Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 253

Wed, 21 Dec 2011

• 1. Re: Vegetable Peeler: Clarification (Naftali Rothstein)
• 2. Re: The Origins of the Non- Jewish Custom Of 'Shlissel Challah' (Key Bread) ?The Loaf of Idolatry?? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: timeline?? (Lisa Liel)
• 4. Re: "Segula": Empty Promises (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. hanuka parties (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 6. Re: Forms of Bitul (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Re: The Origins of the Non-Jewish Custom Of 'Shlissel Challah' (Key Bread) "The Loaf of Idolatry?" (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: the Origins of the Non-Jewish Custom Of 'Shlissel Challah' (t613k@aol.com)
• 9. Re: Water during a drought (t6...@aol.com)
• 10. Re: Water during a drought (Liron Kopinsky)
• 11. women lighting chanukah candles (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: Haneiros Halallu - Important note (Joel C. Salomon)

> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:55pm CST, R' Naftali Rothstein wrote:
>: I think the main nafka mina is carrots because apples, etc. most people
>: eat the peal and potatoes are usually peeled and (of course) cooked
>: before Shabbos, so the main ochel which we are discussing is a carrot.

[I, Micha, replied: -mod]
> I am not following what you say about "apples, etc." Isn't pesoles defined
> by what I don't want at the moment, regardless of what is generally done?

My point about apples and alike (pears, and similar fruit) was:

Most people eat the peels of those fruits so acc. to the PRM and the
Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa it is considered 'one unit' or "min echad"
and therefore borer doesn't even start as an issue since there is no
ta'aroves.

Your comments were regarding peels that are normally not eaten and are
therefore considered 2 minim and a ta'aroves, since this is where the
borer issues start. And then I pointed out that many vegetables such as
potatoes, in reality are not peeled on Shabbos, just because it needs to
be cooked and usually done before Sabbos. Hence, the main NM would be
for non-eaten peels which are realistically cut and peeled on Shabbos.
One of the few that fits this category is carrots. Hope it's clear
this time.

KT,
NR

-- 
Rabbi Naftali M. Rothstein
OU JLIC Rabbi
University of Illinois

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:47:34AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> I must admit that you have lost me in much of what you wrote.   My  
> search for Carnivale comes up with http://tinyurl.com/7rd9yvg >:-}

The earliest record of Purim costume is late 15th cent Italy, and then
codified by the Mahari Minz (who was in Venice) according to the Rama
(OC 696:8).

I meant Carnival <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival>, which in the
former French Colonies of the US is known as Mardi Gras. Carnival is
almost certainly the origin of dressing up on Purim, as it was already
practiced in Italty by then. And Carnival is the last celebation before
lent, and thus always 6 weeks 4 days before Easter. Thus, usually 2
weeks or so before Purim.

> I do eat fleishigs on Shavuous.  When I come home after davening  
> k"Vo'Sikin, I eat milchigs.  Later we eat fleishigs.

Whit Monday, the Monday after their holiday of Pentacost, is celebrated
in much of central Europe and among Orthodox churches. It is therefore
57 days after Easter, and therefore very close to Shavuos in most
years. Traditional celebration includes dairy products, because in the
region around Rothenberg (ie including what we call Ashkenaz) it's enough
after the grass returned to actually be able to produce cheese and cheese
by then.

> To the best of my knowledge Shlissel Challah was something that was not 
> done by non-Chassidic Jews until Yahadus became Chassidized.  I  
> certainly never have had anything to do with it.  I am sure that it was 
> not practices by RSRH's wife.

So? Does the Chassidish origins of the make it any hard to ignore the
non-Jewish origins than those of some other minhagim? Seems to me
we have a long habit of finding Torah meanings in common practice and
thereby sanctifying them.

