Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 22

Tue, 17 Apr 2012

• 1. Re: Kama Maalot Tovot Lamakom Aleinu? (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: Text for Bittul Chametz (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Fwd: Rabbi Hershel Schachter - True Freedom (Doron Beckerman)
• 4. Re: Transition From Aramaic To Hebrew (Arie Folger)
• 5. Leading Charedi Posek Says metzitza' Should Not (Joseph Kaplan)
• 6. The Chasam Sofer's ruling on Metzitzah Be-peh (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: Leading Charedi Posek Says metzitza' Should Not (Micha Berger)
• 8. Fwd: [DTT] A new Fear of Gd? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Fwd: [DTT] A new Fear of Gd? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Transition From Aramaic To Hebrew (Simon Montagu)
• 11. Re: Kama Maalot Tovot Lamakom Aleinu? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 12. nidche (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 13. Re: nidche (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: nidche (Simon Montagu)
• 15. Re: nidche (Lisa Liel)
• 16. Re: What does "Redemption/Geulah" mean? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 17. Re: nidche (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)

RAM wrote:
> In Shemos 8:15, Par'oh's chartumim said that the plague of lice
> was caused by "the finger of G-d". The Hagada presumes that this
> "one plague to one finger" ratio stays constant for all ten plagues.
> But the truth seems to be that we know the ratio for lice and for
> cattle, but we know nothing about the other eight.

Sorry to sound heretical, but I really don't think we are reading the
drash of R' Yossi haGelili right. As you have shown, we can't really
take it literally, because it clashes with some other verses. However,
I don't think that RYHG and the other Tannaim in that aggadeta are out
to tell us how many makkot they were. In fact, what the heck does it
mean that there were fifty, two hundred or two hundred and fifty
makkot at the sea? The ten makkot are ten because they are distinct in
time and typology, but the whole Qeriat Yam Suf lasted a day!

Instead, I think it is a mistake to read the whole thing literal. The
Torah does not imply the math. When the Torah reports that Moshe said
heineh yad HaShem hoyah bemiqbekha asher bassadeh, OTOH, it is meant
to be contrasted with the statement of the 'hartumim. Moshe emphasized
G"d's involvement in the makkot, while the 'hartumim only begrudgingly
accepted the power of that Great G"d of Israel (they had surely not
come around yet realizing that  their whole pantheon of idols was
totally powerless, worthless and mere falsehood - instead, they must
have believed they encountered some new god, rather powerful, but no
different from the myriads of those they already had. So they only
conceded etzba' E-lohim.

When R'YhG makes his derasha, he is not really interested in what the
'hartumim thought, nor in the math. The math, I am rather convinced,
is a didactic tool, to teach that the revelation inherent in the
miracle of the splitting of the sea far surpassed that of the ten
plagues in Egypt - raata shif'ha 'al hayam mah shelo raah Ye'hazqel
Ben Buzi.

R'Aqiva and R'Eli'ezer (?) accept R' Yossi haGelili's teaching, but
want to stress an additional point, that the makkot weren't suddenly
here suddenly gone, but rather had stages of intensity, every makkah
was a process, as was the Splitting of the Sea (juxtaposition of
several verses will show that to be obvious in the text, 'al pi
feshuto).

So LAD there is really no question, except for the usual, age old
question of how to read aggadah.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger

RAM wrote:
> If that is so, I find it curious that all the hagados include the Israeli
> word, while the Bavel version is the one frequently omitted or
> parenthesized. Even odder, that seems to be the reverse of the text
> in the poskim: Mechaber 434:3 and Aruch Hashulchan 434:6 both
> have "chazi" but not "chami".
>
> I'd like to hear from others about this. Specifically, can anyone point
> to a difference in meaning between "chazi" and "chami"? Or has
> anyone heard anything authoritative regarding the proper nusach to
> use? Are there any communities which specifically use one nusach
> or another?

I would answer your second question negatively with the following
response to your first question: The prayers, at least in Ashkenaz,
are very much influenced by teh sources of Ashkenaz, which is much
more Eretz Yisrael than Bavel. In reality, in Ashkenaz, we don't
pasken like the Bavli, but like Minhag Ashkenaz, which is rooted in
the Yerushalmi, the Pessikta and other such works, as Rabbenu Tam and
Rabbenu Yitz'haq Or Zarua' wrote. So in the liturgy, for instance the
Haggadah, Yerushalmi Aramaic might dominate occasionally.

However, as the Bavli became the dominant learning text (and
Ashkenazim like the Ba'alei haTossafot began reinterpreting the Bavli
occasionally to make it confirm to Ashkenaz, which could then claim to
be rooted in the Bavli, too), the poskim would naturally rather quote
it.

