Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 016

Monday, April 15 2002

• Re: Korbonos l'osid lovo..
• Question in a Mishna
• Re: Oat & spelt in 5 minim?
• Re: history of haggadah
• Rema's psaq
• oats one of 5 minim?
• Re: Oat & spelt in 5 minim?
• Re: kitniyot
• Re: omer and haircuts
• Re: taking off tefillin before hallel on chol hamoed vs. leaving them on
• Re: Rema's psaq
• Re: Question in a Mishna
• Missing in Oruch Hashulchon?
• Shfoch chamoscho el hagoyim
• Re: ma'ariv before tzeis hakochavim
• Re: Freedom
• Re: Missing in Oruch Hashulchon?

In a message dated 3/21/02 12:50:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> However, the question then is what is the meaning of our tefila 3 times
> daily "Vehosheiv es ho'avodo lidvir veisecho, v'ishei yisroel..."?
> 

You might be interested in reading an article on whether we will be obligated 
to bring Korban Chatos and Oloh, at the following URL:
<http://haoros.com/kovetz/index_1.asp?num=all.txt&top=0>


Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

The Mishna says in Zavim, 1:5 (what happens when you come the last night
of shiva <g>) that a re'iya is considered two re'iyos if it is as long as
from Gad to Yerushalayim. The meforshim explain that Gad is a shem
avodah zara. If so, is this not a violation of "lo yishama al picha"?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

RJB wrote:
>>  If one is gluten intolerant, one should make an effort to find oat
>> or spelt matza....

RJH reacted:
> With regards to Oat Matzah, which in America is imported from England,
> I have been made aware of the reluctance of some Gedolim to allow its use
> on Pesach, at least for Matzas Mitzvah. Apparently, there was a recent
> research article that effectively questions whether Oat is really one
> of the 5 Minim. I cannot remember the name of the author, but I know
> that R' Hershel Shachter is taking it very seriously, and has been
> shying away from the use of Oats in this context. Supposedly he also
> makes Ha'adamah on Cheerios. In America Spelt matzah is available,
> so it is not a big deal, but I thought it important to make people
> aware of the reservations of such an eminent Rav. RF' Jeremy Weider,
> a R"Y at YU, has also told me he is reluctant to allow Oat Matzah for
> Matzas Mitzvah. He has also discussed the issue with R' Schachter.

Huh?! I had heard it the other way around, that out is preferable to splet 
because spelt may not be one of the 5 grains. I'll ask him next Tuesday 
(Monday is for the rally, BEH)

RJH:
> My question is: Why in the preparation of the rice are we not allowed
> to cook it together with the water from a cold temperature?

Unlike other kitniyot, the minhag to refrain from eating rice may have a solid 
basis. The gem. states that rice does not become 'hametz on its own, just 
produces sir'hon. However, if rice is mixed with wheat, even the rice becomes 
'hametz, and, if baked into matzot instead, can be used for matzat mitzvah. 
Thus, just in case there was some wheat mixed in with the rice, even a minute 
amount, we want to preclude 'himutz. We achieve this goal by dumping the 
"wheat" in boiling water. This should, theoretically, even work if you plan 
on making wheat flour bagels on Pessa'h, except that (A) we stay away from 
that technique for actual 5 grains, and (B) the bagel will likely taste like 
thick, hard matzah that has been  gebroktst.

Git Shabbes,
Arie Folger

RMB wrote:
> Also, there was a minhag to make a matzah from a se'ah of flour (!).

But such a matzah could have been very large and thin and flexible.
(traditional oriental matzot are a little soft, unlike their overbaked
occidental cousins ;-)

Arie Folger

RRichWolpoe: <As I posted last year, the Rema's primary task in the Mappah
was to show where Asskenazi practice differed. What is startling is
that he does not ALWAYS point this out. See Orach Chaim 53 {IIRC} where
Rema does not dispute the Aleph/Ayyin dictinction of the mechabeir.?
R. Micha: <Again, I would say where Ashk pesaq, not practice, differed.>

R. Micha is absolutely right on this one. Scores of Rema's differ with
what was accepted Ash. practice, as attested by other sources, because
he believed that halakhically the psaq was correct. Meinyono d'yoma, see
OH 480-481, where it is clear from numerous sources as well as from mss.
hagodos that the common minhag in Ashk'naz was to say y'hall'lukh with its
chasima after Hallel haMitzri and nishmas.. yishtabbah wiht its chasima
after Hallel haGadol. Yet the Rema acquiesces to the M'habber's psaq
that y'hall'lukha should be said at the end of nishmas and the chasima
of nishmas should not be said.

