Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 074

Thursday, December 21 2000

• Re: Habituation in Halakaha
• Mincha on Erev Shabbos Chanuka
• Re: Mincha on Erev Shabbos Chanuka
• Re: Halachic History and Halachic Process
• Re: Dor Revi'i and TSBP
• Ashrei
• Shellahanukka
• An Onen on Chanukah
• Re: zemer lechanuka
• Re: Davening Daniel
• Re: Davening Daniel
• Kashrus and chilul Hashem
• RE: Chilul Hashem, Goyim and Shaving
• RE: Kashrus and chilul Hashem
• RE: Chilul Hashem, Goyim and Shaving
• Tfillin on Chol haMoed
• Re: Tfillin on Chol haMoed
• Tfillin on Chol Hamoad in Yerushalayim?
• Re: Tfillin on Chol Hamoad in Yerushalayim?
• RE: Tfillin on Chol Hamoad in Yerushalayim?
• RE: Tfillin on Chol Hamoad in Yerushalayim?
• RE: Ashrei
• RE: Neir Chanukah
• RE: Ashrei
• Re: Tfillin on Chol Hamoad in Yerushalayim?

Re R. Henkin's items on habituation in halakaha: something is missing. 

The posting does not include my challenge to his thesis, which appeared
in Tradition 34:1; nor does it include my challenge to his response to
my challenge, which will be appearing in the next issue of Tradition.

[REF and I had a conversation about this in private email. He feels that
this not only presents just one side, but unfairly prejudices the audience
against the other. -mi]

 -Emanuel Feldman

From: "Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com>
> Has anyone heard of such a shita?

	Per Rabbi Neustadt's Halacha page this week, the shitas haPri
Megadim is that if you can't get a minyan before, daven with a minyan
after hadlaka rather than biychidus before.

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

:> L'chatchila, one should daven mincha on erev Shabbos Chanuka before
:> lighting his menorah...

> Is that not only when Chanukah begins, like last year, IIRC, Friday night? 
> Which leads, if not done as above, to the predicament that generates RSZA's 
> chiddush below.

No, the inyan of davening mincha before lighting the menorah is applicable
to every Shabbos Chanuka.  See OC MB 679:2.

I'm still looking for a shita that holds it is better to daven b'yechidus
before hadlaka.  RGD noted that R' Neustadt does not mention such a shita
(see: http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5759/miketz.html )
but I don't think R' Neustadt cites every shita.

RHM:  Do you know who these poskim are?  ("Many if not most Poskim (brought
down by the MB, I believe) say it is better to Daven Mincha B'Yichidus on
Erev Shabbos because...")

KT
Aryeh

On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:47:43AM -0500, jjbaker@panix.com wrote:
: One idea that has been batted around on this list is the question whether
: or not we can separate our academic pursuit of halachic history from our
: practice and our loyalty to the halahic system, the halachic process....

: OK, so now the non-detachers might think, we have support in that one 
: of the "heterodox" movements holds this position, therefore maybe we should
: suspect it.

: On the other hand, consider the following from Dayan Dr. I. Grunfeld's
: introduction to RSRH's Horeb, pp. li-lii:

This quote contrasts halachah with aggadita. The meaning of the latter term
is unclear, since DDIG writes:
:: of its validity.  This view, which Hirsch made abundantly clear in his 
:: Foreword to the Horeb, coincides with the view of Shemuel HaNagid,
:: expressed in his famous Introduction to the Talmud.  It has aptly been
:: said that Shemathetha and Aggadetha--i.e., the law and the meditations 
:: on its motives...

So he means either ta'amei hamitvos, or aggadita in the normal usage. I
could see arguing that to a true Hirschian, all of aggadita exists as
a wholesale version of ta'amei hamitzvos -- adding depth and spirit (to
paraphrase a bit from the same quote) to avodas Hashem as a whole.

: I'm not exactly sure how he gets this from Shmuel haNagid; Shmuel's
: comments on Aggadeta address comments on biblical verses not affecting
: halacha, rather than halachic history, but one can see how the one
: idea might extend into the other.