KNLAD,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Wir ziehen um! ? We are Moving
* Muslims Question Their Calendar ? Could it Have Happened to Us?
* Technologie und j?disches Lernen
* Biblical Advice for the Internet Age iv
* The Disappearance of Big Ideas
* Rabbi, wie stehen Sie zur Ein?scherung?
* Biblical Advice for the Internet Age iii

RMB wrote:

>> Only if you think that a yeshiva's most elite sort of product is one who
toraso umnaso. But what if the elite yeshiva isn't an "air force academy",
and the whole assumption that the "pilots" are the elite is false? <<

Since the Yeshiva words heeds RMF's position that one who advocates the
Rambam's opinion today regarding support from Torah study is falling prey
to his Yetzer Hara, and support for learners in Kollel is available,
metzuyonim are enjoined to learn all day. Toraso Keva Umelachto Arai is the
other permitted option for them, but since there is a means of support
without it, and we hold like RMF, there is no reason they should follow
that path. Kevias Ittim LaTorah and making do with supporting  those who
study Torah is muttar for people who are not capable of mastering Torah.
See Shulchan Aruch Harav 3:2-4, and Igros Moshe YD IV 36.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120417/517aa888/attachment-0001.htm>

RAM wrote:
> I am looking at three different siddurim (Otzar Hatefilos, ArtScroll,
> and Sacks/Koren/OU) and they are virtually identical, except for some
> vowelling changes. In all three of them, the "vadai Aramaic" stops six
> words from the end, not five, and in all three siddurim, those words
> are: "lanu ul'chol yisrael hadarim ba'ir hazos".

But isn't it obvious that that is an addition? It really should not be
said except by the rav of the city who is mezakeh with his eruv
tavshilin all inhabitants who may have forgotten. As a later addition,
it must have been copied verbatim from a Hebrew responsum, when
Aramaic was no longer the Jewish lingua franca, not even for
liturgical use.

KNLAD. Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Wir ziehen um! ? We are Moving
* Muslims Question Their Calendar ? Could it Have Happened to Us?
* Technologie und j?disches Lernen
* Biblical Advice for the Internet Age iv
* The Disappearance of Big Ideas
* Rabbi, wie stehen Sie zur Ein?scherung?
* Biblical Advice for the Internet Age iii

"If metzitzah is part of the mitzvah, then one would have to conclude
that at Giv'at haAralos, the generation led by Yehoshua did metzitzah
bepeh. As did the returnees with Ezra. Three millennia of metzitzah,
no indication of ever doing anything but bepeh.

It's up to us to prove that other forms of metzitzah are valid, not the
other way around."

I'm not sure that's true from a methodological viewpoint for 2 reasons. 
First, how do you know how metzitzh was done by Yehoshua and Ezra?  "No
indication" is not p[roof; it's an assumption.	Second, with the corpus of
halacha that we have, a talmid chacham (which excludes me) should be able
to determine what the written works of halacha say about the requirement,
if any, to do metztitzah by peh. Assumptions in this area should be
unnecessary.  (Of course, the result might be, as in so many other things,
there are different opinions.)

Joseph Kaplan 

Please see this On the Mainline post at  http://tinyurl.com/7lywrp9

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 07:11:53AM -0400, Joseph Kaplan wrote:
: I'm not sure that's true from a methodological viewpoint for 2 reasons...

You should see the question the CS was asked (available at the link in
the post from RYL that I just approved). The whole thing came up to
a question because R' Chaim Chezqiah Medini held metzitzah bepeh was
halakhah leMoshe miSinai.

The sho'el tries to forestall this argument by taking the time to prove
that there are times when "mayatz" (the word used by R' Papa) is used
to mean extraction by means other than suction. The CS, though, just
rejoins with more such arguments. But surely the default definition of
metzitzah usually involves sucking, thus the whole assumed burden of
proof that it could, at times, mean something else.

And of course, the mequbalim finding a meaning in metzitzah that only
works if one is talking MBP (the power of sefasayim and peh to subdue
middas hadin) means that posqim who look at qaballah when they pasqen
will consider this idea to be central to what metzitzah is all about.
Why would they think R' Papa meant anything else, or that anyone ever
did anything other than what we have record of.

Last, the Rambam knew enough hygiene to know you don't put a mouth on
a wound if you could simply bloodlet in other ways. IOW, he knew his
Galen, who is both the leading source on bloodletting and writes about
keeping wounds clean. The Rambam let blood all the time in his practice,
and yet he still speaks of metzitzah as being bepeh in particular.