Of course, in most cases the Rema is upholding minhag Ashk'naz, but the
places where he does not are most interesting.

Seth Mandel

>From: Jordan Hirsch <trombaedu@earthlink.net>
>Apparently, there was a recent
>research article that effectively questions whether Oat is really one
>of the 5 Minim. I cannot remember the name of the author, but I know
>that R' Hershel Shachter is taking it very seriously...

Was this a professor Felicks? (spelling?) I remember hearing that name
associated with the oats issue back when I was in yeshiva. Have any
other poskim written about this?

Avraham Cohen

In a message dated 4/12/02 1:40:30pm EDT, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> RJB wrote:
>>>  If one is gluten intolerant, one should make an effort to find oat
>>> or spelt matza....
> 
> RJH reacted:
>> With regards to Oat Matzah, which in America is imported from England,
>> I have been made aware of the reluctance of some Gedolim to allow its use
>> on Pesach, at least for Matzas Mitzvah. Apparently, there was a recent
>> research article that effectively questions whether Oat is really one
>> of the 5 Minim. I cannot remember the name of the author, but I know
>> that R' Hershel Shachter is taking it very seriously, and has been
>> shying away from the use of Oats in this context. Supposedly he also
>> makes Ha'adamah on Cheerios. In America Spelt matzah is available,
>> so it is not a big deal, but I thought it important to make people
>> aware of the reservations of such an eminent Rav. RF' Jeremy Weider,
>> a R"Y at YU, has also told me he is reluctant to allow Oat Matzah for
>> Matzas Mitzvah. He has also discussed the issue with R' Schachter.

> Huh?! I had heard it the other way around, that out is preferable to splet 
> because spelt may not be one of the 5 grains. I'll ask him next Tuesday 
> (Monday is for the rally, BEH)>>

This kinds of puts any presumptive Masorah into question. How can we EVER 
know for sure that what we call Wheat is Wheat, what we call Wool is Wool and 
what we call Lettuce is lettuce?  


> RJH:
>> My question is: Why in the preparation of the rice are we not allowed
>> to cook it together with the water from a cold temperature?
> 
> Unlike other kitniyot, the minhag to refrain from eating rice may have a 
> solid 
> basis. The gem. states that rice does not become 'hametz on its own, just 
> produces sir'hon. However, if rice is mixed with wheat, even the rice 
> becomes 
> 'hametz, and, if baked into matzot instead, can be used for matzat mitzvah. 
> 
> Thus, just in case there was some wheat mixed in with the rice, even a 
> minute 
> amount, we want to preclude 'himutz. We achieve this goal by dumping the 
> "wheat" in boiling water. This should, theoretically, even work if you plan 
> 
> on making wheat flour bagels on Pessa'h, except that (A) we stay away from 
> that technique for actual 5 grains, and (B) the bagel will likely taste 
> like thick, hard matzah that has been  gebroktst.

AFAIK There are 2 schools amongst Sephardim re: Rice on Passover   
1) Ones that inspect 3 times  and eat
2) those that do not instpect

I'm not sure re: #2 if this is a 
A) a"chumra" or 
B) that the Masorah for HOW to properly inspect was lost and therefore fell 
into disuse.  2B could spin another topic - how to restore a lost Masorah? 

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

AIUI the ashkenazic Gzeira re: Kitniyos was made because 
either
1) these legumes were used to make flour, hence the possiblity of confusion.
2) There might be a Taaroves of wheat flour.  

Therefore according to #2 Sephardim use ONLY fresh legumes not dried legumes 
- UNLESS they were dried with the intentoin of being used for Passover.

The reason not to use Kitniyos might have been based in a bad experience 
wherein some confusion happened and therefore Ashkenazim decided to not take 
any chances any longer.   I have no evidence for such an incident, but this 
is typcial of how gzerios like this get promulgated; i.e. something goes 
wrong and WHOOSH :-)
They get stomped on.  

Look if it is logical to prohibit clapping on Shabbas because you MIGHT tune 
an insturment, it makes just as much sense to say, that flour from legumes 
can get confused with flour from wheat.  

