Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 145

Tue, 23 Oct 2012

• 1. Re: Why a Rainbow? (David Riceman)
• 2. Why a Rainbow? (M Cohen)
• 3. Re: Mar Cheshvan? (T6...@aol.com)
• 4. Dikduk: Pronunciation of Chirik kattan followed by a dagesh-ed consonant (h Lampel)
• 5. Pronunciation Of Hebrew Benedictions, And Two Other Questions (Jay F Shachter)
• 6. Re: Pronunciation Of Hebrew Benedictions, And Two Other Questions (Simon Montagu)
• 7. Re: Mar Cheshvan? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Kol Isha [was Police arrest Women of the Wall leader for singing (Transferred to Avodah)] (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: Canned Foods (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 10. Re: Canned Foods (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Hakhel Correction about Mar Cheshvan (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Hakhel Correction about Mar Cheshvan (Rafi Hecht)

RYF:

<<Rav Simcha Zissel - in his writings - says a very interesting
thing. When we see a rainbow, our reaction is "beautiful". We
admire the colors, the shape, the impact, and so forth. We
admire the rainbow and are inspired by it. Consider the
audacity of this typical reaction. G-d is Angry. He is placing
a rainbow in the sky as a message to us to get serious, to
repent, and beseech His Mercy. What is our reaction?
"Beautiful!" This is the great chutzpah of staring admiringly
at a rainbow.>>

RAM:

<<My chavrusa asked a very simple question: If so, then why did He
choose the beautiful rainbow for this message? Wouldn't something scary be
more effective?>>

There's a machlokes in the midrashim here, but at least one version of the
story is that the world was destroyed because Noah didn't persuade its
inhabitants to ameliorate their behavior.  In which case the beauty of the
rainbow is indeed the point: Noah was so entranced by the beauty of his own
internal world that he didn't try to change the external world as it was. 
And the gemara is saying "don't stare at the glory of heaven, focus on the
problems here on earth".

David Riceman

I have also wondered for v many years why such a beautiful thing is used to
remind of our sins, to do tshuva, etc

 

I never found a good answer, except that I heard from RAMiller on tape many
years ago where he commented that both c/be independently true

Ie we can appreciate its beauty, but at the same time its coming to remind
of our sins, to tshuva, etc

Mordechai cohen

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121021/b276a74c/attachment-0001.htm>

 

From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>

The following  is from today's Hakhel Email Bulletin.


"Actually, the name of the  month is one word, Marcheshvan. ...
"The origin of the name, like all of our  month names, is from Akkadian --
the language spoken in Bavel during our  galus there. (Yerushalmi Rosh
haShanah 1:2 vilna ed. 6a, Ramban Shemos 12:2)  The original Akkadian is
actually 'Warachsamnu', a portomento of 'warach'  (yareiach / month) +
'samnu' (shemini / eighth). The split, if there were  one, would be after
the ches, not before.....
 
"(This is a real problem. There are batei din that avoid writing  gittin
in the month after Nisan rather than get involved in the machloqes  of
spelling Iyar vs. Iyyar.)"





>>>>>
 
 
R' Ari Zivitofsky wrote about this in Jewish Action Fall 2000 but I  
couldn't find a link. I did find a link to what appears to be a summary of  "What?
s the Truth about? ?Mar Cheshvan? ? - Jewish Action"
 


_http://www.ou.org/jewish_action/10/2012/whats-the-truth-about-mar-c
heshvan/
_ 
(http://www.ou.org/jewish_action/10/2012/whats-the-truth-about-mar-
cheshvan/) 
 

--quote--
 
Marcheshvan is probably derived from its location in the calendar. In  
Akkadian (Babylonian/Assyrian), ?w? (vav) and ?m? (mem) sounds  can 
interchange. As a result, Marcheshvan which is from the two words ?m?rach?  and ?
shvan,? would have been ?warh? and ?shman,? in Akkadian, corresponding to  
the Hebrew ?yerech shmini,? thus ?eighth month.? In the Yemenite  tradition, 
the name of the month is pronounced Marach-sha?wan, not Mar-cheshvan  as in 
the Ashkenazic tradition, and this would seem to preserve a greater  
fidelity to the original.....
 