Not that I understand how it's mutar...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

On 12/20/2011 3:46 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 20/12/2011 3:56 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
>> *didn't ezra hasofer change the letters?? (and there fore the tagim
>> *were then added??) how then could R. Akiva learn the halachot*
>> *from the tagim (since he came earlier????) or was this a different*
>> *Akiva??*
>
> Rabbi Akiva was at least 400 years *after* Ezra!

That took me aback at first also, but it's just poor use of 
antecedents.  The parenthetical "he" was Ezra.

Lisa

R' Yitzchok Levine reposted from elsewhere:

> From http://mesora.org/segulas.htm
>
> Recently a Jewish newspaper ran an ad selling the promise of
> Divine intervention, commonly called "segulas". For $40 an
> organization called Chasidei Yerushalayim advertised it would
> read Tehillim and Shir HaShirim, promising these recitations to
> afford a "proven segula" or "guaranteed positive change" in
> one's life. Although I know that a wise person well versed in
> Torah texts will immediately dismiss such absurd claims, I was
> bothered by the ad's gross misrepresentation of Torah truths,
> and false hopes sold to ignorant Jews.

I used to be similarly bothered by ads.

But then again, by I've long been bothered by all sorts of advertisements.
For example, I just now opened this past Sunday's Newark Star-Ledger, and
almost the first ad I see says, in part, "WE BUY GOLD! ... We pay more than
anybody!" (Page 30 of the Union County edition)

More than anybody??? Really? How can they possibly know that? Lies! It's all lies! Does the government really let them get away with that?

Yes, indeed, the gov't DOES let them get away with it. The logic is in a
concept called "puffery". In short, although advertisers are not allowed to
lie, customers *expect* certain sorts of exaggerations from the advertiser,
and thus raising the threshold of which lies are impermissible.

My understanding is that Halacha accepts this concept, allowing puffery
when most customers will not take the advertisement literally. My source is
pages 23-29 of Vol 2 of the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, in
an article by Rabbi Aaron Levine. (Available on line at
download.yutorah.org/1981/1053/735658.pdf) He writes there:

"Notwithstanding the deceptive potential of hyperbole in the performance
realm, such statements do not mislead when they are not taken literally.
Provided the public deflates the puffery in the advertising message to such
an extent so as not to interpret the advertiser's claim as ascribing
qualities to the product beyond its objective properties, the message would
be free of any element of deception."

And so, as I wrote above, I *USED* to be bothered by these sorts of ads.
But that is not a problem in the *ads*, because most people understand how
to put such ridiculous claims in the proper context. Rather, the problem
was in *me*, for being too much of a literalist, and not realizing that
most people have more brains than I give them credit for.

I will conclude this rant by noting that in this area of halacha, like in
so many others, we worry only about the average person. If the average
person realizes that these "guarantees" are not truly guaranteed, then
what's going on is not deceptive advertising, but merely standard
salesmanship.

> I've heard of people baking challas with keys inside, or praying
> for 40 days at a precise location, believing this will somehow
> locate their mate, or make them fertile. But I also know God's
> words, "In every place you mention My name, I will come to you
> and bless you." (Exod. 20:21) Thus, God states that location is
> inconsequential.

Is this author serious???? The location of one's prayer is inconsequential????? Do I need to dignify this absurdity by responding with citations?

(Just to clarify, I do believe that the location where one prays can be significant. But that does not guarantee a positive answer to that prayer.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4ef12585653ab2354e50st01vuc

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/766988/_Artists_Vario
us/Ohr_Elyon:_Guide_for_the_traveler_on_Chanukah#.TvDPcSlhSvI.twitter


the one situation not listed  is  the  very common issue  of the hanuka 
party-----    how one safely  lights  ones'  candles when going to the 
[typiclaly] early hanuka  party......   do they  stay home  for  30 min 
then blow them out?    do they light after the party?

maybe this was a secondary reason for no mitzva  seuda on hanuka---- 
candle lighting bizman safely discourages  going  out....  [except  with 
the original outside the house  on the street minhag---  so this is a 
chu'l issue]....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111220/881e2136/attachment-0001.htm>

> : Micha Berger:
> :> So, if you bring the milk back up to the top, visible be'ein, it can
> :> still be eaten with the rest of the chulent?