What I do not understand is the gzeira against "mei Kitniyos".  Peanut oil 
was routinely used in my youth on Passover. I don't know why TODAY we are so 
machmir - it falls into none of the categories associated with the gzeira, it 
can never be ground into wheat

Using that logic, corn syrup is also mei kjitniyos and should be OK for 
Asheknazim too.  That would make Cokje and Pepsi a lot simpler for Passover  
-but admittedly they woud need Corn Syrup that was CERTIFIED free of Hametz


Despite the fact that I consider myself an advocate for minhaggim, I fail to 
see the need or logic for expanding or embelishing these minhaggim with 
additional Chumras.   The original Chumra is good enough for me :-}

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 4/10/02 4:52:57pm EDT, turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:
> The "standard" psak is the same as R. Shlesinger that one cannot eat
> kitniyot themselves but can eat food cooked in pots that were previously
> used for kitniyot. (I am pretty sure this is the psak of ROY and most
> ashkenazi poskim) I didn't understand the difference between chumra
> and minhag and why that affects this issue.

1) Minhag: No reason to be machmir because of Safeik {doubt}
2) Chumra MIGHT have a reason to be machmir in the case of Safeik {doubt} - 
not necesasry always, but often does.

Chumra is almost like a neder. and it can be construed braodly or narrowly 
and that often depends on who the phrasing of the neder is construed by 
society 

If I say - I will not eat meat, our society would permit eating fish.   But 
they would NOT permit fowl - even though fowl is arguably only meat 
midreabbanan, etc.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 4/8/02 6:15:44pm EDT, dbnet@zahav.net.il writes:
> Interesting that despite all the additional signs of aveilut added 
> since then, somewhere the no-work-at-night custom got lost. ...
> Perhaps more interesting is that not working at night is not exactly a 
> sign of mourning.

WFIW KSA mentions no work until Sfira based NOT upon Avlius but upon hseva 
Shabbasos

Again IMHO the 3 basic minhaggim
1) Nisssuin
2) Taspores
3) Mlacha

Started on some constrcut of chol Hamo'ed and then the ratoinales of Avlieus 
devloped later - ex post facto.

As far as R, Akiva's Talmiddim go - I am not surprised to see Ganomim trying 
to retrofit somehow a Minhag back to a text in the Bavli, but I suspect that 
this was post facto, and NOT the real source.

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

FWIW, I recently saw a really neat Dvar Torah showing Kol Nidre night as 
connecte to the Pizmon - Hinei kachomer .. labris habeit v'al tefien 
layezter.

Problem:  The German custom is NOT to say this pizmon on Kol Nidre night even 
though this pizmon exists elsewhere in Slichos. 

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

I recently heard a dvar Torah saying why is Yir'as Shamayim repeated in 
Chodesh Benschen.

Problem:   The original old German texts have it ONLY once. I suspect the 
Gmara has it only once too in Tfillas Rav - lathough I have not checked it 
out myself in Dikdukei sofrim.

Point?  Drashos explaining WHYare often post facto.  They are not the 
original impetus or trigger.

How does this happen?

Really easy.  The WHAT'S are preserved mimetically and everyone in a 
community learns WHAT to do and WHAT not to do.  But the reasons remain 
esoteric or are sometimes lost, and then come the post facto raionales.

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

Just last Shabbas someone told me YKK is not done 3 times in a row lest one 
get a Hazzakah!  I never heard THAT. What I did hearis that YKK is omitted 
when Tachnanun is omitted - E.G. end of Tishrei, end of Kislevc and end of 
Nissan.   Lmai nafkah mina?  E.G. Erev Rosh Chodesh Av.

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

AFAIK Magen Avraham is the first  to add Music to the list during Sfira, KSA 
does not cite this.  The original list preserves BOTH the Chol Hamoed aspect 
AND The Aveilus apsect in that it picks those items that are common to both.  
Music AFAIK is not assur during Chol Hamoed. This Chumra in a way might serve 
to sever to the original practice from its roots.  In practice do not 
reommend being poretz geder berabbim re: music, but at least in theory, in 
private, or at a simcha there is room to be meikel,  Kein Nir'eh li.  


Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 4/8/02 6:11:43pm EDT, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
> I'm pretty sure that the Levush writes that one should take tefillin off 
> before Mussaf on Rosh Chodesh.  I think he explains that regarding mussaf 
> Rosh Chodesh is a Yom Tov.

This IMHO undoubtedly has to do with kdushas Kesser - EVEN though I am
not aware that Ashkenazim say this kdusha or even USED to say it.

One yekkisher rav - who unfortunatley was recently niftar - told me
this that kdushas kesser was the impetus for rmoeving tefillin before
Mussaf on Rosh Chodeand that Asehkazim USED to say it, too . The way he
exaplined it, this is one of those Kabbalistic practices that went away
after Shabtai Zvi... Maybe Seth Mandel can help, Baer AFAIK does not
bring down Kesser amongst Ashkenazim, but it is still possible.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 4/12/02 1:40:34pm EDT, Seth Mandel sethm37@hotmail.com
writes:
> RRichWolpoe: <As I posted last year, the Rema's primary task in the Mappah
> was to show where Asskenazi practice differed. What is startling is
> that he does not ALWAYS point this out. See Orach Chaim 53 {IIRC} where
> Rema does not dispute the Aleph/Ayyin dictinction of the mechabeir.?
> R. Micha: <Again, I would say where Ashk pesaq, not practice, differed.>

> R. Micha is absolutely right on this one. Scores of Rema's differ with
> what was accepted Ash. practice, as attested by other sources, because
> he believed that halakhically the psaq was correct. Meinyono d'yoma, see
> OH 480-481, where it is clear from numerous sources as well as from mss.
> hagodos that the common minhag in Ashk'naz was to say y'hall'lukh with its
> chasima after Hallel haMitzri and nishmas.. yishtabbah wiht its chasima

Inttesreting because the first time I witnessed  this done was this year by a 
Yekke.  But MOST German Haggados DO ahve yhallechu w/o a chassimah. I have 
not seen the mss.

FWIW I had assumed that the Chassima in some haggados to Yehallachu to be a 
Ta'us


> after Hallel haGadol. Yet the Rema acquiesces to the M'habber's psaq
> that y'hall'lukha should be said at the end of nishmas and the chasima
> of nishmas should not be said.


Could be but also remember that Rema brings in dozens of minhaggim.  
Occasionally he actually mentions a minhag and rejects it - EG  see the use 
of vav in veha're'ev na in Birchas Hatorah {orach Chaim 47:6} 


> Of course, in most cases the Rema is upholding minhag Ashk'naz, but the
> places where he does not are most interesting.

It sounds like Seth and Micha are construing the Rema as saying
<<Aleph and Ayyin don't differ anymore but Rema I agree that they SHOULD>>

I might construe that
<<In Cracow circa 1560 Ayin and Aleph Still differed -at least somewhat by 
some people>>

Hence this is why the Rema is silent about this articulation!

IOW, the silence of Rema might often mean been that there was no
divergence between the Mchabeir and Ashkenaz PRACTICE at least IN HIS
TIME. Of course that would reuire checking out sources to see what was
actually going on...

[Email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 4/9/02 8:05:31pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>: In light of this, it is rather surprising that in the beginning of YD
>: 92 he follows the opinion of Rashi...

> You don't codify in order to preserve the mimetic tradition....   Rather,
> the Rama codified in order to preserve Ashkenazi *textual* tradition. ...
> In this case, he's citing another Ashk. poseiq -- himself. The Rama
> doesn't claim to be preserving all Ashk. pesaq, "just" AN Ashkenazi one

IMHO: In cases where the Ashkenazi minhag differs from the Bavli it
was important to put it into text because of the "voo shtei geshribben"
problem.

True: much of what the Rema wrote was ALREADY in text - such as in
the Maharil's Sforim. But then again, the Beis Yosef was a quoter too.
so their processes were parallel.

The problem with the SA for the Rema was omitting what he called the
"acharonim" which is AIUI simply Ashkenazim. This coems up in RY and
Darchei Moshe

AND FWIW the SA does not always follow his own methodology either re:
his hypthetical BD

Why not?

My answer: the SA only consults his BD when he is msuppak NOT when he
is sure of himself. This is analgous to a dvar Torh I had about a Navi
who makes a dire prediction and it fails to materialize - such as Yonah
and Nineveh. The only time the litmus test of stating accruately is
when one doubts if a navi is emes. A navi who is considered reliable need
not worry, one can rely upon his Hazzakah, And Nineveh did not question
Yonah, proving that Yonah needed not to prove himself.

