Avodah Mailing List

Volume 38: Number 78

Tue, 22 Sep 2020

• 1. Re: What Will be with Simchas Torah? (Chana Luntz)
• 2. Re: Davening BiYehidut on Yom Kippur (Danny Schoemann)
• 3. Consumer Daf HaKashrus - Spices (Prof. L. Levine)
• 4. Cheerios and Pas Yisroel (Prof. L. Levine)
• 5. Re: Aruch HaShulchan OC 62:4 (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: What Will be with Simchas Torah? (Micha Berger)
• 7. forms of teshuvah (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: What Will be with Simchas Torah? (Chana Luntz)

RMB wrote:

Taking this to Avodah. I wrote on Areivim on Monday, 14-S-2020, 10:41pm EDT:
>  Early in the pandemic, I wondered about the validity of the heteirim 
> we rely on for numerous Simchas Torah minhagim: Leining at night is 
> problematic, but it's only to eliminate the problem of taking out 
> sifrei Torah if it weren't for leining. The number of aliyos. Aliyos 
> given to
> 12 year olds, etc...

BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot
HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So  while it might be that the
Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to
come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein
and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think
it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah
out).  Note that that also means that the siyum for the year, even in a
normal year, is not complete (or about to be completed) when the sifrei
Torah are taken out at night, as the first hakafos take place (at latest) on
the night of Simchat Torah, and yet the finishing of the yearly reading only
occurs the next day. 

 Note the reason why I say at latest is because many Sephardim (although not
all) have the custom of doing seven sets of seven hakafot which mean they do
hakafot on Shmini Atzeret as well (three sets on Shmini Atzeret, to
correspond with the three services, three sets on Simchat Torah, to
correspond with the three services, and one after Simchat Torah).

> This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked 
> how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to 
> celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy.

There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah,
something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and
Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be
related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the
way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah.
Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman
669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs:

"The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and
make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are
accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations
and to call to others to make a feast.  *And further it is the custom* in
our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the
sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every
place according to its custom.   *And further we are accustomed* to circle
with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with
the lulav *and all is because of joy*  *Further we are accustomed* to call
all the lads to the sefer Torah, ... and in every place according to their
custom. *Further we are accustomed* to finish the Torah even with a child
oleh..."

That is, while you appear to be saying that *because* we make a siyum on the
Torah *therefore* we do all these other halachically iffy customs, even the
Rema does not say this. To the extent he gives a reason, it is "because of
joy", and all the customs are as a result of *that* category.  Which makes
sense, because making a siyum justifies a seudah being considered a seudas
mitzvah (and may justify the name of Simchas Torah, instead of second day
Shmini Atzeret), and there are references in the gemara that seem to justify
the making of a feast for a siyum, although the derivation is not really
that straightforward, nowhere does it allow any of the other behaviour that
might be Halachically iffy.  On the other hand, simcha is a mitzvah d'orisa
on yom tov, and indeed according to Sukkah 48a " It was taught in a braita:
[Devarim 16:16] "and it will be completely joyous" this is to include the
night of the last day of Yom Tov [lelei yom tov acharon]"  Now of course,
that is referring in the Torah to Shmini Artzeret, and it is interesting
that in chutz l'aretz, we seem to have taken the especially joyous
obligation of that d'orisa mitzvah, and attached it to what is the night of
yom tov achron for us, which in fact is only minhag avosaynu b'yadanu.  But
be that as it may, it seems to me that, as the Rema says, the justification
for all of these minhagim is simchas yom tov, and particularly the extra
simcha of the final days of yom tov, and that they are independent of one
another, so that the aspects related to making a siyum on the Torah are
independent of taking the sifrei Torah out, and of doing the hakafos, and of
singing and dancing.  And if anything, the minhag of having a siyum on
completing a full yearly reading of the Torah could perhaps be seen as being
caused by the obligation to create extra joy on Shmini Atzeret/Simchas
Torah, and not the other way around.  We have arranged our schedules so that
we have the joy of completely the Torah on this day, as Torah learning is in
and of itself a form of joy (see eg the introduction to the Eglei Tal), so
we arrange them to coincide.

> I am not sure what we would be marking with 7 simple trips around the 
> bimah, given the gap for Shemos and Vayiqra my qehillah has in this 
> year's leining. But if we psychologically need to pretend there is a 
> Simchas Torah this year, and that too has medical positives, how can 
> anyone argue for more but the barest minimum to satisfy that 
> psychological need for the majority of people?