Exactly. I, OTOH, are wondering where you see any mention of "halachic
history". Were you perhaps mislead by DDIG's saying "our historical
religious documents, the Written and Oral Law -- i.e. the Pentateuch
and Talmud"? It's an appeal to going back to the Torah and Gemara as our
primary sources, as that's what they've been throughout history. Is is
not a call to treating them (or anything else) as historical texts.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:34:09PM -0500, David Glasner wrote:
:       explain the Rambam in Mamrim 2:1 in which he codifies the law
: that a Sanhedrin may change a halakha decided by a previous Sanhedrin
: based on an alternative interpetation of the Scripture

2:1 is about two Sanhedrins. It therefore has little to do with the
situation R' Gil found unacceptable. There is no s'michah or Sanhedrin
bizman hazeh. I'm not even sure that d'rashah at all is possible without
one -- never mind a d'rashah that overlooks precedent.

Other piskei halachah are addressed in the rest of the perek. Rambam
holds that sigyaim require gadol mimenu bichachma ubeminyan (GMBU) (2:2
as clarified by 2:3), and that dinim dirabbanan can't be overturned ad
olam (2:3) once they're accepted across E"Y. And what about bizman
hazeh, when rov isn't ba'aretz?

Third, I'm not sure you can draw a parallel to non-batei din (non-BD)
overturning takkanos of other non-BD, even though 1:5 ("BD o chacham")
suggests one. Is a takkanah of a non-BD a takkana at all?

Amazingly, the Rambam doesn't address piskei halachah that resolve
machlokesin in pre-existing halachos. Or does he consider that a form
of takkanah as per 2:3? One could reason that a p'sak is a takkanah
that everyone must follow X and not Y. In which case, the permanence
of piskei halachah would be talui on how to deal with takkanos when
rov of klal Yisrael isn't in E"Y.

: interpret the gemara in BM 59 conerning the dispute over tanur achnai in
: which hazal disregard an explicit directive from the Almighty to pasken
: the halakhah in accord with R. Eliezer

R' Gil already wrote my answer: "lo bashamyim hi" has nothing to do with
ignoring precedent, "only" with ignoring neis and bad kol. For that matter,
one can argue that the story says that halahichic process reigns supreme,
and /if/ that process includes precedent, it would give more authority
to precedent.

I want to point out, though, that it's unclear whether R' Eliezer
was the exception, or whether beis Shammai is. There's a conflicting
aggadita, since we follow the bas kol that said "vihalachah kibeis
Hillel". See Encyc. Talmudit, "bas kol", or my summary of it in Avodah
at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n087.shtml#02>. (Or do
both, and help me identify my errors.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> They way I heard it, it's the LXX which has a line that would
> back-translate to Ne'eman....

The "Ne'eman b'chol dvarav" version is present at Qumran.  I found 
a picture of the appropriate part of the Psalms Scroll (11QPs) at
<http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/full-images/psalm-b.gif>.
2nd column from left, 2nd line, next to last word.  Also interesting is
that each line is separated with the refrain "baruch H' ubaruch shmo l'olam
va'ed", where the tetragrammaton is spelled out in Canaanite script so as
not to render the scroll sheimos.

ISTR durng some earlier arguments about textual variants in the Tanach,
it may have been on another list, that if you have two versions, one
apparently flawed and one apparently filled, odds are the filled in
version is later.  Editors are more likely to fix up broken bits, than
to introduce new holes into the text.  So it's likely that the nun
verse was added, in addition to Micha's reasons.

    Jonathan Baker        |  Happy [H|'Ch']an[u|'oo'][c[c]|k[k]]a[h]
    jjbaker@panix.com     |  Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>

RRW wrote:
: Clarification: Shelichanukah as one word is either with a shva or a chataf
: patach not a chirik gadol.

Sorry, the lamed has neither a sh'va nor a chataf, nor a chirik.
The lamed has a patach because the chet has a hataf patach.

D.

From: "Ron Bratt" <RBRATT@courts.state.ny.us>
> The MB brings down that an Onen who is home alone on Chanukah lights for
> pirsumei nisa. Since an Onen is asur be'mitzvos aseh, this would lead
> me to conclude that lighting, without a bracha, is *not* a mitzvah and
> that this lighting is strictly for pirsumei nisa and that pirsumei nisa
> is separate and distinct from the mitzvah of hadlakah.