I replied:
 
> : No, because if it is visible then the visible bit needs to be removed
> and if
> : it is taste able then if a non Jew would be able to taste it and any
> part
> : that has the taste of milk is assur because of ta'am k'ikar...
 And R' Micha Berger:

> So, you're backing off of the notion that the milk was "completely
> overwhelmed by the meat stew and thereby disappearing from
> existence"?

No, it is a earlier step.

The halacha regarding milk disappearing into meat stew and the test being
one of taste as brought in the Shulchan Aruch in siman 98 is sourced from
the gemora in Chullin on 97a.  This is a continuation of the discussion
regarding taste and gid hanashe, neveila and non kosher fish which is
brought in the Mishna on 96b.  The halacha brought in the Mishna is that to
the extent one recognises the prohibited item ie "b'zman shemakiran", one
has to remove it.  One then is left with the question of taste that the
prohibited item has added to the mixture, which the gemora then explains as
being determined by a non Jewish chef. This is then applied by Rava to a
meat pot in which one cooked milk and then the gemora goes on to discuss the
one in sixty rule in lieu of a non Jewish taster and where it applies.

That is, you can't go beyond the actual Mishna.  If you actually can
recognise the bit of issur that has just fallen into the heter, of course
you have to take it out.  And sometimes at the point at which it first
falls, it may indeed by b'ain - you may be able to see white milk on top of
a meat stew, at which point you need to fish it out.  But shortly
thereafter, it is likely to dissolve or disappear.  At that point, all the
commentators start talking about taste, and the taste test, which is set at
one in sixty.  Ie At that point, the milk is "completely overwhelmed by the
meat strew and thereby disappears from existence", which is why we are now
into the taste test scenario.

 >Becuase if so, then the stuff the centrifuge brought to the
> top isn't actually "milk", from a halachic perspective.

That is what I would suspect.  Ie if initially you are able to recognise it,
then this is prior to the bitul happening.  Once bitul has happened, I
believe the language used by the various rishonim is that it is "keino".  I
don't know that they contemplate somebody being able to centrifuge the
mixture to thereby re-separate what has previously been mixed and
undetectable by our taste test.  Some of this seems to me to be discussed in
the context of udders, and one udder falling into a mixture of sixty, and
then into a further mixture of sixty, but I think has to do more with the
unusual characteristics of udders.

On the other hand, and to mix two separate threads, it may be that at heart
this is the macholkus between the machmir and meikil stream when it comes to
bugs.  The point about these bugs is that it is, at least theoretically,
possibly to see them and separate them, even if it takes much effort (and
the use of chemicals).  Perhaps for this reason the machmirim do not regard
this as a genuine ta'arovos on a d'orisa level, and regard the lavin as
still applying, ie there is no bitul b'rov.  While the meikilim presumably
take the view that while if one spots a bug, one would clearly remove it, if
one cannot separate them without significant tircha and sharp eyesight, then
they are sufficiently mixed for bitul d'orisa to apply.  This is only
speculation on my part, however, as I am yet to find anybody who seems to
discuss these as two streams of thought, rather than plump for one or the
other.

> I would think that is that since rov is described by the SA as being
> mevatel beta'aroves, Rashi considers the word for dough (a case of
> mixture) to be a term for safeiq, bitul betaaroves and besafeiq come
> from the same pasuq, etc... there is no reason to think one is more
> "real" than the other. Just as a mi'ut in a mixture loses its identity,
> a mi'ut probability loses its identity.