It was de rigure that that's what metzitzah means. One would need to
prove it ever meant anything else. I feel like a broken record, but I
feel a need to say it again: The burden of proof is on us innovators.
The CS understood that. You're placing it on those who want to keep what
was done miyamim yamimah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  judgment bring balance and harmony?

----- Forwarded message from Daily Torah Thought <torczy...@rcn.com> -----
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:06:52 +0000
From: Daily Torah Thought <torczy...@rcn.com>

Daily Torah Thought
A new Fear of Gd?

Posted: 16 Apr 2012 02:20 AM PDT
http://torahbyemail.blogspot.com/2012/04/new-fear-of-gd.html

Hi,

"To fear G-d [in our era] is to fear abandonment by G-d. The desolate
soul is less frequently overwhelmed by G-d's numinous presence than by
His thundering absence. In a word, the dominant emotion of spiritual
apprehension is anxiety rather than fear."

(R' Shalom Carmy, "Yet My Soul Drew Back", Tradition 41:3)

Have a great day,
Mordechai
To post a comment on this, or any other Daily Torah Thought 
email, go to http://torahbyemail.blogspot.com.

In http://torahbyemail.blogspot.com/2012/04/new-fear-of-gd.html
R' Modechai Torczyner quoted RSCarmy, "Yet My Soul Drew Back", Tradition 41:3
(both CC-ed):

: To fear G-d [in our era] is to fear abandonment by G-d. The desolate
: soul is less frequently overwhelmed by G-d's numinous presence than by
: His thundering absence. In a word, the dominant emotion of spiritual
: apprehension is anxiety rather than fear.

I am reminded of the Ramchal's distinction between yir'as ha'onesh and
yir'as hacheit. He considers the latter to be the default definition
of Yir'as Hashem. (See MY ch 24, both title "Bebei'ur Yir'as haCheit"
and the distinction drawn between the "minei hayir'ah heim 2 sheheim 3".)

Yir'as hacheit is the fear of sin itself. Not a personal fear of getting
punished, but a yir'ah of doing something wrong "sheyehei neged Kevod
Shemo yisbarakh" as a problem in itself. AIUI, it's like the fear of
doing something to offend one's spouse simply because that spouse is
important to them -- not because they'll get back at them somehow.

R Prof SC is discussing a different kind of relationship-generated
fear. Not that I would harm the relationship or belittle the Kavod
of the Beloved, but that I could lose contat with the relationship.
Perhaps something more akin to yir'as ha'onesh, in the sense that the
ultimate reward is leihanos miZiv haShechinah, such that feeling out of
touch is onesh. After all, isn't that the essence of kareis?

This, in turn, reminds me of song lyrics that I had a theological question
about. They are taken from the Baal haTanya, translated from Yiddish to
Hebrew, and appear different in Breslov sources (which the songwriter
used) than in Lub originals. But it boils down to:

    Ribon haOlamim:
    I don't want anything else, [Or: I am not afraid of Your gehenom,]
    I don't want Your gan eden
    I don't want Your olam haba [Or: I forgive my claim on Your mal'akhei elyon]

    Do You know what I desire?
    Just You alone!

What is gan eden if not a "place" where tzadiqim sit, ve'atoroseihem
berosheihem, venehenim miziv haShechinah? What is the Baal haTanya's
distinction between a taavah for Dayn gan eden, and a taaavah for
Dir Alein?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  judgment bring balance and harmony?

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
>> The practical significance of the question
>> involves the correct pronunciation of the word which follows "lana"
>> and which precedes "yisrael". ?If that word is Hebrew, the qamatz
>> underneath the khaf is a qamatz qatan, and the word should rhyme with
>> "tall".
>
>
> Is it? ?AFAIK that is only true in Modern Ivrit. ?AIUI, Sefardim say
> "kal nidrei", not "kol".

In Hebrew, Sefardim say "kol". The only exceptions I can think of are
Kal Nidrei and kal birchata in Kaddish, because they're Aramaic, and
"kal atzmotai tomarna", because of the ta`am.

Lulei demistafina, I suspect that both of these pronounciations,
though hallowed by tradition, are not grammatically correct. "Kal
atzmotai" I don't understand at all, and I don't know what the source
is for the assumption that there is no KK in Aramaic. On the contrary,
many words in Biblical Aramaic seem to require it (do you say
"palhan?" [ref. Ezra 7:9)]

RMG pointed me at the Ritva and Abudraham who both say that you see from
this question that these pesukim are just "asmachta b'alma vhakabala ikar".

It's not a particularly satisfying answer to me, but that's my chisaron.