I'd speculate that this might be related to the nature of rabbinic 
mitzvot as kiyumim of lo tasur.  That is, the Torah mitzva underlying
all 7 rabbinic mitzvot is itself negative - you shall not deviate from
what they tell you to do.  Since the onen is still obligated in the
positive mitzvot, the rabbinic mitzva of pirsumei nisa is still incumbent
on him - so he lights with a bracha.
 
> Further on though, the MB discusses what one should do if he comes home
> late. So late that all his bnei bayis is sleeping. If he wakes up a
> member, fine, then he lights with a bracha. But if he is alone, he
> lights *without* a bracha. Does he get the mitzvah of lighting? And if
> so, how can the onen light even if he lights without a bracha? Further,
> can pirsumei nisa exist without the kiyum of the mitzvah? You can have
> the most exquisitely mehudar esrog, but if it is pasul it can't be hidur.
> I can't these two issues.

Is it assur to light a candle?  Maybe it's doubtful at this point whether
or not the mitzva exists for him, since it's presumably after feet have
ceased to pass in the market.  In which case, light without a bracha so
in case the mitzva exists, you're covered.  I would think that pirsum 
hanes *is* the kiyum of the mitzva.  So if he can wake someone up, he
gets clear pirsum, and makes the bracha.  But if not, then his time 
has passed, so I suppose it's like lighting the next morning without
a bracha, for a non-onen.  

I'd guess that pirsum is best fulfilled when a) it's dark, so the 
candles are obviously burning, and b) there are people around to see
it.  When only one of those conditions applies, then one lights 
without the bracha.  So, if one lights between dark and when people
stop walking around, both conditions are fulfilled.  If it's dark and
someone is awake in the house, it's fulfilled.  If it's daytime, people
are walking around, so it's only a partial pirsum.  If it's late at night,
so nobody is around, it's also a partial pirsum.

    Jonathan Baker        |  Happy [H|'Ch']an[u|'oo'][c[c]|k[k]]a[h]
    jjbaker@panix.com     |  Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>

In Avodah V6 #73, SBAbeles responded:
> It talks about (even) selling a bes kor to have a feast on Shabbos
> Chanukah.

That (although see below) was also the understanding of a chavair in
"Breuer's" (who, for a YRSRH/KAJ Annual Dinner gift in the 60's, printed
a collection of z'miros called, IIRC, "Leket Shoshanim") as per his
son, with whom I spoke yesterday...and it certainly seems like p'shat
(once one realizes that the feast is explicitely defined as alcoholic!).
Question is, what's the source for such a statement? Another thought
(and this may actually be the understanding of that chavair): perhaps
the bais kor's worth of XYZ should be sold for "the needs of Chanukah"
(i.e. nair Chanukah, rather than a s'udah)...but I still would like to
see the source, if there is one.

> But it is an extremely puzzling zemer.

It does require iyun.

> It basically talks about spending Chanukah, not drinking water but
> shikerring...

Perhaps in the context of a s'udas mitzva (compare and contrast with
s'udas Purim).

> And although it mentions Shabbos Chanukah, it also talks about going
> to the pub (beis hayayin) twice daily (throughout Chanuka).

As I noted to Avi, the mentions of Chanukah IMHO are a bit strained -- the
theme seems to rather be one of recreating a [chanukas] Bais Hamikdosh
atmosphere, but (if I'm reading the words correctly, which is a big
"if") the evoked means of recreation, to my eye, are secular in nature
(the sounds of nisuch hamayim having receded, we should, as you noted,
lie down twice daily in a bais hayayin?! and we should rescue our ears
"mikolos mayim rabim" in order to keep cups of wine at our lips?!).

> I haven't been able to find out much more about it.

Ditto...and I feel like I must really be off-base, because I strongly
doubt that generations of Torah-true Jews sang a secular drinking
song/tone poem on, of all days, Shabbos Chanukah.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
> Why was Daniel moser nefesh to daven in Daniel 6:11?  It was before the  
> Anshei Kenesses HaGedolah had established a nusach so he could have been
> yotzei with a few quick words. Also, according to the Ramban, tefillah is
> only  miderabbanan ...