The problem is that you are throwing bitul d'orisa and d'rabbanan and
different kinds of ta'arovos and probability and different kinds of safek
all into one stew.  Yes, sometimes, according to some people, a mi'ut of
probability loses its identity, and sometimes it doesn't.  Rabbi Meir is
famous for being choshesh l'miuta - he didn't feel it lost its identity, the
other Rabbis disagreed.  Conversely, when we were discussing the possibility
of the barrel breaking and the teruma being lost, Rabbi Meir was not worried
about this possibility, and the other Rabbis were.  Saying safek d'orisa
l'chumra means that we are worried about a possibility, even if it may not
be in reality a majority possibility, although perhaps you will say it is
deemed so by the application of kavua.  I understand you are trying to get
to a "grand theory of everything" but I don't know that we can get there.

> And the notion that probabilities can recombine according to most
> shitos
> in at least some situations doesn't prove a thing one way or the other,
> if you're willing to say you can undo bitul betaaroves as well. This is
> tangential to my main point, but what we're discussing here.

Still don't understand what you are getting at here.

> Similarly, even WRT taaroves, if we're talking about carrying a
> taaroves that has a mi'ut tamei, it's like eating all 3 pieces of fat at
once --
> there is no bitul. It's only touching the mixture or eating one bite at
> a time where we have bitul in a taaroves.

This is not the view of the Rosh.  The Rosh distinguishes between the case
of tumah and the case of eating.  He has to do this to deal with the gemora
in Bechoros, but he does this to work with the pasuk.  Other rishonim
understand the din of tumah and the din of eating to be the same, but that
means they are forced to have a different understanding of the pasuk.  But,
even the Rashba, whose shita about eating one bite at a time this is -
agrees that you can (a) l'chatchila add 60 pieces (actually presumably 58,
you already have two) the mixture ie bring it up to 1/60 *l'chatchila* and
(b) *then* you can eat the resultant mixture in one bite (or cook it
together, which amounts to the same thing).  Ie bitul in sixty (or taste)
which is what we have in the drop of milk in a meat stew case, is different
from bitul b'rov, the bitul is sufficient that you can even eat the whole
thing.  

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:45:25PM -0500, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: R' YL:
: > See http://www.alfassa.com/bread.html  and the download there.
: 
: Don't miss the citation to listowner R' MB...
: Lakewood. :-)

He writes:
    While the custom is said to be mentioned in the writings of
    Avraham Yehoshua Heshel (the "Apter Rav" -- 1748-1825) and in the
    Ta'amei haMinhagim (1891), there is no one clear source for shlissel
    challah. And while people will say there is a passuq attributed to
    it, there is not. And, even if there were, a passuq that can be
    linked to the practice is not the same as a source. Micha Berger,
    founder of the AishDas Society, [orthodox] calls this type of logic
    "reverse engineering," it's like drawing a circle 
    around an arrow in a tree, and subsequently 
    declaring the arrow is a bullseye. [17]

    [17] See aishdas.org/avodah/vol25/v25n384.shtml & 
    aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n067.shtml#03

But if you see those two posts, you will not actually find an objection
to such practices. I share concerns with a Judaism overly focused on al
menas leqabel peras, and people who look for metaphysical causal ways
of getting their way. Focus on the beris, doing retzono, and He will
do retzonkha. But this quote has nothing to do with it.

So let's see http://aishdas.org/avodah/vol25/v25n384.shtml :
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 09:02:06AM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
>: Does this not all sound very much like reverse engineering or drawing the
>: target after having shot the arrow?

> Yes, it does. Taamei hamitzvos are lessons drawn from halakhah -- very
> much after the arrow is shot. One doesn't darshen halakhah from the
> taam. It might be useful as a factor when choosing between two shitos or
> sevaros. But only one formal halachic process actually "shot the arrow"
> and the question is still unresolved.

