Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 007

Wednesday, September 29 2004

• Re: "Fuhn a kashya shtarbt men nisht."
• Re: hachana mshabat lshabat
• Sefer Zochiyos
• Re: Sefer Zochiyos
• RE: Verachel ba'ah
• RChazal - as seen by rishonim and achronim
• Mesorah
• Re: hachana mshabat lshabat
• RE: minhagim
• Re: Sefer Zochiyos
• shehechiyonu on non-leather shoes, sneakers...
• Re: Balancing Machshavah Amuqah and Emunah Peshutah
• Re: Torah as Allegory
• Re: Sefer Zochiyos
• Re: Torah as Allegory
• RE: Torah as Allegory
• RChazal - as seen by rishonim and achronim
• Re: additions for Aseres Yemei Teshuva
• Re: shehechiyonu on non-leather shoes, sneakers...
• Re: hachana mshabat lshabat
• Charcoal barbeque on Hag
• long list
• Re: hachana mshabat lshabat
• Re: Sefer Zochiyos

hlampel@thejnet.com
> Said that Tsadukee to Rebbi, "The one who created wind did not create
> mountains, for it is written 'For behold the former of mountains and
> the creator of wind...' (Amos 4:13)"
> [Rebbi] said to him, "Fool! Go down to the end of the posuk: 'Hashem
> [Elokay] Tz'vakos sh'mo.'
> "Give me three days, and I'll deliver an answer [to your kushya]." ...
> ....[The Tsadukee at the door] said to him, "Rebbi, I come to you with
> good news! Your opponent could not find an answer and fell from the roof
> and died."

It seems that as a Tsadukee, the suicide did not hold of the fundamental
talmudic k'lall, "Fuhn a kashya shtarbt men nisht," "You don't die from
a kushya."

That Tsadukee didn't die fuhn a kashya, he died fuhn a teirutz...

SBA 

In a message dated 9/24/2004 9:40:08 AM EST, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> Is anyone aware of any sources on this (e.g could i roll the sefer
> torah on one shabbat to the next weeks maftir; if I had a dining room
> only used for shabbat could I clean the table after shalosh seudot and
> reset it for next friday evening?)

This is discussed in Piskei Tshuvos 302:4, 307:1,323:1, I am making a pdf 
file of these pages, anyone intertested can e-mail me.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

{RYZ, there is room in the archive's faxes directory. -mi}

From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
> What kind of bakosho is 'Kosveinu besefer Zochiyos'?

Rabbi Reisman once explained it to mean that we be provided opportunities
to be zoche. Not everyone gets the same opportunities to do mitzvos;
we ask that we get thos opportunities.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

SBA wrote:
> What kind of bakosho is 'Kosveinu besefer Zochiyos'?

> If you have done the right thing - mitzvos and maasim tovim - you will
> definitely be in that sefer. But if not, how can you ask to be included?

Off the top off my head...

According to midas hadin perhaps we should say none of our zechusim
are really zechusim; they all have flaws which. By the standard of
HaShem's perfection is our davening every really with complete kavannah,
is the money from our tzedakah always obtained perfectly al pi din and
given for all the proper reasons, etc. For any zechus we can find some
technicality on which HaShem could throw it out. BUT, we are asking
HaShem, as a chesed, to overlook the flaws in our zechusim, and count
them in the sefer zechuyos.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
<israel@email.arizona.edu>		1130 North Mountain Ave.
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical		The University of Arizona
   Engineering				Tucson, AZ  85711

RMB wrote:
> Notice that one time "ba'ah" is used to mean that Racheil was on her way,
> the other that she had arrived already. Rashi clarifies with a grammatical
> point; it makes a difference which syllable gets the accent mark. The
> first usage was "BA'ah", with the stress on the first syllable, meaning
> "she is coming". The second, "ba'AH" -- "she came".

Other way around.  (This is something a bal-kore has to go back for.)