See Ran Perek Bameh Tomnin, Lechem Mishne Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 5:4.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

RYZ wrote:
     
> See Ran Perek Bameh Tomnin, Lechem Mishne Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 5:4.
     
That is where they say that a gadol can choose to be moser nefesh even when he 
is not mechuyav to do so, correct?  But that requires a time of shemad.  I don't
see that in the text of Daniel.  Fahrkert, the gezeira was on ALL people, not 
just Jews and the Rambam in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 5:3 seems to say that the 
gezeirah has to be davka on Jews.

Gil Student

[A pair of Areivim threads merged and turned serious, so I'm folding them
to one email and sending them here to Avodah. The discussion quoted here
starting with "RMF1" was about chillul Hashem. The one after the line,
starting with "RJGS1", was about shaving during Omer, Ch"hM, and the
three weeks. -mi]

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
RMF1> But there are other cases ... which would not cause chilul Hashem (if
RMF1> chilul Hashem is measured by what the common non-Jewish 
RMF1> person would think).

From: Carl and Adina Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il]
RCS1> Is that the measure of Chilul Hashem - what a non-Jew would think?

RMF2> Good question.  That's why I wrote "if."  Anyone have any suggestions?

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
MSB1> How about "what would a Jew think?" or "what would an observant Jew
MSB1> think?"

MSB1> The latter would explain why walking in sneakers with beard stubble
MSB1> isn't a chillul hashem. Or, if you feel the 9th of Av being diRabbanan
MSB1> is enough to trump the di'Oraisa -- what about Omer?

RMF2> Doesn't at least one pasuk talk about "mechulal sh'mi *ba'goyim*"?
RMF2> I don't deny that looking at what frum Jews think is relevant, but
RMF2> shouldn't the primary issue be what the goyim think.

RMF2> And yes, one reason I shave on chol hamo'ed (even though I generally
RMF2> schedule my vacation days for then) is the issue of chilul Hashem.  (The
RMF2> other reason is kavod ha'moed--see Nefesh Harav.)

From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
RAA1> AIUI from a shiur a few months ago, Chilul HaShem is (halachically)
RAA2> based on what Jews think.

RMF3> Is that based on the gemara Sanhedrin 74b, which says that kiddush
RMF3> Hashem is before 10 *Jews*, as it says "v'nikdashti b'soch b'nei
RMF3> yisrael?"

RMF3> Query: is it clear that chilul Hashem is that exact flipside of kiddush
RMF3> Hashem?  Esp. in light of psukim about "mechulal sh'mi *ba'goyim*"? 

---

From: Jay G Spero [mailto:jsohr1@juno.com]
RJGS1> Although I am aware that there are matirim regarding shaving on Chol
RJGS1> Hamoed, I highly doubt that not doing something which is assered by rov
RJGS1> poskim, could be construed as a Chillul hashem.

RMF4> I pasken like RYBS, who is *m'chayev* shaving on chol ha'moed for kavod
RMF4> ha'regel.  One reason I am not choshesh for the shitah that says that it's
RMF4> assur is that, because I believe that it's muttar, I believe that there is
RMF4> some aspect of chilul Hashem in goyim seeing all these Jews unshaven.  In
RMF4> contrast, around Tisha B'av time, I believe not shaving to be proper, so
RMF4> I'm not choshesh as to what the goyim think.

From: "Markowitz, Chaim" <CMarkowitz@scor.com>
RCM1> I find this logic somewhat puzzling. You seem to be implying that being
RCM1> concerned what the goyim think is toloi in if you hold it is muttar to
RCM1> shave. I don't understand that. If it is muuttar to shave, so shave cause
RCM1> it is muttar not cause you are not choshesh for what goyim think. In fact
RCM1> I think the 3 weeks (l'shitascha) is a ra'ayah that fakert we are not
RCM1> choshesh for the goyim. If we were choshesh for what goyim think so it
RCM1> should be muttar during the three weeks  also.