....This misconception has halachic implications. Since the mistaken  
practice of simply calling the month Cheshvan is so widespread, either Cheshvan  
or the two word Mar Cheshvan is now acceptable, post-facto, if erroneously 
used  in a legal document such as a get (Aruch Hashulchan, Even  Ha?ezer 
127:17). The Ramah (Even Ha?ezer 127:7) lists only  Marcheshvan as the month?s 
name and does not give the halachah if one  wrote either just Cheshvan or 
the two word Mar Cheshvan. Others even accept  post-facto the Biblical name of 
the month, ?Bul,? if it was used in a document.  The Aruch Hashulchan 
states that the halachah is the same for  the imprecise ?Menachem Av? (Even Ha?
ezer 127:16).
 

--end quote--
 

 

--Toby  Katz
=============



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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121021/a642cf7d/attachment-0001.htm>

Recently someone told me that when a chirik kattan is followed by a 
consonant with a dagesh in it (such as in "ishah" or ''mipnei,'') the 
pronunciation of the chirik changes to the tenuah gedolah version--''Ee" 
as in "meet" rather than "i" as in "mit.''

I never heard of this, and it strikes me as illogical: Aderaba: the 
purpose of the dagesh is to both close the tenuah ketana sound and to 
begin the next syllable; if the chirik were a tenuah gedolah sound it 
would not need a closing.

Does anyone know of authoritative sources for either claim? (No replies 
of ''Well, how do you say this word or that word,'' please. The way 
people or I pronounce things can go either way on this.)


---Zvi Lampel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121021/3f86f11c/attachment-0001.htm>

Several recent postings on the Avodah mailing list seem to have raised
the question of whether the benedictions in our prayer book were
composed in Biblical Hebrew (which has, e.g., pausal forms) or in
Rabbinic Hebrew (which has not).

They were obviously composed in Rabbinic Hebrew.  You don't need a
prayerbook with vowel markings and stress indications to know that.
You can see it just from the letters: we say mshanneh habriyyoth, not
mshanneh habbri'oth.  It's the same reason why we have a Massekheth
Horayyoth, and not a Massekheth Hora'oth.

This fact, however, does not answer all questions about the proper
pronunciation of the benedictions.  Here's one that it does not
answer:  What is the correct pronunciation of the word hammotsi' in
the benediction over bread?

The question, of course, presupposes that there is a correct
pronunciation of a benediction, which is a debatable proposition.  The
law is that you may recite a benediction in any language that you
understand.  If you can recite a benediction in English, it stands to
reason that you can also recite it in bad Hebrew.  In your prayer book
(unless your prayer book contains, e.g., the text of the xalitza
ceremony) the only thing that has to be recited in Hebrew is the
priestly blessing, and this is probably the real reason why Ashkenazi
congregations do not recite the priestly blessing, except on major
festivals (the Ashkenazi rabbis were probably unable to suppress the
recitation completely).

We can still pose the question, however, even if we take the position
that there is no "correct" pronunciation of a prayer which may be
recited in any language.  We can still ask, How was hammotsi'
pronounced by the Sages who composed the benediction over bread?

Biblical Hebrew tries to avoid two consecutive stressed syllables, so
in Biblical Hebrew, the word hammotsi' followed by the word lexem
would be accented on the penultimate syllable.  The benedictions,
however, were composed in Rabbinic Hebrew, and Rabbinic Hebrew (and
modern spoken Hebrew) has no such rule.  In Rabbinic Hebrew (and
modern spoken Hebrew), you should accent hammotsi' on the ultimo,
regardless of what word comes next.