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> What's the maqor for saying it was at Yishma'el's birth and when
> Yitzchaq turned five?

According to Rashi, Sarah put an ayin hara on Hagar's ibur and the child
she was pregnant with then was aborted. Then it says, future tense,
hinach hara; you will become pregnant.

Two incidents, one at that child's (non-live) birth, the other at some
point after Yishmael (and Yitzchok)becoming old enough to fight with
each other; don't recall a specific age.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> The CC's cup wasn't large enough according to the MB.

We've discussed this before. While this notion is fairly well known,
a family member of the CC specifically told me it wasn't true.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

[I got word directly from the person with the chutzpah to measure it. -mi]

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> In a message dated 09/26/2004 4:34:10 PM EDT, simon.montagu@gmail.com writes:
>> Tosefta Shabbat 13, 19 http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/b/f/f21.htm

> Interesting, because in the other versions of this no mention is made of
> this shabbat for next shabbat, only this shabbat for this shabbat or chol.
> Further if you look at the Bavli (shabat 118a) Rashi clearly says (as
> I always understood the issur) that it's due to doing it ltzorech chol.

> Does anyone know a source (written or oral) on halacha lmaaseh on
> this issue.

I don't have the sources in front of me, but check the halachot dealing 
with folding a talis on Shabbos, regarding a talis that is used only on 
Shabbos.

"Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> "Newman,Saul Z" <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org>
>> 1- no minyan at start of slichot. when minyan arrives, do they
>> backtrack and say the opening kaddish or not?>>

> Not unless they go all the way back and repeat Ashrei, which is the
> focus of the kaddish. The kaddish cannot be said on its own.

Ashrei is the focus of the kaddish? I thought the kaddish is an intro
to selichot, and the Ashrei is there because kaddish can only be said
after a passuk. So if they want to say kaddish later, the chazan could
just say a pasuk and then kaddish, or he could say it after the next
pasuk that appears in the selichot, after the 10th man shows up.

Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
>> What kind of bakosho is 'Kosveinu besefer Zochiyos'?

> Rabbi Reisman once explained it to mean that we be provided opportunities
> to be zoche. Not everyone gets the same opportunities to do mitzvos;
> we ask that we get thos opportunities.

That's interesting. I had always thought of that Bakasha as meaning
that in those areas where we have acted in a manner that is questionable
(i.e it may have been meritorious or it may have been be unmeritorious)
we pray the act is considered by God as a Zechuya rather than a Chovah.

HM

Perhaps this has been discussed in the past, but perhaps not.....

IIRC, the Rama says that we don't recite the blessing of shehechoyonu on
new shoes, because they are made of leather, production of which involved
the death of an animal. If so, licheora it seems that one should make the
brocho if the shoes do not contain leather or for non-leather footwear,
e.g. some sneakers, slippers, etc.

Do people do so nowadays ? Are sneakers perhaps considered not choshuv
enough to make a brocho (despite the high price tags of some of them) ?

Mordechai

On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 01:29:16AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Actually the issue of avoiding hashkofa seems to be inherent in the
: yeshiva system - possibly because of the Nefesh HaChaim or possibly
: because of the emphasis of the Reform and haskala on philosophical
: understanding.

It depends what RCV meant by NhC IV. It would seem to me that the yeshiva
movement took his agenda one way, that TT has a mystical self-improvement
effect. Someone who learns gantz shas will be a better person. And
therefore the iqar is gemara, lomdus, din -- all of which is sfertile
ground for ameilus beTorah. The mussar movement took it another way,
that self-improvement is to be understand in rationalist's terms, and
yet derives equally from the same book.

...
:  Dayan Gruenfeld (Introduction to Horeb page xxxvii):            ...What
: Hirsch opposed, however was the notion so dangerous for the survival of
: both Jewry and Judaism that obedience to the laws of the Torah can be
: replaced by airy religous sentiment.