Kol Tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120417/13df90c5/attachment-0001.htm>

http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2012/04/rav-rosen-argues-again
st-changing.html 


i am not  sure  what  'classical' sources/gdolim  would  have  to say 
about  this  issue,  since  mistama  they  would  not  hold  by any either 
5 iyar or  28 iyar  as  being anything  other than tachanun days.    but 
maybe the gdolim of the DL/RZ  world  will chime in .   eg  if  israel 
celbrates on a day other than 5 iyar,  should  those who say hallel follow 
 israel, or the day of  the original perceived nes?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120417/78641390/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:21:00AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: maybe the gdolim of the DL/RZ  world  will chime in .   eg  if  israel 
: celbrates on a day other than 5 iyar,  should  those who say hallel follow 
:  israel, or the day of  the original perceived nes?

My father is not a poseiq, but in his opinion... The biggest neis
commemorated on 5 Iyyar is the birth of a nation that would eventually
move its holidays around to minimize chillul Shabbos.

The bigger neis will come when they no longer have to.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  judgment bring balance and harmony?

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:21 PM,  <Saul.Z.New...@kp.org> wrote:
>
> http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2012/04/rav-rosen-ar
> gues-against-changing.html
>
> i am not ?sure ?what ?'classical' sources/gdolim ?would ?have ?to say about
> ?this ?issue, ?since ?mistama ?they ?would ?not ?hold ?by any ? either 5
> iyar or ?28 iyar ?as ?being anything ?other than tachanun days. ? ?but
> ?maybe the gdolim of the DL/RZ ?world ?will chime in . ? eg ?if ?israel
> celbrates on a day other than 5 iyar, ?should ?those who say hallel ?follow
> ?israel, or the day of ?the original perceived nes?

How is the issue of the date different from when the 9th Av is Shabbat
and we observe it on the 10th?

Furthermore, is 5 Iyar 5708 really perceived as the occasion of a nes,
and 4 or 6 Iyar  as nes-free? Surely that whole period was full of
moftim bashamayim uva'aretz, dam va'esh vetimerot ashan.

I don't get what nes happened on Yom HaAtzmaut.  That a declaration was 
read?  Yom Yerushalayim, I get.  It's the actual day that we retook 
Yerushalayim.  But honestly, 16 Kislev makes more sense than 5 Iyyar for 
the day that the nations of the world passed the partition plan.  The 
war itself ended on different days for Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, 
so that doesn't seem like a useful date.

I realize there's a desire to commemorate the birth of the State of 
Israel, but what specific thing can you point to that merits being 
called a nes?  As far as Yom HaShoah is concerned, if I understand 
correctly, the Knesset asked the Rabbanut to create such a day, and the 
Rabbanut replied that it wasn't necessary, since we have Tisha B'Av.  I 
understand that with people who actually lived through the Shoah still 
alive, there's a need for something separate, but in the long term, how 
do we justify raising the Shoah al rosh aveiluteinu?  Yom HaShoah was 
created by the Knesset itself, and shouldn't have any halakhic 
significance.  IMO.

Lisa

On 4/17/2012 1:21 PM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
>
> _http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2012/04/rav-rosen-a
> rgues-against-changing.html_ 
>
>
> i am not  sure  what  'classical' sources/gdolim  would  have  to say 
> about  this  issue,  since  mistama  they  would  not  hold  by any   
> either 5 iyar or  28 iyar  as  being anything  other than tachanun 
> days.    but  maybe the gdolim of the DL/RZ  world  will chime in .   
> eg  if  israel celbrates on a day other than 5 iyar,  should  those 
> who say hallel  follow  israel, or the day of  the original perceived nes?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120417/a7d38638/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> I once developed a fusion of the Qetzos and
> R' Hutner's Pachad Yitzchaq to define "ge'ulah"
> <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/04/geulah.shtml> and
> <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/05/geulah-king.shtml>
> (which is based on the prior.

Thank you for those links, but from my perspective, they're very much about Emes, while I didn't see too much about Geulah. One of the ideas there is:

> Rav Hirsch places the "ge'ulah" in the same family as [yud
> ayin lamed] (to progress), ...
> Our definition can thus be phrased as "a process for the
> ultimate revelation of truth."

My problem with this is that ge'ulah always appears in context of being the
redemption of a group or of an individual. If it is reshaped into being a
"revelation of truth", then I do not know how to apply it to phrases like
"he was redeemed" or "we were redeemed". As I'm accustomed to hearing these
phrases, they don't concern a search for truth as much as a search for
salvation or vindication.