But there's a complication.  The entire four-word phrase "hammotsi'
lexem min ha'aretz" (or should that be "ha'eretz"?) is obviously a
paraphrase of Psalms 104:14, a piece of Biblical Hebrew where the word
lhotzi' is stressed on the penultimate.  When you recite a
Rabbinical-Hebrew benediction containing a clear Biblical allusion,
should you follow Biblical stress patterns?  The question can be asked
in other contexts too.  On Saturday morning, when you sing "vsham
yanuxu ygi`ey khoax" (if comparing the joy of Shabbath to death is
your thing), should you stress ygi`ey on the penultimate, because that
is how it is pronounced in Job 3:17, or should you stress it on the
ultimo, which is the correct pronunciation in Rabbinic, and modern
spoken, Hebrew?

I notice that when I am speaking English, and I quote a phrase from
Chaucer, I pronounce it the way Chaucer pronounced it, but when I
quote a phrase from Shakespear, I do not pronounce it the way
Shakespear pronounced it, I pronounce the words the way they are
pronounced in modern spoken English.  What's the difference between
quoting, or paraphrasing, Chaucer, and quoting, or paraphrasing,
Shakespear?  I'm not sure.  But I think the difference is that when a
Chaucerian phrase appears in a Shachterian sentence, everyone
recognizes that it is a quote, or a paraphrase.  It is always
surrounded, so to speak, by double quotes.  Many phrases from
Shakespear, in contrast, have become household words.  They appear in
text without double quotes around them, and many people use them
without even knowing their origin.

So, the correct pronunciation of "hammotsi' lexem", or of "ygi`ey
khoax", may depend on whether you are thinking of their Biblical
origins when you utter them.  If you are -- i.e., if you are
pronouncing them, so to speak, inside double quotes -- then you should
accent hammotsi' and ygi`ey on the penultimate.  If you are not, then
you should accent them on the ultimo.

Here's another question, only a little related to the first, but it's
been on my mind.  The second benediction of the Friday night qiddush
contains the phrase "ki hu yom txilla lmiqra'ey qodesh" and this is
very obviously an allusion to Leviticus 23:2-37, where our holy days
are called "miqra'ey qodesh" and Shabbath is the first one listed
(Leviticus 23:2, 23:4 and 23:37 are the only places in the Bible where
that phrase appears).  Now here there is no difference between
Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew, so you don't have to worry about where
to place the stress on the words when you recite the qiddush.  Both
Rabbinic Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew agree that "miqra'ey" is accented
on the ultimo.  But why?  As my esteemed colleague Shulm Feldman, he
should live and be well, has pointed out to me, in Biblical Hebrew,
which avoids two consecutive stressed syllables, the stress of
miqra'ey should shift to the penultimate.  Yet Leviticus 23:2, 23:4
and 23:37 are all in agreement that no such shift occurs; in all cases
the word is stressed on the ultimo.  I don't know why, and I don't
know anyone who knows why.

One last question, unrelated to the first two, but as long as I have
your attention: Why do we say 'anshei khnesseth haggdolah?
"Haggdolah" is unquestionably an adjective, so you can't compare the
phrase to "lshon hara`" or "`eyn hara`" where one noun is modified by
another noun.  So why don't we say "'anshei hakknesseth haggdolah"
with the definite article in front of both the noun and the adjective,
as required by Biblical Hebrew, Rabbinic Hebrew, modern spoken Hebrew,
and everything in between?  I don't know that one, either.


                Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                6424 N Whipple St
                Chicago IL  60645-4111
                        (1-773)7613784   landline
                        (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                        j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                        http://m5.chicago.il.us

                "The umbrella of the gardener's aunt is in the house"

Two points in response to this interesting message:

I think it's mistaken to treat the question whether the berachot in
the siddur are in Biblical or Rabbinical Hebrew as a binary issue
which can be answered one way or another. Better, I think, to say that
the siddur is in "Siddur Hebrew", or "Knesset Hagedola Hebrew", which
is a transitional form between Biblical and Rabbinical Hebrew, with
elements of both and characteristic features of ts own.

> They were obviously composed in Rabbinic Hebrew.  You don't need a
> prayerbook with vowel markings and stress indications to know that.
> You can see it just from the letters: we say mshanneh habriyyoth, not
> mshanneh habbri'oth.