But again, this assumes that all the minhagim on Simchas Torah are a direct
result of the siyum, which I do not believe is the case.  It is important to
have Simchas Yom Tov, and to do what we can to maximise simchas Yom Tov, and
if the siyum part is not possible, but the other parts are, then the other
parts should be done.

<<But my point on Areivim, just like the point I made here to begin with,
was more about most of the minhagim for celebrating Simchas Torah are on the
defensive. We lein at night. (At least most of us do.) We take out more
sifrei Torah than we read from. We give way too many people aliyos.
We are relying on heteirim on a slew of dinim about kavod ST and qeri'as
haTorah. We need a certain level of justification for it.

We don't have to just say that ST celebrates someone else's completion of
the Torah -- we need to be able to argue that's true strongly enough to
justify those heteirim.>>

And the classic justification for these heterim is that the aseh of simcha
is docheh, as per the Rema.  However, because we are taking about simcha
that is required by the Torah, it is linked to and part and parcel with
simcha with the Torah - without the Torah there would be no obligation of
such simcha, so simcha that is antithetical to the Torah, ie does not
encompass kavod haTorah, is not justified.

Which is why I am not even convinced that it is a tzibbur versus yachid
thing.  Would there be a problem if a Rav, who happened to live above the
shul, took out the sefrei Torah and did hakafos with them with his family
around an empty shul, because he was restricted by Covid requirements to his
bubble, which did not contain a minyan?  I'm not sure there would.  There
are potential issues with leining, and even more so with making birchas
haTorah on such layning, but do we consider hakafos as a dvar shebekedusha
that absolutely has to have a minyan?   It is post gemara, so it is not so
clear it can be a dvar shebekedusha, which might need to have been
instituted by the Anshei Knesset Hagadola or at least not to be post Ravina
and Rav Ashi (that might also turn on whether you follow the Aruch
haShulchan and the Rokach, who hold that kaddish was instituted by the
Anshei Knesset HaGadola, and that is what justifies its status as a dvar
shebekedusha, or whether you follow the Shibbolei Ha-Leket and the teshuvas
HaGeonim which seem to suggest that the whole institution of kaddish within
prayer was instituted by the Geonim (and if so, whether a takana of the
Geonim is and remains binding or it does not)).

<<Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either
way.>>

But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as
something of an obligation of the tzibbur (the tzibbur would seem to be
needed in order to make sure that we are making the widow happy).  So to the
extent that it is dependent upon simcha, then that obligation remains, even
if the minhagim of the tzibbur, ie the way the tzibbur traditionally
performs such simcha, might not be possible at the present time, and hence
is not an obligation.

-Micha

Gmar Tov

Chana

.
R' Aryeh Frimer asked:
> Has anyone seen literature about the following Issues when
> Davening BiYehidut
> (1) saying Kol Nidrei - You need a Bet Din to be Matir Neder, but
> perhaps it can be said as a Notification for the future  [a la
> Rabbenu Tam] - using the language "MiYom Kippur Zeh ad Yom kippurim.

R' Akiva Miller answered:
> No, I haven't seen any literature on it, but just off the top of my head:
> Even if Notification doesn't need a beis din, I would imagine that it
> certainly needs some degree of publicity. Maybe one's family will suffice.
> Perhaps you can compare this to the various situations where one is
> mafkir something, and the conditions that apply there.

In a nutshell, you can see it here on Sefaria: https://tinyurl.com/y2qgtuyx

It's a Mishna in Nedirim 3:1, discussed in Talmud 23a, codified in
Yoreh De'a 211 to which the Ba'er Heitev decides that as long as one
said it loud enough to be heard to one's own ears, it's valid.

None of the commentators along the way mention publicity. The only
issue they have is "Devorim She'B'Leiv" if it's whispered or thought.

Along the way I learnt:

You can say it ("just kidding about the Neder stuff") any time.

Those who hold you don't have to say it right before making the Neder,
don't give it an expiration date - IOW once a lifetime should be
sufficient.

Bottom line: If it works, you can chant the "futuristic" Kol Nidrei to
yourself in an undertone. CLOR.

Gmar Chasima Tova

- Danny, not a Rabbi by any stretch of imagination.

