67f31c7/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: shalomy...@comcast.net
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:32:46 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Avodah] Calling people up to the Torah
>Whats the source for calling People for an Aliya to the T by their name ben
>father's name
>What is the earliest source and why do we do it?
>I believe it is not a universal custom, in some places they just say YaAmod
>and point
I'm actually really confused by the question, and wonder if someone -- maybe off list? --
could clear it up:
In the Torah, aren't people generally called by this formula (Yehoshua ben Nun, etc). Before we ended
up taking last names, wasn't this the way most people were identified? So, isn't this just the way that
people were identified? It would be the same if now we were to say "Stand up, Steve Scher". Isn't it?
What am I missing?
- Steve Scher
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110427/bf7ce7d7/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:35:24 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Calling people up to the Torah
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 04:32:46PM +0000, shalomy...@comcast.net wrote:
: In the Torah, aren't people generally called by this formula (Yehoshua
: ben Nun, etc)...
If you used a name at all. Many Sepharadi qehillos just say "Yaamod
Kohein", etc... And I think there are Chassidim who call up shevi'i
this way.
And more people in Tanakh are simply called by their name without the
"ben ...", so in theory the minhag could have evolved to do that instead.
Or go two generations back, as when HQBH "called up" Betzalel ben Uri
ben Chur (as opposed to Oholiav ben Achisamackh).
But really I took this question as asking in contrast to the qehillos
that don't use names altogether.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another?
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Doron Beckerman <beck...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:56:13 +0300
Subject: Re: [Avodah] BaOmer vs. LaOmer
Mipninei Harav (page 102 in my version) cites RYBS as saying the same vort -
that the girsaos depend on whether it is D'oraysa or D'rabbanan. RYBS would
count both ways - saying LaOmer second, so that the juxtaposition to
Harachaman etc., i.e. that it is a Zecher Lamikdash, makes sense.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110427/4413a4eb/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:19:48 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] BaOmer vs. LaOmer
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:56:13PM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
: Mipninei Harav (page 102 in my version) cites RYBS as saying the same vort -
: that the girsaos depend on whether it is D'oraysa or D'rabbanan...
At first glance, I would say it looks like it's related to the old
chestnut about whether the boy who turns bar mitzvah mid-omer can
count. If you say it's all one count, then today is the 7th day ba'omer
-- within that one mitzvah. However, if each day is bifnei atzmah,
then each one belongs la'omer.
The SA (489:1) has neither -- "hayom shiv'ah yamim sheheim shavua echad",
to which the Rama adds "ba'omer". The SA, if he would have said anything,
probably would have said "la'omer", as he refers to Lag laOmer (493:2).
The MB (489 s"q 8) says "ba'omer" is rov posqim, but the issue is only
lekhat-chilah since you don't need to actually say either. See also
the Shaarei Teshuvah (389 s"q 8) who brings sources for both ways, but
argues that the grammar, common speech, minhag and the Ari would justify
"la'omer".
R Nachman Bulman explained (probably based on the ST) that the name
"Lag Ba'omer" comes from the Arizal and the Mequbalei Tzefas (except
for the Mechabeir, it would seem). It was they who turned R' Shim'on
bar Yochai's hillula into a measurable overvance. And so, it's no raayah
WRT Ashkenazi practice.
: count both ways - saying LaOmer second, so that the juxtaposition to
: Harachaman etc., i.e. that it is a Zecher Lamikdash, makes sense.
Since you don't need either, I am not sure why "getting it wrong" and
counting as though it's deOraisa when it's really derabbanan (or visa
versa) is enough reason to repeat anyway.
And, given that there were specific minhagim -- such as the "bemidinoseinu"
of the Shaarei Teshuvah who say "la'omer" or the Rama's recording the pre-Ari
"la'omer" -- why do we even open the question and not just follow minhag?
Have we shifted the burden of proof from needing to prove a minhag is
likely beta'us before changing it to needing to prove its valid before
upholding it?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another?