One of my favorite lines in 19 Letters is where RSRH likens Geigerian
wissenschaft to alchemy. In alchemy, one has a theory, and forces the
data to fit. This is the R approach to Judaism -- they think they know
what halakhah is all about, and cut out or modify the actual halakhah to
fit that notion. In a true Science of Judaism, one would be constructing
theories about how to understand the din.

....
: Abarbanel (Rosh Amana #23): If there are in fact foundation principles and
: roots - then why didn't our sages mention them? If they exist it would
: have been better if our sages had specifically discussed them then just
: dealing with the mitzvos and the moral and ethical principles of Pirkei
: Avos. Since our sages who are our guides seemed unconcerned with these
: principles and did not mention that there were unique principles of faith
: that a person needed to believe...

This is his argument against the notion of ikkarei emunah. I don't catch
why it is relevent.

...
: Rav S. R. Hirsch had originally planned two volumes. Horeb and Moriah.
: Moriah was to be a book on hashkofa - but he never wrote it. Hirsch
: was actually more concerned with a philosophy of halacha rather than
: hashkofa. [see Dayan Grunfeld's Introduction to Horeb]

Or, that halakhah required greater bolstering. Which is the reason
actually given. We can't deduce from this which RSRH thought was
primary, just which was needed more by his contemporaries.

But more importantly, the question before us was not which is on
greater footing, but whether machshavah ought to play a significant
role at all. If it interferes with emunah peshutah, or simply doesn't
play a role in our avodas Hashem, then why bother?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 09:17:54AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: So now I can ask the l'chatchila question: if a young person comes to
: you asking about dinosaurs, now that you know both approaches, do you
: recommend RAM's books or RNS's books? If the former, how do you justify
: offering arguments that you know are tendentious? If the latter, how do
: you justify your haskamah for II?

Funny you should ask that, as it just came up. I made some comment on Yom
Kippur, on the way home for our short break, about something in common
(I forget what) between chickens and dinosaurs, and how chickens, being
birds, are closer to dinosaurs than other contemporary animals.

My 11-yr-old son asked me if I thought dinosaurs were real. He was taught
in school that their fossils were a relic of the giants, and when he
asked about their having tails, was told to get back to his work.

I answered that I have no idea, and it doesn't matter much. What's
important is that Hashem created the world. My life is the same whether
He did so in a single "poof" or 10 that was so unlike anything scientific
that scientists look at it and got it all wrong, or if He did so over
a long more natural-looking process. I then pointed out that there are
enough sources that it's not open-and-shut in my mind.

However, Hashem did create a world in which there looks like there were
dinosaurs. And real or not, those dinosaurs resemble birds more than
anything else.

My son was fine with that [non-]answer.

Why pretend we have a final answer to a question far more informed and
holy minds than our children's can't come to a consensus upon?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 05:47:54PM +1000, SBA wrote:
: After all, Chazal talk only of 'shlosho seforim niftochim' - so where
: do these 5 seforim come from?

: I then noted that the commentators in the siddur Otzar Hatefilos talk
: about this - but the do not really resolve this question.

I don't see the question. They're different meshalim for the same lem'alah
min hateva reality. It's not like there are actual books/scolls before
HQBH and He sits there writing and sealing them.

So, one can see it as three sefarim, one for each category of people, or
as 5 or more sefarim of different kinds of fates.

Note that the list in avinu malkeinu is not of people, but of berakhos
a person can have: selichah umechilah, parnasah vechalkalah, etc...

Which brings me to RSBA's additional question:
: What kind of bakosho is 'Kosveinu besefer Zochiyos'?

There is a machloqes hadefusim whether it's "zechuyos" or "zachuyos". But
I would think by parallel to the other four, the intent is "the
book of merits", not "the book of the meritorious". I invice the
mesorah@aishdas.org crowd to correct me, but I believe that's "zechuyos",
with a sheva.

The following was a post I sent scjm shortly before RH:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:00:37 UTC, moshes@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
: In Hebrew horseradish is "Chazeres" so he says "Yhi Ratzon shenachzor
: bitshuvah"!