IOW, SA needs a BD when it is controversial or in doiubt. When the din is 
obvious to him, he doesn't need that BD. 
-----------------------------------------

Re: Lo bashamayyim hi:

R. Eliezer proved nothing using shamayyimn because he was a da'as
Yachid. re: Beis Hillel this was not the case. IOW BH was not a da'as
Yachid.

As far as the rest of the post goes, it will take time to research.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 4/12/02 1:40:40pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> The Mishna says in Zavim, 1:5 (what happens when you come the last night
> of shiva <g>) that a re'iya is considered two re'iyos if it is as long as
> from Gad to Yerushalayim. The meforshim explain that Gad is a shem
> avodah zara. If so, is this not a violation of "lo yishama al picha"?

See Sanhedrin 63b, and Rambam Hil. AZ 5:11, see Margoliyas Hayam on the 
Gemara, just to add perhaps the Mishna wants to associate one Tumoah with 
another.

While on this topic WRT Moshe Rabbeinu the Torah says Mul Beis Peor, the 
Gemara end of first Perek of Soteh discusses why see also Tos. (brought also 
in Targum Yerushalmi on the Possuk and PDR"E), perhaps the Teitch Mul as like 
Rashi brings on Bamidbar 22:5 to cut, while the Targum Teitches opposiet, 
here it has both teitches opposite Beis Peor and to cut down Beis Peor

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In my version of the Oruch Hashulchon I am missing some simonim -
specifically Yore Deah Siman 181 (and a few before and after.)

Since it's just after the 1st volume or just before the 2nd volume
I'm wondering if this is a printers error or if the OhC left these
out? (Unlikely, I suspect.)

The OhC in shul also has the same simonim missing.

Has anybody seen them? In which edition?

Thanks
- Danny

On Areivim (in a thread titled "In search of a Pesach seder in Muslim
Malaysia") a question was recently raised regarding the meaning of the
pasuk "Shfoch chamoscho el hagoyim..." Discussion of this has reached
a point where I think it belongs on Avodah, so I'm moving it here.

Mrs. Boublil said in Rav Goren's name <<< that the phrase referred to
the antisemites and others who harrassed and killed jews. >>>

I agreed, and had never heard of any other perush on that section of
the Hagadda. I asked how else one might translate or explain those words.

R' Arie Folger responded <<< Would you exclude Budhists and Chintoists
and some Welch pagans for good measure, provided they are not Jewhaters?
I don't think they are called yod'ei Hashem, yet ki akhal et Ya'akov
doesn't cover them. This is particularly relevant re: the seder in
Malaysia. My guess is that those too are covered by the shfokh 'hamatkha
because polytheists contribute to the general moral decay, but what do
you think? >>>

I stand corrected.

My answer had originally been that there are many psukim which condemn
Ovdei Avodah Zara, but that particular pasuk only refers to those
nonbelievers who are also antisemites. Then I went to the sources to
check what they say, and I am very surprised by what I saw.

Those pesukim are from Tehillim 79:6-7. It is important to see the context
of this perek, which deals with the future destruction of Yerushalyaim,
and sounds like it should be part of the Kinos. I found almost nothing
in my Mikraos Gedolos on these pesukim, but Rav S.R. Hirsch was most
enlightening.

In Gertrude Hirschler's English translation of RSRH's German, these
pesukim read: <<< Pour out Thy wrath toward the nations that know Thee
not, and upon the kingdoms that have not proclaimed Thy Name. For He
has devoured Jacob, and they have laid waste His habitation. >>>

Take note that while every other translation renders "achal es Yaakov"
as "they have devoured Yaakov", Rav Hirsch renders this as "He...",
with a capitalized "H". His comments explain why:

<<< V. 7... The subject of {achal} is the preceding {Shimcha} in Verse 6.
"For in reality it way Thy Name which devoured Jacob because Jacob was
no longer worthy of bearing it. Hence it was Thy Name, and not our foes,
that won the victory. And yet they thought that they had laid waste the
habitation of Thy Name." >>>

(Note: the {} marks indicate my transliteration of words which are
printed in Hebrew in Hirsch's perush. The quotation marks are his,
and I don't know what they signify.)