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:24:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] ashkenazi minhag
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:22:45AM +0300, David Cohen wrote:
: The question is which of the minhagim of the Perushim have taken on the
: status of "minhagei Eretz Yisrael."
: Here is a (by no means exhaustive) list (let's call it "LIST A") of
: originally Sefaradi practices that have been accepted by all "mainstream"
: Ashkenazi kehilos in EY, whether they daven nusach Ashkenaz or nusach Sefard
: (chasidi):
I think this is 1/3 of the picture. The original yishuv were Seph,
talmidei haGra, and Chabadinikim. And you'll find that any minhag in
common between these three qehillos are the ones on your list.
Which I think is a valid establishment of minhag hamaqom -- those minhagim
or pesaqim the first of the current settlement uniformly observed.
Since Seph and Nusach Ari say "Veshamru", the Perushim not saying it
didn't set minhag EY. Similarly qeri'as haTorah the night of ST, when
one says tefillas Geshem/Tal, etc...
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another?
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:44:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan, Help
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 07:35:44AM +1000, Meir Rabi wrote:
: ArHaShulchan 461:7, discussing the measure of when Matza is baked.
...
: After mentioning the Shiur of Chutin Nimshochim - that when the Matza
: is torn there are no doughy stringy threads, he says, "and even if when
: it is moved it crumbles one fulfills ones obligation since there are no
: stringy threads."
Our chaver R' Dovi Jacobs' more critical edition at
http://he.wikisource.org/wik
i/%D7%A2... (just use <http://bit.ly/AhS461_7>)
has the same girsa.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
CC: RDJ
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:59:38 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] ArHaShulchan 461:7, discussing the measure of
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:49:56PM +1000, Meir Rabi wrote:
: In modern Hebrew it describes a crunchy cracker.
: However, the Gemara uses it to refer to Matza that breaks, or more
: accurately tears apart.
:
: The Gemara of Menachos 78b (and pretty much the same Pesachim 37a)...
Also, nifrachim is the line between dried tzoah and one too fresh to
be nearby when saying Shema -- Berakhos 25a. Either "zorqah ve'einah
nifrekhes" or "gollelah ve'einah nifrekhes". These are definitions of
"tzo'ah kecheres". It would seem that crack or break is a more probable
measure of dryness than asking if it "tears when you throw it" or "when
you roll it".
It is also used as a measure of dryness in Bekhoros 6:1, R' Yosi ben
Meshulam defines a dried out mum as "shetehei nifrekhes". Skin that
is very dry would be noted by its cracking rather than tearing.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another?
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:11:03 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] : Chometz milking question
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:14:04AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
>> The Magein Avraham (445:5) and the Taz say that this doesn't apply to
>> chameitz, where we uniquely worry about less than a kezayis.
>> The Shach, the Gra, the SA haRav (445:10) and the Bi'ur Halakhah (s"q 2)
>> are meiqilim.
> Perhaps it is the MA and the Taz who are being machmirim?
I wasn't being that exact in my language. I just meant that they were
being more meiqil than those who came before them. The Shach came before
the MA, but my general feel when I wrote those words was earlier acharonim
(one of shenei goremim produces chameitz) vs later ones (not chameitz).
As to the question you're raising... it's subjective. If I hold like X,
then to me X is baseline and those who say Y are meiqilim; if I hold like
Y than Y is baseline and those who say X are machmirim. The only way
to get to what you describe is where there is no machloqes, or everyone
follows lehalakhah one side of the machloqes, but some take on a personal
beyond-halachic chumerah.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another?
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:28:28 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Women and Matzah
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 05:09:59PM +0300, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
: An informative quibble:
: In fact, the exceptions to the rule that "mitzvos asei shehazman gerama
: nashim pturot" are few indeed...