I normally do not send out messages with attachments, but I could not
locate this online.
[See <https://ouintranet.org/newsletters/files/Daf-Yomim-Noraim-5781.pdf>
for attached PDF. -micha]

 From the pdf file

> This article is an in-depth look at a specific category of vegetables:
> spices. Spices refer to aromatic vegetable products used to season or
> flavor foods. Less than 2% of food consumed in the United States are
> spices, but what a difference that 2% makes! Without spices, all food
> would be bland and unappetizing.
<Snip>
> As mentioned, there are many spices exported by Israel, which create a
> whole host of potential kashrus issues. All uncertified Israeli spices
> present serious kashrus challenges in the form of tevel and shemitah. A
> Mashgiach visiting a spice plant must be on the lookout for this. Because
> of the aromatic and fragrant nature of spices, these spices will not
> be batel in a mixture, as they are avida l'taama, added to mixtures
> for taste, and anything which is added to a mixture for taste does not
> become batel. This halachah is paskened by Rema in Yoreh Deah 98:8,
> from the Gemara (Beitza 38b, Chulin 6a).

See the attachment for much more.

From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


Q. Can one eat Cheerios during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva (ten days from Rosh
Hashana to Yom Kippur) or Shabbos and Yom Tov for those who only eat Pas
Yisroel on those days? What about other breakfast cereals? Must they be Pas
Yisroel?

A. There are differing opinions as to whether Cheerios is considered pas.
The OU poskim do not consider it pas, because of the size of the individual
pieces and the manner in which it is made. Likewise, wheat flake cereals
are not considered ?bread-like? and therefore do not need to be pas
Yisroel. Corn and Rice Cereals are, by definition, not bread items.

See our Pas Yisroel List ? 5781<http://links.mkt3536.com/ctt?ms=MzI1NTY2OTkS1&;kn=11&r=MjM3MTAxNzY3NzIS1&b=0&j=MTc4NDA5ODU0NwS2&mt=1&rt=0>
at OUKosher.org for OU certified Pas Yisroel brands and products.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200922/a66c4480/attachment-0001.html>

On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 11:36:29PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> The first thing I noticed is that this ability to translate correctly was
> supposedly lost since Gemara days, but the prohibition of saying translated
> prayers was less than a century old. If so, how did the Shulchan Aruch (in
> the section that this very Aruch Hashulchan is commenting on) allow it?

The SA often just echoes Chazal when the case is considered theoretical.
So, if he didn't see people really trying to say Shema in la'az, the
Mechaber wouldn't deal with the practical problems of trying to do so
and just note that hypothetically, Chazal said it was mutar.

> He is also ambiguous about the exact problem: Is it that our translators
> lack the skill to translate correctly, or that the foreign languages are
> incapable of reflecting the many shades of meaning that the original text
> holds? For example, is the problem that we can't find a word in English to
> adequately express Hashem's Name, or that no such word exists?

Or maybe just the right shade for each instance.

If you get too nitpicky, you'll note that two different speakers of
the same language have different memories and associations with many of
their different words, and don't have bidiyuq the same things in mind
when using them.

Exact precision is a rabbit's hole to fall down. The question is defining
"exact enough". Maybe exact enough to relay one out of multiple peshatim?

WRT semitic languages, there are going to be much closer matches. So,
davening in Aramaic seems much more doable than davening in a Romantic
or Germanic language.

> According to Rashi on Devarim 1:5 and 27:8, Moshe Rabbeinu translated the
> Torah into 70 languages. I don't doubt that he understood the word
> "totafos" and was able to translate it well, but did all seventy of those
> languages contain words that could be used as Hashem's Name to the AhS's
> satisfaction? All 70 languages had a word that meant Eternal AND Almighty
> AND Was/Is/WillBe?

Or maybe Moshe translated to a phrase. Or maybe, because Moshe knew which
connotation of the sheim was primary in each context, he was able to pick
the right translation for each.

> In fact, the AhS seems to contradict himself on this very point. Here's my
> translation of Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3:
...
> 2) Namely: We hold that if a person said [in Aramaic]: "Brich Rachamana,
> Mara Malka d'alma, d'hai pita" [Blessed be God, Lord King of the Universe
> (and) of this bread], he is yotzay the bracha of Hamotzi, as it is written
> in [Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim] 167.

But he pointedly does NOT say that it's a good idea even if it's not a
a safeiq. So it would seem translations are only good enough when there
is no better way to deal with the situation.

You're comparing what he says here lekhat-chilah with his solution for
a bedi'eved.

BTW, I think berikh Rachmana is about fulfilling the purpose of the
berachah without trying to fulfill Chazal's coinage. Like if we said
you would be be meqabel ol Malkhus Shamayim by saying Shema in English,
but not yotzei the actual mitzvah of Q"Sh.

Because there is no "atah", and "of this bread" isn't "Who Brings
bread out of the earth". It's not even a close paraphrase, never mind
translation. It's not even an exactness of translation issue. Like,
what if a native Hebrew speaker followed AhS OC 202 by saying "Barukh
haRachaman Adon Melekh haOlam vehalachmaniah hazot". He would also
avoid the risk of berakhaha levatalah and also that of the geneivah-like
behavior of eating without a berakhah.