There are also cases where one might say they were obviously composed
in Biblical Hebrew, since their vocabulary is different from the
Rabbinic texts in which they appear: "`al peri ha'ilan 'omer 'borei
peri ha`etz'".

>
> One last question, unrelated to the first two, but as long as I have
> your attention: Why do we say 'anshei khnesseth haggdolah?
> "Haggdolah" is unquestionably an adjective, so you can't compare the
> phrase to "lshon hara`" or "`eyn hara`" where one noun is modified by
> another noun.  So why don't we say "'anshei hakknesseth haggdolah"
> with the definite article in front of both the noun and the adjective,
> as required by Biblical Hebrew, Rabbinic Hebrew, modern spoken Hebrew,
> and everything in between?  I don't know that one, either.

There are a bunch of cases where the line between noun+adjective and
construct-noun+noun blurs, e.g. "sheva parot hatovot" in Pharaoh's
dream (Gen 41:26)

Hakhel did take ownership of the mistake of reposting my words without
double-checking.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 04:56:01AM -0400, Hakhel Organization wrote:
: CORRECTION!  Several days ago, we published the words of a reader who
: wrote that because the proper name of the month is Marcheshvan, if in a
: gett only the word Cheshvan was written, the gett would be pasul. Another
: reader subsequently wrote that while the Aruch HaShulchan (Even HaEzer
: 126:17) does discuss the invalidity of a gett if the words Mar and Cheshvan
: were divided, the Aruch HaShulchan does in fact write that if the word
: Cheshvan alone was used for the month, the gett would be kasher, for
: although it may not be the true name of the month, this is the way people
: refer to the month.  Although we hope that no one is paskening Hilchos
: Geirushin (or any halachos) from our Bulletins without consulting with his
: Rav or Posek, we do take responsibility for the initial reader error -- and
: we seize the moment to reiterate our lesson of Mar -- being a Master over
: yourself and not letting the Yetzer Hora make inroads after the first
: thought, the first sight or the first negative words that you hear -- if we
: take this lesson with us out of MarCheshvan -- how sweet it will really be!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org        once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

At 10:04 AM 10/22/2012, Lisa Liel  wrote [on Areivim]:

>Men aren't allowed to daven when women are singing.

In the Young Israel where I run the Shabbos 
morning Hashkama minyan, some of the women who 
attend the main minyan sing fairly 
loudly.  Indeed, one of the men who began to 
regularly attend the Hashkama minyan told me he 
did so because of the "loud singing of the women 
at the main minyan." For the record,  his wife 
also attends the Hashkama Minyan with him.  In 
general,  she is the only woman in the Ladies 
Section who davens at 7:15 AM with us.

 From http://tinyurl.com/97wm942 it is not at all 
clear to me that women singing in shul is permitted.  There it says

"There is, however, considerable disagreement 
regarding the scope of the Kol Isha prohibition. 
For example, the question of its applicability to 
Zemirot has been discussed at some length in the 
twentieth century responsa literature. Rav 
Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg (Teshuvot Seridei Eish 
2:8) notes that traditionally women refrained 
from singing Zemirot when there were males who 
were not family members sitting at the Shabbat 
table. However, he records that the practice in 
Germany was for woman to sing Zemirot in the 
company of unrelated men. Rav Weinberg records 
that Rav Azriel Hildesheimer and Rav Samson 
Raphael Hirsch (two great German Rabbis of the 
nineteenth century) sanctioned this practice. Rav 
Weinberg reports that they based their ruling on 
the Talmudic rule (Megila 21b) that ?Trei Kali Lo 
Mishtamai,? two voices cannot be heard simultaneously.

<Snip>

Accordingly, the question of whether the Kol Isha 
prohibition applies to Zemirot remains 
unresolved. Chareidi communities in Israel and 
North America generally follow the stringent view 
on this matter and Modern Orthodox communities in 
Israel and North America generally follow the 
tradition of German Jewry in this regard. It 
seems appropriate, though, not to expand this 
leniency and permit situations beyond that which 
the German Poskim specifically authorized ? a 
group of men and women singing Zemirot together.