You're right; but I was also sways by examples of the reverse -- cases
where they are peturos even though they aren't zeman gearama. I see the
gemara in Eruvin 27a lists 6 exception:
chayavos, even though zeman gerama:
matzah, simchah and hallel
As RSM noted, Rambam AZ 12:2 adds qiddush on Shabbos, but doesn't
have Hallel.
peturos, even though not zeman gerama:
talmud Torah, piryah verivyah, pidyon haben.
and implied in the discussion of PvR is also that they are not
mechuyavos in kibush
And from kibush we get to zekhiras mechiyas Amaleiq
Are women obligated to teach their sons a profession?
We also discussed recently semichah and tenufah where women are peturos.
The Ritva says that this is because they are makhshirim, not the gemar
mitzvah. In which case, there would be numerous other makhshirim where
one could say the same thing..
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another?
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjba...@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:52:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Avodah] D'zabin vs. Diz'van
From: Danny Schoemann <doni...@gmail.com>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:50 PM, R' Simon Montagu mentioned
> > My family always sang "D'zabin abba bitrei zuzei, chad gadya-a-a-a,
> > chad gadya", but several haggadot today print it as "Diz'van abba".
> > Grammatically, "diz'van" is probably more correct, assuming that abba
> > bought the kid rather than selling it, and one of my haggadot brings a
> > text from a 13th-14th century manuscript (not part of a haggada) which
> > spells it that way. My question is, does anybody here have a masora to
> > pronounce it "diz'van", or is it a modern correction?
> "We" always pronounced it D'zabin - but the Rodelheim Haggada (over
> 100 years old) has it as Diz'van - as do the 3 Haggadot that "Sabba
> HaGadol" Rav MM Kasher zt"l published. (The Hagada-Sheleimah, The
> "Kasher" Hagada EretzYisrael, and the Leil Shimurim)
> All other Haggadot of various vintage that I checked had D'zabin
Sorry, I think you're checking haggadot that are too modern. The German
grammarians in the 19th century, of whom R Wolf Heidenheim was one of the
more prominent, made a number of emendations to siddur texts to bring them
into line with their ideas of correct grammar. So of course Rodelheim
haggadot would say Dizvan.
I did a short survey of some early haggadot on Hebrewbooks.org, picking
1740 as a cutoff date (dates less than taf-kuf are easy to recognize in
a table of contents).
D'Zabin:
B'er Avraham (Avraham b"r Mendel Grati), Sulzbach,1708
Bircas Hamozon Haggadah Shel Pesach Keminhag Ashkenaz uPolin, FFd"M 1727
-"- -"- Furth, 1780
Meorei Or with Jiddish-deutsch Translation (in Weber-teitch), Metz 1814
Zerah Yehudah by Yehudah Leib bar Shimon Offenbach, 1721
Maamar Mordechai, a peirush on Had Gadya (DZBYN) Dyhrenfurth, 1719
Vs.
Diz'van:
Roedelheim/Heidenheim 1822: Dizvan
Vilna with 10 Commentaries, 1873 with 10 commentaries: Dizvan
which bears out my hypothesis - it was D'zabin before Roedelheim, and
Dizvan afterwards, but it didn't catch on right away (viz the Metz 1814
haggadah).
--
name: jon baker web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
address: jjba...@panix.com blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Aryeh Herzig <gurar...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:07:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] What's the source for calling People for an
Shulchan HaTahor 139:3 :
It is very important to be very exact using the proper name of a person and
of his father when giving him an Aliya.
This is because the Shoresh Neshama of every Jew is in the Torah.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110427/ba351e48/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:33:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] ashkenazi minhag
On 27/04/2011 4:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Since Seph and Nusach Ari say "Veshamru", the Perushim not saying it
> didn't set minhag EY.
Except that Chabad *doesn't* say "veshamru". The AR's siddur explicitly
links it to "baruch Hashem leolam", and says that those who omit the latter
shouldalso omit the former.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: "Poppers, Michael" <MPopp...@kayescholer.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:56:46 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] ain Od Milvado v. Bechira
In Avodah V28n62#9, RHB prefaced his question by noting:
> If I understand the concept (chasidically explained to me) of Ain Od
> Milvado, everything, despite its appearance to us, is really Hashem.