> Finally, what did the AhS 62:4 mean when he wrote about translating "the
> entire three sections [of the Shema] and all of the Shmoneh Esreh". Why did
> he specify the whole thing? I suspect that he was trying to preclude
> someone from a partial translation....

Why? Maybe someone would think "If I get a perfect enough translation
just until 'al levavekha' or just the first pereq, at least he would be
yotzei deOraisa." And SE is a different kind of problem than Shema, since
its core is baqashos, not miqra.

> for example, the last three paragraphs of Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:[1]72,
> where he explains that every language has a word that its speakers have
> assigned to being G-d's Name, and that in Aramaic, that word is Rachamana,
> "and even if it might come from Rachum, nevertheless, they made and
> established it as the Name. ... And if so, in the foreign languages common
> among us, only the name Gott is a Name, and not Eibershter and such. ...
> And in English it is specifically the name God." According to Rav Moshe,
> whatever is used *as* His Name *is* His Name, without any need to include
> concepts like  "Was and Is and Will Be".

BUT... only for some of the dinim of Sheimos. Not translations of
tefillos. As you started your discussion of RMF -- he agrees with the
AhS that such translations don't exist.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   others come to love him very naturally, and
Author: Widen Your Tent      he does not need even a speck of flattery.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                      - Rabbi AY Kook

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:50:14PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
> BTW you should know that leining at night is not the Sephardi (either Edot
> HaMitzrach or Spanish & Portuguese) minhag. So  while it might be that the
> Ashkenazi justification for leining at night is to allow for sifrei torah to
> come out at night, the Sephardim take the sifrei torah out and do not lein
> and do not feel the need for such justification (more than that, they think
> it is far more problematic to lein at night than to take the sifrei Torah
> out)....

I was taught the same line of reasoning besheim haGra. (I emailed RSMandel
to double-check if it was from him, and did he have the mar'eh maqom.
Got impatient holding off this reply for an answer.)

>> This year many minyanim missed more than entire chumash. So I asked 
>> how we can just assume it's okay to rely on those heteirim to 
>> celebrate a siyum that itself is iffy.

> There are indeed a whole collection of very iffy heterim for Simchat Torah,
> something commented on even by the Beit Yosef and various Rishonim and
> Gaonim, but while these iffy heterim are understood universally to be
> related to kovod HaTorah, I do not believe the link is generally made the
> way you have made it ie to it being a consequence of the siyum al haTorah.
> Even the Rema, who indeed brings both in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman
> 669 si'if 1 appears to list them as separate customs:
> 
> "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah because they rejoice and
> make on it a feast of joyfulness for the completion of the Torah *and we are
> accustomed* to finish the Torah and to begin from Breishit, to vow donations
> and to call to others to make a feast.  *And further it is the custom* in
> our lands to take out on Simchas Torah both evening and morning all the
> sifrei Torah which are in the ark and to say songs and praises and every
> place according to its custom.   *And further we are accustomed* to circle
> with the sifrei torah the bima which is in the synagogue like we circle with
> the lulav *and all is because of joy*..."

The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing
the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah
shel torah* venohagim...") And then yes, it lists numerous separate
customs, they are each said to be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah".
And since the Rama told you the simchah in question is that of the siyum,
I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum,
and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a
community that year.

>> Of course, a full Simchas Torah observance isn't safe right now either
>> way.

> But simcha on yom tov would seem to be an individual obligation as well as
> something of an obligation of the tzibbur...

Yes, but we don't take the sifrei Torah out at night for any other yom
tov. It's not "just" simchas YT. So the question is whether I can invoke
sharing in *his* simchah over finishing the Torah to participate.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 You are not a human being in search
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   of a spiritual experience. You are a
Author: Widen Your Tent      spiritual being immersed in a human
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

From R' Gil Student:
Medieval Ashkenazic authorities prescribed a variety of strong acts of
self-induced suffering as part of the teshuvah process, including long-term
fasting, lashes, exile and more. Rabbeinu Peretz (Gloss to Semak, no. 53)
lists four kinds of teshuvah:
1) teshuvas charatah, in which you regret the sin;
2) teshuvas ha-geder, in which you set additional boundaries for yourself to avoid sinning in the future;
3) teshuvas ha-kasuv, in which you undergo the punishment listed in the Torah for your sin;
4) teshuvas ha-mishkal, in which you inflict yourself with pain corresponding to the amount of pleasure you enjoyed with your sin.
Of these four, the first is what we consider standard teshuvah and the
second is going above and beyond. The third and fourth are not - and should
not be - practiced today. The Vilna Gaon's brother (Ma'alos Ha-Torah,
introduction) makes clear that we cannot undergo these harsh forms of
teshuvah in our time (his time, even more so in our time) and emerge
physically and religiously healthy. Instead, he recommends intense Torah
study.