And http://aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n067.shtml#03 where I actually
discuss shlissl challah on the Shabbos following Pesach:
> Sourdough is hard to come by this week, as it takes over a week to
> ferment. The other source of yeast frequently used before the Fleishman's
> figured out how to isolate it is barm, a sideproduct of making bear.
> But barm has more yeast and is more reactive than they were used to,
> and would make softer more floury bread than sourdough. Most metals kill
> yeast, although stainless steel doesn't. So they put a piece of metal
> into the challah to kill some of the extra yeast off.

> Then, once people did it, they reverse-engineered kavanos for the
> practice.

But I have no problem with reverse engineering, as long as you're not
using it to make halakhah. It's a great way to create spiritual excercises,
ways of staying inspired. Or, in frum-speak: minhagim and other hanhagos
tovos.

IOW, if the practice helps someone think of "pischu Li pesach kechudo shel
machat..." or of the need to keep shaarei Shamayim even as Pesach ends,
or the mafteiach shel parnasah at a time when we the mun began to fall,
more power to 'em.

The question of whether I should care more about what the Rambam condemned
than the clear acceptant of many practices in the generations since
is also central to defining the halachic process. I think he comes down
on the wrong side of that split.

:                                             or the great reference to
: Lakewood. :-)

We use simanim on RH. Why not shlissl challah as a means to think
about He Who never shares the key to parnasah as a similar kavanah
aid?

Last, the key is related to cross, and thus shlisl challah like a cross
bun thing is a huge stretch. 

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Re: [Avodah] The Origins of the Non-Jewish Custom Of
        'Shlissel Challah' (Key Bread) "The Loaf of Idolatry?"

From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgl...@gmail.com>


R' YL:
See http://www.alfassa.com/bread.html  and the download there.
---------------------


Lakewood. :-)

KT,
MYG



>>>
I never heard of any such thing as a shlissel challah until I moved to
Florida -- not growing up in NY, not when I lived in South Africa and not
in Australia.  However, today it has become very popular world-wide.	I
am only mildly surprised to find that it apparently has a Christian origin,
but since the origin is long forgotten there doesn't seem to be much harm
in it.	Not much use in it, either. 


I think the author of the article goes too far in dismissing the very idea
of segulah altogether.	 A segulah with no associated tefillah is probably
worthless and maybe even harmful, as it seems to reduce Judaism to magic
and spells.  But a tefillah together with some kind of act may well have
greater force -- if only in concentrating the mind and emotions of the
person who is praying -- than a regular tefillah without an attached act.  




--Toby Katz




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


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111220/afc16964/attachment-0001.htm>

M
From: Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopin...@gmail.com>

Ber 43:24
 ???????? ??????? ???-???????????, ??????? ??????; ?????????-?????
???????????? ??????????, ????????? ????????? ????????????.*24* And the man
brought the men into Joseph's house, and gave them water, and they washed
their feet; and he gave their asses provender.

Does anyone comment on the use of water here to wash their feet during the
drought? I don't see anything in the Mikraot Gedolot I have here.

Kol Tuv,
-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com






>>>>>
What makes you think there was a drought?  There was a famine -- presumably
a crop failure -- but the cause of the crop failure is not mentioned --
maybe insects or some kind of blight?  At any rate, Egypt never has a
drought because it is not dependent on rain, it is dependent on the Nile.


--Toby Katz




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



 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111221/9f40bccb/attachment-0001.htm>

Me Originally:

Ber 43:24
 ???????? ??????? ???-???????????, ??????? ??????; ?????????-?????
???????????? ??????????, ????????? ????????? ????????????. *24* And the man
brought the men into Joseph's house, and gave them water, and they washed
their feet; and he gave their asses provender.

Does anyone comment on the use of water here to wash their feet during the
drought? I don't see anything in the Mikraot Gedolot I have here.