> This would include trees, tables, chairs, and following the same
> logic, our Bechira as well. <
As neither a follower of (much less expert in) Hassidic thought/philosophy
nor a philosopher, I respond only because no response was published in the
subsequent Avodah digest and hesitatingly suggest that "tzimtzum" modifies
this concept (Google is your friend: http://www.google.com/m?q=tzimtzu
m ).
All the best from
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:00:23 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] ashkenazi minhag
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 04:33:15PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 27/04/2011 4:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Since Seph and Nusach Ari say "Veshamru", the Perushim not saying it
>> didn't set minhag EY.
> Except that Chabad *doesn't* say "veshamru"...
Nu so I erred, but it's not an "except"-ion to my rule. If the Talmidei
haGra and Chabadnikim skipped it, but the Sepharadim said it, it's still
not something all three qehillos of the original yishuv had in common. And
thus not going to become minhag EY.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 16
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:18:18 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] ain Od Milvado v. Bechira
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 02:11:25PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: If I understand the concept (chasidically explained to me) of Ain Od
: Milvado, everything, despite its appearance to us, is really Hashem. This
: would include trees, tables, chairs, and following the same logic, our
: Bechira as well. Also following this logic, the result of our bechira
: (e.g. choosing good or badly) is also part of Hashem.
I'm not sure this is true of chassidus in general, or is limited to the
Tanya and thus more or less true of various forms of chassidus. I held
off on replying (as RMP noted about the chevrah in general) hoping one
of our Lub members would touch it.
From what I understand (with that disclaimer in mind), in this system
of thought, tzimtzum /is/ bechirah chafshi /is/ the illusion that I'm
a distinct being living amongst distinct objects. Bechirah was created
by giving us an opportunity to see the Divine within creation or not.
: If so, how can we be punished for choosing badly, when the bechira and the
: result of the bechira, were to begin with really part of Hashem?
What does it mean to be "part of" HQBH Who is Absolutely One?
I would focus the question slightly differently: If all of creation if
Hidden Divinity, isn't everything perfect, and thus my choices compelled
by the logic of what best fits the Divine Plan?
In Izhbitz thought the only bechirah we have is whether we interpret
our decisions as being in concert with that Plan, or in rebellion. But
given this notion in the Tanya, even that is problematic. Because the
interpretation too is being performed by something that only /thinks/
it's an independent entity.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another?
Go to top.
Message: 17
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:42:41 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] lirot et azmo
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 01:10:36PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Yosef Skolnick responded.
:> Sorry while that is a wonderful idea, I can't really see it coming from this
:> idea/concept. It says kiilu hu yatza meimitzraim. Nothing about
:> comparisons. I humbly submit that it is a lesson in the power of imagery.
: I later saw similar ideas in the hagada Exalted Evening based on shiurim of
: RYBS.
: On "bchol dor vedor" he says
: Li-reot means to experience to feel to re-experience the slavery and Exodus
: It should not be an ancient event lying in the dawn of history and having no
: relevance to us.
There are two ways to make something relevant:
I could bring me to the event; IOW learn how yetzi'as Mitzrayim speaks
to me. Or, I could bring the yetzi'as Mitzrayim to me by finding
parallels between it and events in my own life.
Whether I make the focus an event in my life that YM can shed light upon,
or study YM itself to take lessons from it more directly, I am still
bringing YM from the dawn of history and making it relevent to me.
In fact, your wording "to feel to re-experience the slavery and Exodus"
is NOT finding YM in my own life, but finding my life in YM.
Perhaps a clearer raayah for the value of finding personal parallels to
YM is in the halakhos of the qorban Torah and birkhas haGomel. We draw
from Tehillim 107, which describes YM in terms of 4 kinds of salvation
(crossing a desert, a sea, recovers from illness or released from prison)
and bentch gomel in those cases even without a threat to life. Birkhas
haGomel is about finding parallel to YM in my life.