Trans: May it be Your Desire that we return in teshuvah.

The problem is, I'm sure it /is/ His Desire. However, "All is under the
control of [the One in] heaven except for awe of heaven." His greater
desire is that we have free will.

So, can we ask G-d that we return in teshuvah? He left the decision to us!

For that matter, couldn't we say the same about having a "sweet new
year"? Of course the All Merciful wants us to have a sweet new year.
However, He has a greater desire for us to learn, which may require
struggling with tragedy. He has a greater desire for us to right wrongs,
which requires that wrongs exist. In short, if G-d didn't deem our being
creative, free-willed being in His Image as the greater good, and the
source of more happiness in the long run, of course Hashem would have
given us everything we desire.

So, what's the request?

Perhaps it's that by articulating our desire for His help, we make
ourselves people who G-d does not need to challenge in order to get
to teshuvah. By turning to Hashem to ask for a year that only good --
because every year is good, even if it's in the "for your own good"
sense -- but that is sweet and is readily experienced as good, we accept
His Leadership rather than requiring His administration.

This, IMHO, is the whole point of Rosh Hashanah. It's the anniversary
of the creation of Adam, the first being who was capable of electing
G-d to be His King. A melekh, a king, rules by the acclimation of the
people. A mosheil rules by the imposition of the law.

This is why "For Hashem has the melukhah, the kingship, and He is
Mosheil over the nations." In the current state, while G-d could be
Melekh, he is not accepted as such and instead must administer the
nations as a Mosheil. As we say in Ashrei, "Your malkhus is a malkhus
for all of time, and your memshalah is from generation to generation."
The memshalah ends at the culmination of history, after which all will
accept G-d as Melekh. In that day, as we say after Aleinu, "And G-d will
be King over all the world...."

A king, who has his people's support, can be merciful. A mosheil, who
must impose his will on the people, can not. By coronating G-d as our
King, we are eliminating much (but by far not all!) of the need for Him
to lead us through challenges and difficulties. Rosh haShanah enables
us to receive Mercy in His Justice.
== ad kan scjm ===

... mechoq berachamekha harabim, aval lo al yedei yissurim...

IOW, we can ask Hashem for his Leadership in getting zechuyos, which
is a request for getting more hashgachah peratis.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

> My 11-yr-old son asked me if I thought dinosaurs were real. He was taught
> in school that their fossils were a relic of the giants, and when he
> asked about their having tails, was told to get back to his work.

This is a real problem -- and all it does is teach the child that 
there's something being "hidden". Usually something the Rebbe doesn't 
know. Which doesn't help the child (or adult) respect his Rabbanim.

> My son was fine with that [non-]answer.

It's a legitimate answer -- all an "answer" has to do is deal with the 
question.

> Why pretend we have a final answer to a question far more informed and
> holy minds than our children's can't come to a consensus upon?

"Holy", yes. But "more informed"? That's exactly the problem -- we don't 
have those "more informed" Gadolim today.

IN fact, being "more informed" is a good way to be excluded from the 
"Gadol" club.

Akiva
 -- 
"If you want to build a ship, then don't drum up men to gather wood,
give orders, and divide the work. Rather, teach them to yearn for the
far and endless sea."                    - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

R' David Riceman: 
> Now, I think, we can go back to my initial objection.  In his original
> post RMYG wrote:
>> To my mind, informed ignorance is best.

> Implying, to me at least, that he was advocating II as a l'chatchila
> strategy for education.

No, I wrote, "To MY MIND."

RDR continues: (Sorry for the big quote, but I think it's germane -
MYG.)
> Elsewhere in that post he describes II's as having encountered Rabbi
> Miller's books before they realized the problems with them, and in his
> most recent post he wrote:

>> If, in my youth, I would have known all the
>> arguments against RAMM as I know them now, my emunah would have 
>> suffered greatly. However, since I didn't, my emunah had a chance to 
>> entrench itself in my psyche, and grew into an existence of its own, 
>> independent of intellectual support.
<snip>
>> if RNS's mehalech and RAMM
>> were both presented to me at the same time I very likely would have 
>> rejected RAM's mehalech.