RMF5> I think that being choshesh for what the goyim think is not the
RMF5> overwhelming factor, but it is a factor (i.e., most factors are more
RMF5> important).

RMF5> Consequently, during the three weeks, when the halacha is clear (for
RMF5> those who don't have the heter of doing business), the factor of what
RMF5> the goyim think is dwarfed by other factors. On chol ha'moed it is not.

RMF5> Even on Tisha b'Av we are choshesh what goyim think: In a place where
RMF5> there is la'ag on Jews who don't wear shoes, they can wear shoes in the
RMF5> street and take them off when they get to the Jewish area. See Ramo
RMF5> OC 554:17.

RCM2> But you are saying you rely on RYBS to shave on chol hamoed. His heter of
RCM2> shaving wasn't toloi in what the goyim think. For all you know, he didn't
RCM2> consider that a factor. You can't just make up a snif l'heter w/out some
RCM2> m'kor.

RMF6> On the contrary, I pasken like RYBS on this matter *for the reason that
RMF6> he gave*.  I am giving one *more* reason, which makes the result even
RMF6> more compelling to *me*.

RCM3> and what is your makor for that reason?

From: Markowitz, Chaim [mailto:CMarkowitz@scor.com]
> and what is your makor for that reason?

Read the Igros Moshe on this issue.  He comes to the conclusion that it
really isn't assur to shave (based on the discussion regarding Rabbenu Tam,
etc.), but that a ben yeshiva should be machmir anyway.  RYBS said that if
it really isn't assur, then one should be mechuyav to shave l'chavod haregel
(otherwise one looks a little like a menuval).  (I gave a shiur on this
once.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Akiva Atwood [mailto:atwood@netvision.net.il]
> AIUI from a shiur a few months ago, Chilul HaShem is (halachically) based on
> what Jews think.

Someone else made a reference to Shmos perek 32.  The pasuk referred to is
"lama yomru mitzrayim laymor: b'ra'a hotzee'am...."

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Feldman, Mark [mailto:MFeldman@CM-P.COM] 
> Read the Igros Moshe on this issue.  He comes to the conclusion that it
> really isn't assur to shave (based on the discussion regarding Rabbenu Tam,
> etc.), but that a ben yeshiva should be machmir anyway.  RYBS said that if
> it really isn't assur, then one should be mechuyav to shave l'chavod
> haregel...

I was asking about the chilul hashem issue and I fail to see how you
answered that question unless your makor os from Rav Moshe. . From RYBS you
don't see it at all. If your makor is from Rav Moshe what does he say?

The recent discussion of shaving on Chol HaMoed brought to mind the different 
customs regarding tfillin on Chol HaMoed.  I'm curious...for those who do put 
on tfillin during Chol Hamoed, what are the reasons given why a person should 
put on tfillin during Chol HaMoed?

Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT

On 20 Dec 00, at 20:46, MIKE38CT@aol.com wrote:
> The recent discussion of shaving on Chol HaMoed brought to mind the different 
> customs regarding tfillin on Chol HaMoed.  I'm curious...for those who do put 
> on tfillin during Chol Hamoed, what are the reasons given why a person should 
> put on tfillin during Chol HaMoed?

1. Because there are some types of Melacha that I could be doing 
during Chol HaMoed, and therefore I need the os of tfillin.

2. Because it's what my father does and what my grandfather z"l 
did.

-- Carl

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

mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

> 2. Because it's what my father does and what my grandfather z"l did.

Does he, did he do so in Eretz Yisrael? in Yerushalayim?.

I thought that it was a clear "lo tidgodadu"

Reuven Miller

On 21 Dec 2000, at 13:02, millerr@mail.biu.ac.il wrote:
> Does he, did he do so in Eretz Yisrael? in Yerushalayim?.

I have not checked what my father does when he visits every year for Pesach 
and when he has visited for Succos. I assume he puts them on in the privacy 
of his room like I do.

> I thought that it was a clear "lo tidgodadu"

In Yom Tov Sheini k'Hilchasa, he brings from both RMF and RSZA that one 
who has the minhag of laying tfillin on Chol HaMoed may do so b'tzina even 
in Yerushalayim. I have the citation somewhere (maybe at home), but I think 
I have also posted it to the list in the past.