Personally, during zekhiras YM at the end of Qerias Shema, I do one or
the other depending on mood. I was laid off in Oct 2002 and diagnosed
with lymphoma a mere 6 days later. When I speak of "asher hotzeisi
meiEretz Mitzrayim" I do at times think of the months that followed, as
well as the many other times when I truly felt my life was beMitzrayim --
between a pair of metzarim. And HQBH got me out of those messes, just
as He did the Mitzriyim. And thus zerkhiras YM leads to birkhas Geulah
which leads directly to Tefillah and turning to Him to do so again...
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another?
Go to top.
Message: 18
From: Yitzchok Zirkind <yzirk...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:28:31 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Klalei Hatalmud
See Yad Malachi on this Kllal.
Here is a link;
http://hebrewbook
s.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14122&;hilite=29eb6c32-55ec-4061-9969-c14198
3018d4&st=%d7%93%d7%97%d7%a7%d7%99%d7%a0%d7%9f+%d7%95%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%a7
%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%a0%d7%9f
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Rich, Joel <JR...@sibson.com> wrote:
> The gemara in 2 places states:Dachkinan Umukminam masnisan btrei taama
> valiba dchad taana, vlo mukminan btrei tannai ubchad taama. Any ideas why
> we would prefer one (2 different cases) over the other(2 different tannaim)
> - are we reading Rebbi's mind as to his organizing principle?
> Moadim Lsimcha
> Joel Rich
>
>
>
>
>
> THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
> ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
> INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination,
>
> distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is
>
> strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us
> immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>
--
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110427/1c07f0aa/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 19
From: Simon Montagu <simon.mont...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 23:54:41 -0700
Subject: Re: [Avodah] D'zabin vs. Diz'van
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Jonathan Baker <jjba...@panix.com> wrote:
> I did a short survey of some early haggadot on Hebrewbooks.org, picking
> 1740 as a cutoff date (dates less than taf-kuf are easy to recognize in
> a table of contents).
>
<snip>
>
> which bears out my hypothesis - it was D'zabin before Roedelheim, and
> Dizvan afterwards, but it didn't catch on right away (viz the Metz 1814
> haggadah).
>
>
Thank you for doing the research -- this is exactly what I suspected but
didn't have time to check the data. By the way, there are a lot of earlier
Haggadot at http://aleph500.huji.ac.il/nnl/dig/books_hag.html, but I
couldn't get the DjVu plugin to work in my browser.
If all the evidence is that the text was always D'zabin before Roedelheim, I
am going to continue singing D'zabin. (This year the question didn't arise,
because we had a family from Peru with us who sang it in Spanish -- "un
cabrito, un cabrito"). If any grammarian disagrees with me, I will point
them to the following passage by R. Kenneth Grahame:
The Toad, having finished his breakfast, picked up a stout stick and swung
it vigorously, belabouring imaginary animals. `I'll learn 'em to steal my
house!' he cried. `I'll learn 'em, I'll learn 'em!'
`Don't say "learn 'em," Toad,' said the Rat, greatly shocked. `It's not good
English.'
`What are you always nagging at Toad for?' inquired the Badger, rather
peevishly. `What's the matter with his English? It's the same what I use
myself, and if it's good enough for me, it ought to be good enough for you!'
`I'm very sorry,' said the Rat humbly. `Only I *think* it ought to be "teach
'em," not "learn 'em."'
`But we don't *want* to teach 'em,' replied the Badger. `We want to
*learn*'em -- learn 'em, learn 'em! And what's more, we're going to
*do* it, too!'
`Oh, very well, have it your own way,' said the Rat. He was getting rather
muddled about it himself, and presently he retired into a corner, where he
could be heard muttering, `Learn 'em, teach 'em, teach 'em, learn 'em!' till
the Badger told him rather sharply to leave off.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110427/5cf91293/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 64
**************************************
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..."