Me- what is the nature of the paradigm change claimed by the Ma'alos Ha-Torah?
Gct
Joel rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200922/599defae/attachment-0001.html>

RMB wrote:

<<The hagah opens, as you translate, that the simchah is that of completing
the Torah. ("... [L]efi shesemaichin ve'osin bo se'udas mishteh *legamrah
shel torah* venohagim...")>>

Sorry, but I disagree, the language of the Rema is:


?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??
????

Which I translated as: "The last day of Yom Tov is called Simchat Torah
because they rejoice and make on it a festive meal for the completion of the
Torah"

That is, the *name* Simchas Torah, which we do not find in the gemora, is
because of the custom of making of completing the Torah.  So maybe you
should argue that *this* year Simchas Torah should not be called Simchas
Torah, but Shmini Atzeres sheni!  He does not say, as you have said "the
simcha is that of completing the Torah*.  


<< And then yes, it lists numerous separate customs, they are each said to
be "mishum simchah" -- not "kevod haTorah".>>

Yes, and mishum simcha is because of the halachic obligation to have simcha
on yom tov acharon shel chag.  Most of the prohibitions however (such as not
taking the sifrei Torah out for no reason, reading over and over, calling up
ketanim) are because of kavod haTorah, ie kavod haTorah is the counterweight
reason *not* to do these minhagim.  However similar to the idea of oseh
docheh lo ta'aseh, the mitzvah of simcha is able push aside certain  kevod
haTorah restrictions in certain circumstances, but clearly not in ones that
are in fact a disgrace to the Torah, but only ones that enhance the simcha
of the Torah. There is no reason for a siyum to push aside prohibitions
relating to kavod haTorah.

<<And since the Rama told you the simchah in question is that of the
siyum,>>

But he didn't he told you that is why the day has that name, not that the
simcha in question is the siyum.  All the different minhagim, including, but
not limited to, having the siyum, are because of simcha.

<< I feel the Rama very much makes the minhagim expressions of the siyum,
and even more questionable if there was no "gamrah shel Torah" in a
community that year.>>

Then he need not have listed them as "v'od nehagu" etc

<<Yes, but we don't take the sifrei Torah out at night for any other yom
tov. It's not "just" simchas YT. >>

But the gemora learns the simcha for yom tov acharon shel chag out of a
separate pasuk to the psukim that we learn it for Sukkos.  Why would Shmini
Atzeres need its only special pasuk with its own special limud, why does the
Torah not combine it with the simcha learnt out for sukkos? The mishna
understands that one is obligated in the same way just like the seven days
of sukkos so why are they not combined in the Torah?  The logical answer is
because there is something somewhat different about the nature of this
simcha (and in fact one might be tempted to darshen the ach, not as the
gemora does to exclude the first night of sukkos, but to say that it is a
day of simcha only, not simcha and sukkah and arba minim, but only simcha).
The custom, and the Rema makes it very clear that it is a custom, of making
the siyum is very late, given that we know that a three year cycle was in
existence for many years, and yet the descriptions of what was going on on
Simchas Torah well predate the universality of the one year cycle
(descriptions amongst the Geonim, inter alia). 

The fundamental mitzvah on Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah is therefore ach
sameach!
The interesting question is why in chutz l'aretz, other than amongst those
Sefardim who start the hakafot on Shmini Artzeres, we do *not* take the
sifrei Torah out on Shmini Atzeres.  However, to the extent that one is
sitting in the sukkah on Shmini Artzeret, and it is still thereby linked to
sukkos, then maybe it makes sense that in chutz l'aretz, the day that is ach
sameach, with no link to what went before, is Simchas Torah, despite it only
being yom tov sheini shel golios.

<<So the question is whether I can invoke sharing in *his* simchah over
finishing the Torah to participate.>>

But only if you assume the linkage that, against the explicit language of
the Rema, the cause of all the other minhagim is the siyum, including where
they are otherwise in violation of kevod haTorah, rather than that the
special simcha due to the special pasuk is the cause of all the minhagim
including the siyum.

GCT!
-Micha

Regards

Chana



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



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


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


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

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)