See more on this at http://tinyurl.com/9f7gzvl

 From http://tinyurl.com/9c2gg7n

The Israeli media recently reported the story of 
an observant singer, Eliyahu Faizkov, whose 
high-pitched singing vocals have been banned from 
some religious radio stations. Apparently, some 
listeners had objected, assuming that they were 
listening to the voice of woman.

See the above URL  for more.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121022/898dc164/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Jay F. Shachter:
First of all, the correct term is bishul nokhri, not bishul `aqum.
To insist on the distinction is more than pedantry: if you call it bishul
`aqum you are telling people that the law does not apply to Muslims or
atheists, and you are being mgalleh fanim battorah shelo k'halakha.
--------------------



KT,
MYG

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 03:48:44AM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: R' Jay F. Shachter:
:> First of all, the correct term is bishul nokhri, not bishul `aqum.
:> To insist on the distinction is more than pedantry: if you call it bishul
:> `aqum you are telling people that the law does not apply to Muslims or
:> atheists, and you are being mgalleh fanim battorah shelo k'halakha.

: No you are not. Common usage equates "akum" and "nochri." 

I agree that no one today is likely to make this mistake. Particular since
"bishul `aqum" is a term of art that, like any idiom, means something
indepedendent of its components words.

Still, I worry that RJFS may eventually prove to be right. In some
circles, the Me'iri is increasingly being invoked to dismiss the
applicability of many of the gemara's statements about how to treat
aku"m by saying that the nakhriim we encounter usually aren't aku"m. And
since there is a change in behavior afoot being justified on the term
aku"m, I wonder if someome wouldn't make the same case about bishul aku"m,
gevinas aku"m, etc... Even though the Beis haBechirah explicitly says
otherwise when explaining AZ 38b.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:37:04AM -0400, Rafi Hecht wrote:
: That's what I thought. Whatever the populace calls it makes it Kosher. It
: could be a set of names, but enough people need to call the month by those
: names for it to be Kasher. Therefore, we have:
: 
: Cheshvan (which I learned in school to say)
: Mar Cheshvan
: Marcheshvan
: Marachshwan
: Bul

: And all are good! I wonder though if "HaChodesh HaShmini" also works today?

You conflate bedi'eved and lehcat-chilah. The point I missed was that
the AhS "only" says lekhat-chilah, one should write the actual name of
the month "Marcheshvan". (Marachshewan has the same spelling -- there
is no niqud in a gett.) The others are not the name of the month and
are not "good", only acceptable bedi'eved because bedi'eved the gett
is still kosher if anyone reading it would know which month it was,
even if not named. Bedi'eved isn't good, its tolerable.

With the exception of Bul, which is a month name but has the different
problem of ignoring a taqanah that dates back the beginning of Bayis
Sheini of commemorating the return from Bavel with our month names.
I would assume "haChodesh haShemini" would have the same din as "Bul".