> So now I can ask the l'chatchila question: if a young person comes to
> you asking about dinosaurs, now that you know both approaches, do you
> recommend RAM's books or RNS's books? If the former, how do you justify
> offering arguments that you know are tendentious? If the latter, how do
> you justify your haskamah for II?

Believe it or not! I was actually going to post this very question! I
recognize that my personal mehalech in emunah is not a (direct) result
of my upbringing or education. It is rather a fortuitous sequence of
events, coupled with my intellectual makeup that brought me to where I
am today. This mehalech does NOT lend itself to being taught in ANY sort
of educational institution. ("Okay, everyone, even though this doesn't
make sense, BELIEVE!")

I was thinking about this question in the context of a friend of mine,
a 30-ish year old Ger, who had some hashkafa questions. I lent him one
of R' AM's seforim. He ended up not reading it - but should I lend it
again? To a teen? To anyone?

My opinion is that we cannot fly in the face of both the literal
understanding of the Torah, and the mehalech generally accepted by most
Rishonim and Acharonim, when we are teaching our children. At the same
time, we must recognize that there are children/teens out there who
will not be satisfied with these explanations. Somehow, we must make
other mehalchim available to them, and must let them know that these
mehalchim too, are legitimate.

So, RDR, to answer your question: I think I would offer R' AM's books,
and mention that if s/he still has a problem, R' NS's books are available
and kosher. (The question is still much better than the answer!)

My haskamah for II only goes as far as believing it - not teaching it.
Someone who reads R' AM's books will not become an II chasid. He will
be either a RAM chasid, or not! Actually, one has to read R' AM's books
AND RNS's books to believe in II. Sort of an intellectual tension. Ouch.

Wishing a happy and healthy Sukkos to all,
V'al anshei HaFlorida hu Omer: Yehi ratzon sheyihyu sukkoseihem sukkos!

Moshe Yehuda Gluck
mailto:mslatfatf@access4less.net
www.esefer.blogspot.com

According to Rashi, Sarah put an ayin hara on Hagar's ibur and the child
she was pregnant with then was aborted. Then it says, future tense,
hinach hara; you will become pregnant.

This Rashi I never understood; can someone explain it to me.

The word harah is the same in present or future for it is an adjective,
cf. 'hara l'znunim' by Tamar, which means she is pregnant now. Couldn't
the angel simply be saying to Hagar : "You may not know it but you are
pregnant now"? Or, is harah only used for visible pregnancy, i.e after
3 months? Or is the limud from 'hinei', used only for forward action?

M. Levin 

> why the specificity of kol benei berisekha in "Ukhsov lechaim tovim"?

"B'nai brisecha" ("kal," BTW, isn't in Minhag Ashknaz -- IIRC, Baer quotes
an old source on the need for specifically 5 words [personally, I would
consider "kal-b'nai" as one word{-unit}, but that's just my opinion])
is an insert within "v'chol hachayim" and implicitely explains it;
similarly, "m'chalkail chayim" may be an impetus behind "y'tzurav,"
and the last b'rachah's "am'cha" is an impetus behind "v'chal am'cha."
Nothing within the 1st b'rachah forces such specificity.

All the best from
 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

In a message dated 9/28/2004 2:11:01 AM EDT, Phyllostac@aol.com writes:
> IIRC, the Rama says that we don't recite the blessing of shehechoyonu on
> new shoes, because they are made of leather, production of which involved
> the death of an animal. If so, licheora it seems that one should make the
> brocho if the shoes do not contain leather or for non-leather footwear,
> e.g. some sneakers, slippers, etc.