In other words, the pasuk speaks about ALL the nations who do not
recognize HaShem, whether they are anti-Semitic or not, and even, I
suppose, whether they are Avodah Zara or not. Whichever nations led
us astray, and caused us to be no longer worthy of bearing His Name,
those are the nations upon which we ask Him to pour out His wrath.

(My wild guess is that Rav Hirsch noticed that "achal" is a singular verb,
and that's why he feels it can't be translated as "they" devoured Yaakov.)

A reminder of the Churban seems to be a rather bizarre way to begin the
Hallel section of the Seder. On the other hand, the Seder and Tisha B'Av
do always fall on the same day of the week.

We've got almost a year to think this one over. Any other comments?

Akiva Miller

[Bounced from Areivim. -mi]

R' Danny Schoemann wrote <<< For the record: Yekkes do not say Oleinu
after Mincha on Erev Shabbes either - right after Kadish Tiskabal they
start Kabolos Shabbes. Similarly I have never seen anybody say Oleiynu
after Shachris when it's followed by Mussaf - so maybe we're only
supposed to say Oleiynu AFTER davening. :-) >>>

Likewise, we also skip Alenu when Mincha is followed immediately by
Neilah. And Neilah has no Alenu for the same reason, that Maariv follows
immediately.

I have often wondered whether those shuls who have a break between Musaf
and Mincha (on Yom Kippur) ought to say it. I suppose the Machzor omits
it because there was originally no break at all.

But I sense an inconsistency: If Alenu is based on standard practice,
then there ought to be an Alenu after every Shacharis, even when followed
by Musaf. But if it is based on the current situation (as on Yom Kippur)
then everyone (not just the Yekkes) should skip it when Kabalas Shabbos
(and a weekday Maariv even more so) comes right after Mincha.

Any thoughts on this?

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 3/22/02 11:51:27am EST, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
:> Bottom line - is slavery the opposite of cheirus or can they exist at
:> the same time?

On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 07:26:07PM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: 1) The Maharal discusses how the Hotzianu Meiavdus Lcheirus has accomplished 
: that even in future Goluyois Yidden can't become Mshubad.

Cheirus is from two things: avdus and shib'ud. Perhaps we should look at
R' Yeruchem's vort on "harei anu uvanenu uvnei baneinu meshubadim hayinu
leFar'o beMitrayim". RYL writes that we aren't saying that we think that
after 3,500 years the Mitzri empire would still be standing, and that we
would not be freed by empirial fiat.

However, if that would have occured, then we'd be indebted to Par'oh
for freeing us. Which is why the lashon in the Hagadah is "meshubadim"
not "avadim". And it's this sense of hakaras hatov to HQBH that underlies
all of Yahadus. (The theme that hakaras hatov is the primary yesod of
Yiddishkeit is central to RYL's hashqafah. Which is why we're Yehudim,
from the lashon "todah".)

And, while this makes Pesach about cheirus from beingmeshubadim to
Par'oh, perhaps cheirus from avdus waited until Shavuos.

: 2) Chorus Al Haluchos...Ein Lach Ben Chorin Ela. even though Ki Li Bnei 
: Yisroel Avodim (while not Avodim Lavodim)

Im kevanim, rachameinu keracheim av al banim,
im ka'avadim, eineinu Lecha teluyos ad shetechaneinu,
vesotzi ka'or mishpateinu, Ayom Qadosh.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 17th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                  state of harmony

On 14 Apr 2002 at 10:43, Danny Schoemann wrote:

> In my version of the Oruch Hashulchon I am missing some simonim -
> specifically Yore Deah Siman 181 (and a few before and after.)
> 
> Since it's just after the 1st volume or just before the 2nd volume
> I'm wondering if this is a printers error or if the OhC left these
> out? (Unlikely, I suspect.)
> 
> The OhC in shul also has the same simonim missing.
> 
> Has anybody seen them? In which edition?

There's a ninth volume of Aruch HaShulchan which was printed for the 
first time several years ago. It includes the missing simanim (mainly 
Hilchos Nedarim IIRC). I think it was being distributed by Pomeranz 
in town (in Yerushalayim). 

-- 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.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

See pictures of Israel. Point your browser to:

http://www.members.home.net/projectonesoul/israel/israel.htm
http://www.bereshitsoftware.com/kdoshim/index.htm

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


[ 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         ]