: 
: Best Regards,
: 
: Rafi Hecht
: *rhe...@gmail.com* <rhe...@gmail.com>
: 416-276-6925
: -------------------------------------------------------
: *Profiles*
: -------------------------------------------------------
: *
: *
: *LinkedIN:* *http://ca.linkedin.com/in/
: rafihecht*<;http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rafi
: hecht>
: *Facebook:* *http://www.facebook.com/rhecht*
: <;http://www.facebook.com/rhecht&
: gt;
: *Twitter:* *https://www.twitter.com/#
: !/rafihecht*<;https://www.twitter.com/#!/ra
: fihecht>
: *Personal Site:* *www.rafihecht.com* <http://www.rafihecht.com>
: -------------------------------------------------------
: *Blogs*
: ------------------------------------------------------- *
: *
: *Tekkie Blog:* *www.rjhsolutions.ca* <http://www.rjhsolutions.ca>
: *Jewish Blog:* *www.mywesternwall.net* <http://www.mywesternwall.net>
: -------------------------------------------------------
: *Favorite Quotes*
: -------------------------------------------------------
: 
:    1. Never Trust a Computer You Can't Throw Out a Window - Steve Wozniak
:    2. This is your life. Do what you like and do it often... I wonder what
:    it's like shooting spitballs at everyone? - Anon
: 
: 
: 
: 
: On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:
: 
: >  The following is from today's Hakhel email bulletin.
: >
: > *CORRECTION!  *Several days ago, we published the words of a reader who
: > wrote that because the proper name of the month is Marcheshvan, if in a
: > gett only the word Cheshvan was written, the gett would be *pasul.*Another reader subsequently wrote that while the Aruch HaShulchan (Even
: > HaEzer 126:17) does discuss the invalidity of a gett if the words Mar and
: > Cheshvan were divided, the Aruch HaShulchan does in fact write that if the
: > word Cheshvan alone was used for the month, the gett would be *kasher,*for although it may not be the true name of the month, this is the way
: > people refer to the month.  Although we hope that no one is paskening *Hilchos
: > Geirushin* (or any halachos) from our Bulletins without consulting with
: > his Rav or Posek, we do take responsibility for the initial reader
: > error--and we seize the moment to reiterate our lesson of *Mar*--*being a Master
: > over yourself and not letting the Yetzer Hora make inroads after the first
: > thought, the first sight or the first negative words that you hear-*-if
: > we take this lesson with us out of *MarCheshvan*--*how sweet it will
: > really be*!
: >
: >

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

That's what I thought. Whatever the populace calls it makes it Kosher. It
could be a set of names, but enough people need to call the month by those
names for it to be Kasher. Therefore, we have:

Cheshvan (which I learned in school to say)
Mar Cheshvan
Marcheshvan
Marachshwan
Bul


And all are good! I wonder though if "HaChodesh HaShmini" also works today?

Best Regards,

Rafi Hecht
*rhe...@gmail.com* <rhe...@gmail.com>
416-276-6925
-------------------------------------------------------
*Profiles*
-------------------------------------------------------
*
*
*LinkedIN:* *http://ca.linkedin.com/in/ra
fihecht*<;http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rafihe
cht>
*Facebook:* *http://www.facebook.com/rhecht*&l
t;http://www.facebook.com/rhecht>
;
*Twitter:* *https://www.twitter.com/#!/
rafihecht*<;https://www.twitter.com/#!/rafi
hecht>
*Personal Site:* *www.rafihecht.com* <http://www.rafihecht.com>
-------------------------------------------------------
*Blogs*
------------------------------------------------------- *
*
*Tekkie Blog:* *www.rjhsolutions.ca* <http://www.rjhsolutions.ca>
*Jewish Blog:* *www.mywesternwall.net* <http://www.mywesternwall.net>
-------------------------------------------------------
*Favorite Quotes*
-------------------------------------------------------


   2. This is your life. Do what you like and do it often... I wonder what
   it's like shooting spitballs at everyone? - Anon




On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:

>  The following is from today's Hakhel email bulletin.
>
> *CORRECTION!  *Several days ago, we published the words of a reader who
> wrote that because the proper name of the month is Marcheshvan, if in a
> gett only the word Cheshvan was written, the gett would be *pasul.*Another reader subsequently wrote that while the Aruch HaShulchan (Even
> HaEzer 126:17) does discuss the invalidity of a gett if the words Mar and
> Cheshvan were divided, the Aruch HaShulchan does in fact write that if the
> word Cheshvan alone was used for the month, the gett would be *kasher,*for although it may not be the true name of the month, this is the way
> people refer to the month.  Although we hope that no one is paskening *Hilchos
> Geirushin* (or any halachos) from our Bulletins without consulting with
> his Rav or Posek, we do take responsibility for the initial reader
> error--and we seize the moment to reiterate our lesson of *Mar*--*being a Master
> over yourself and not letting the Yetzer Hora make inroads after the first
> thought, the first sight or the first negative words that you hear-*-if
> we take this lesson with us out of *MarCheshvan*--*how sweet it will
> really be*!
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20121023/edd1acf3/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 145
***************************************

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..."