When I come home from shul (the Kotel during Succos, and generally at 
least once on Pesach as well), I put on the Tfillin without a bracha and say 
the three parshiyos of Shma. Then I take them off. My older son (15) has 
adopted the same minhag; my younger sons are not Bar Mitzva yet (12 and 
1).

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

From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
> In Yom Tov Sheini k'Hilchasa, he brings from both RMF and RSZA that one 
> who has the minhag of laying tfillin on Chol HaMoed may do so b'tzina even 
> in Yerushalayim....

1.  Now that you've posted this to the list, is it b'tzin'a any more?  ;-)

2.  Was RSZA referring to someone who visits Israel or makes Aliyah?  I
thought that those who make Aliyah are bound to accept all the psakim that
are universally accepted in Israel.  After all, presumably most Ashkenazim
came from homes in Europe which laid tefillin during Chol HaMoed.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 21 Dec 2000, at 8:50, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> 1.  Now that you've posted this to the list, is it b'tzin'a any more?  ;-)

I thought about that.

> 2.  Was RSZA referring to someone who visits Israel or makes Aliyah?  I
> thought that those who make Aliyah are bound to accept all the psakim that
> are universally accepted in Israel.  After all, presumably most Ashkenazim
> came from homes in Europe which laid tefillin during Chol HaMoed.

He said both. I am going home soon BE"H to bentch licht and will try to find 
the cite.

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

Jonathan Baker:
> The "Ne'eman b'chol dvarav" version is present at Qumran...

>                    Editors are more likely to fix up broken bits, than
> to introduce new holes into the text.  So it's likely that the nun
> verse was added, in addition to Micha's reasons.

On the other hand, what about the fact that it's in both the Septuagint and
the Qumran scrolls?  Do scholars believe that one had any influence over the
other?  I'll let my father answer that.

By the way, it's worth looking up the URL that Jonathan cited.  Really cool!

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Yzkd@aol.com
> As I said I wrote Bkitzur, I am aware that there is such Nusach, my point was 
> that to say that as a compromise between opinion of 13 words (w/o Shel) and 
> 14 words, by saying the 2 words together that would be compared to creating a 
> new (vs. Hacro'ah) Nussach...

Now here is a great follow up question.

Given that to INVENT a new nusach as a compromise between two competing
nuschaos is questionable.

But, given a Teimani precedent to "hang one's hat on", would that make
it more acceptable to "switch" to a another tradition as opposed to
inventing one?

OR do we still say that even if the Teimani minhag is valid for Teimanim,
for others it is STILL nisht a hin nisht a her to use the shelachanukah
as one word?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> On the other hand, what about the fact that it's in both the Septuagint and
> the Qumran scrolls?  Do scholars believe that one had any influence over the
> other?  I'll let my father answer that.

Dear Moshe,

	Eight highly fragmentary manuscripts of the Septuagint have been
among the documents in Qumran, though none are of Psalms. Hence, it
is possible that there was some influence of the Septuagint at Qumran,
though the community at Qumran was very conservative.

Of course, when we speak of the Septuagint, strictly speaking, we refer
only to the Torah. The other books of Tanach were translated about a
century later.

Best wishes.
Aby

On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 01:02:04PM +0200, millerr@mail.biu.ac.il wrote:
:> 2. Because it's what my father does and what my grandfather z"l did.

: Does he, did he do so in Eretz Yisrael? in Yerushalayim?.

To repeat what my grandfather in Rechavyah does... His father's teshuvah
is similar to Carl's reason #1, but R' YAA Krieger links tephillin to
the melachah of writing in particular. So, in the past, as their minhag
was (this is my maternal grandfather, it's not my minhag in question)
to wear tephillin, RYAAK permitted writing on chol hamo'ed.

But then my grandfather made aliyah.

: I thought that it was a clear "lo tidgodadu"

When my grandfather made aliyah, he switched to minhag hamakom for this
reason. And, he stopped writing on chol hamo'ed.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]