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 7:33 AM, <t6...@aol.com> wrote
>
> What makes you think there was a drought?	There was a famine --
> presumably a crop failure -- but the cause of the crop failure is not
> mentioned -- maybe insects or some kind of blight?  At any rate, Egypt
> never has a drought because it is not dependent on rain, it is
> dependent on the Nile
>
>
This is the most common comment that I have received on my question, and it
is a good one. There are two reasons why I am bothered by it:
1) The famine reached well beyond Egypt, into areas that have nothing
agriculturally to do with the Nile. Theoretically insects or crop disease
is possible, but I have never heard any mention of those in the past.
2) Pharoah's dream mentions that he was standing Al Sefat haYeor. It seems
to me that both the years of plenty and years of drought are tied to the
production of the Nile. But then why would the famine extend beyond the
reach of the Nile? I would suppose that it would be due to a general lack
of rain in the whole area, which in turn caused the Nile to not overflow
its banks.

One answer to my question that I thought of is that in general crops grow
on certain cycles, taking all of their water during particular times of the
year. So if the brothers were coming to Yosef after this years (failed)
crops would have taken their water, then there is no need for any
subsequent water and no issue with using the surplus.

Kol Tuv,
Liron

> .
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111221/b7e01f55/attachment-0001.htm>

Prof. Levine asks

<<Question:  Given that today most people do not light their menora
outside in the street,  is the reason given by the CS for women not
lighting still valid?  Also, if the husband is lighting outside in
the street and the women are inside,  can he be motzi them?  I recall
that in one shul the rov insisted that men not daven in the ladies
section, because he felt that if they davened there, they were not
counted as part of the minyan.  >>

The candles are lit for the entire family. Thus, according to many poskim
if the husband is working late the wife should light candles at nightfall
even though the husband is miles away or even in another country and even
in another time zone.

RYBS and Rav Lichtenstein both pasken that the wife should light candles in
addition to the husband (according to the Ashkenazi custom) and so Rav
Lichtenstein's wife (RYBS' daughter) lights her own candles

see
http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/salt-bereishit/10-5miketz.htm

in Hebrew see
http://www.lookstein.org/articles/women_and_chanukah.pdf
http://www.etzion.org.il/vbm/archive/10-halak/06nashim_hanuka.php

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20111221/d17e2b5e/attachment.htm>

On 12/19/2011 09:50 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> The Magen Avraham (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 676, seif katan 2)
> writes that one recites 36 words in Haneiros Halallu (corresponding to
> the 36 neiros, excluding the shamesh, lit on Chanukah).  In most
> editions of the Siddur that we know of, the Nusach contains more than 36
> words.  A copy of the published nusach of the prayer consisting of
> exactly 36 words, which is found in the Siddur Rashban, is available at
> the following link: <http://tinyurl.com/33uv5d>

The text in Maseches Soferim is also shorter than the version in our
siddurim, but a bit over 36 words.  (41, counting both instances of
?????? (?)????;  otherwise, 37.)

See <http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22498&;st=&pgnum=340> et
seq.  The order of the berachos is different, and ?Haneiros? is attached
to the first berocho.

????  ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??
???? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????
???? ????? (?) ?????? ?? (?) ????? ????? (?) ??? ??? ??????? ?? ???????
?? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ???
????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???
?????? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ????
????? ???? ???? ????????. ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???
???? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ????
??????

???? ??????
(?) *?????? ??* ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?????. ?????
??? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ????
(?) *????? ????? ????* ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ? ??????.  ???
????? ???? ??? ????? ???????
(?) *???* ????? ???? ???? ????. ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????
????? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?????. ??????
????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??????. ????
??????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????????. ????? ????? ?????
 ???????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????????. ??????? ????
?? ?? ???? ????? ?????

It?s interesting to note that the Siddur Rashban version Prof. Levine
pointed to has ????? ????? where the common text today is ?????? ?????
and the Maseches Soferim version is ?????? ????.  Mikra Soferim also
quoted from the Magen Avraham (not mentioned by Prof. Levine) that the
first two words have eight letters (corresponding to the 8 days of
Channuka), which also only holds for the Maseches Soferim version.

--Chesky


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 253
***************************************

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..."