I'd like to go back to the blog entry of Rabbi Ephraim Schwartz of the
Young Israel of Karmiel, cited earlier in this thread. I didn't understand
his answer too well, but I think his question was fascinating, and I'd like
to use it as a starting point. He wrote:

> We have ... five terminologies of redemption mentioned in the
> Torah in regards to our Exodus. V?Hotzaisi- I will take you out,
> V?Hitzalti- I will save you, V?Goalti- I will redeem you,
> V?Lokachti- I will take  you, V?Haveisi- I will bring you (to
> the land).

That much seems to be universally acknowledged. The only dispute of which
I'm aware is whether or not "v'hevesi" has already occurred or is to occur
in the future, and whether or not we should have a fifth kos corresponding
to it at the current time. But this discussion is about the meaning of
Redemption, and all five words are part of that discussion.

Rabbi Schwartz continues, and asks:

> What would be lacking without that middle one of redemption? Let?s
> say Hashem would have taken us out, saved us from the Egyptians,
> taken us as his nation (through giving us the Torah) and brought
> us to Israel. What would we have been missing? Mah Chaseir? What
> is that third cup really about?

Reviewing those pesukim (Shemos 6:6-8), I was struck by the grammar of these verbs, specifically the phrases (or lack thereof) attached to them:

V?Hotzaisi - I will take you out from the burdens of Egypt
V?Hitzalti - I will save you from their work
V?Go'alti - I will redeem you with an outstretched arm
V?Lokachti - I will take you for Myself as a people
V?Haveisi - I will bring you to the land

Four of these verbs have specific goals stated. But one of them - Go'alti -
does not mention any goal or purpose; it only mentions the means by which
it will be accomplished. So what WAS the goal? What does redemption
*accomplish*?

Indeed, as RES blogged, suppose G-d had taken us out from the burdens of
Egypt, had saved us from their work, had taken us as His people, and had
brought us to the Land. Would we be any worse off for not having been
"redeemed"?

I do not have any demonstrable answers at this time, only wild guesses:
>From the difference between go'alti and the other four verbs, I suggest
that Geulah is not a specific event or action, but a process. I also
suspect that it does not have an objective, observable result in the
physical world, but that it has an emotional or psychological result.

I began by suggesting that redemption is not a very big deal at all, as it
merely repairs an injury, such as our slavery in Mitzrayim, or the
undeserved jailtime of two fictional characters that I mentioned. RES's
blog question similarly suggests that if HaShem would have done the other
four things, but not redeemed us, we'd be in our rightful place, so what is
missing that Geulah adds?

My answer now is to suggest that Geulah is an emotional healing. Perhaps
even an emotional victory. Geulah is the difference between merely
surviving an adversity, and "That which doesn't kill me, makes me
stronger." Yes, we wish that we didn't have to endure that adversity, but
we must also admit that we are fortunate to have grown from the experience.
Perhaps it can be compared to one whose teshuva is so thorough that
"zedonos naaseh zechuyos" - such a person correctly regrets his sins, but
at the same time has grown from them, and grown *more* than he would have
done without them.

But there are many processes by which a wrong can be made right, and some
are less pleasing than others. Perhaps Geulah is the gift of seeing
HaShem's chesed so clearly that one can look back on the adversity and
pain, and see how it really was worth it.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f8dc5a5214c95c3fcdst01vuc

http://daf-yomi.com/DYItemDetails.aspx?itemId=137

A summary of R' Meshulam Roth's famous teshuva - and why 5 Iyar 
specifically.

Every day is full of mofsim ba'shamayim u'ba'aretz, yet kol ha'omer 
Hallel b'kol yom...

KT,
YGB

On 4/17/2012 3:13 PM, Simon Montagu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:21 PM,<Saul.Z.New...@kp.org>  wrote:
>> http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2012/04/rav-
>> rosen-argues-against-changing.html
>>
>> i am not  sure  what  'classical' sources/gdolim  would  have  to say about
>>   this  issue,  since  mistama  they  would  not  hold  by any   either 5
>> iyar or  28 iyar  as  being anything  other than tachanun days.    but
>>   maybe the gdolim of the DL/RZ  world  will chime in .   eg  if  israel
>> celbrates on a day other than 5 iyar,  should  those who say hallel  follow
>>   israel, or the day of  the original perceived nes?
> How is the issue of the date different from when the 9th Av is Shabbat
> and we observe it on the 10th?
>
> Furthermore, is 5 Iyar 5708 really perceived as the occasion of a nes,
> and 4 or 6 Iyar  as nes-free? Surely that whole period was full of
> moftim bashamayim uva'aretz, dam va'esh vetimerot ashan.
>


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 22
**************************************

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..."