Do people do so nowadays ? Are sneakers perhaps considered not choshuv
enough to make a brocho (despite the high price tags of some of them) ?
The Rama 223:6 gives that reason to explains why we don't say "Tichdesh"
not why we don't say Shehecheyonu, he says clearly that the Minhag is
not to say Shecheyanu on shoes, and on the other hand those that make
Shecheyanu on Choshuva clothes do so even if made of leather (Pri Mgodim
22 M"Z 1, Sdei Chemed Asifas Dinim Brochos Simon 2 Ois 20 (taken from
Piskei Tshuvos)).

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 9/27/2004 9:27:54 PM EDT, hjweiss@panix.com writes:
> I don't have the sources in front of me, but check the halachot dealing 
> with folding a talis on Shabbos, regarding a talis that is used only on 
> Shabbos.

It is mentioned in the Piskei Tshuvos, will try to fax today to Avoda.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Has anyone seen a discussion about using a charcoal barbeque on Hag?
Someone indicated that it is Asur because you might fan the coals which
are white causing them to flame and thus you would be creating fire
as opposed to transferring. Is there anything to this? If the coal is
not "boeres" inside how would it flame up? Is there anything to this?
If the coal is not "boeres" inside how would it flame up? Do we make
such a gezeira?

        Kol Tuv and Chag Sameach
                Aryeh

--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Ethel and David Resnick Professor
   of Active Oxygen Chemistry
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail: FrimeA@mail.biu.ac.il

1. In Tanhuma Buber VaYera 38 it implies that R. Elazar b'r Shimon was
an ignoramus after his father's death. How is one to reconcile that with
the gemara that they studied together for fourteen years?

2. L'olam yashlim adam parshiyosav im hatzibbur - and to begin also.
Does that mean that you shouldn't start parshas Breishis until after
leining on the morning of Simhas Torah?

3. Someone asked about a Hazal about the cryptic nature of the narrative
of maaseh breishis. It's cited in Ramban Breishis 1:1 (around footnote 35
in Chavel's edition), in the introduction to the MN, and is printed in
Midrash Shnei Ksuvim in Wertheimer's Battei Midrashoth, vol. 1, p. 251.
"Lhagid koah maaseh breishis l'vasar vadam i efshar, l'ficach sasam lcha
hakasuv breishis bara elokim."

Incidentally, in spite of citing this Hazal, the Ramban says that the
days are real periods of time.

4. I glanced quickly this morning to try to find a terminus to the
crypticity (is that a word?). I vaguely recall a Hazal on this either at
"eileh Toldos Hashamayim ..." or at "Zeh sefer Toldos Adam ..." The shul
I daven in on Friday night has a Torah Shleimah; I'll try to check then,
though if anyone knows a priori I'd appreciate hearing about it.

5. I think the stima Hazal are talking about is related to the use
of words. For example, in day one we find the equation light = day
immediately followed by vayhi erev vayhi boker yom ehad, implying that
day includes more than just light. In day 2 we find that eretz = dry
land, yet, before there was any dry land, on day one, the aretz was tohu
vavohu. If you look closely you'll find that the meaning of quite a few
important words is deconstructed (if you'll pardon the fashionable term)
in the narrative. That's why I'd so like to find #4. It says when Hazal
thought normal usage began.

David Riceman

To see the Piskei Tshuvos on this issue please point to:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/mishabbosLeShabbos.pdf>

A Freilichen Yom Tov v'Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In Avodah V14 #6, SBAbeles asked:
> where do these 5 seforim come from?

Baer: the five "kasvainu"s are "k'neged chamisha chumshai Torah" (he
then notes that many additional "kasvainu"s exist: "in one manuscript,
'bsaifer mzonos'; in another, 'bsaifer rfuos'; in the Siddur of Rav
Amram, 'bsaifer zikaron'; in the Machzor of Tunis, 'bsaifer tzaddiqim'
and 'bsaifer ysharim utmimim'...in the Machzor of Rome, 'bsaifer yshuos
vnechamos.'").

RSRH uses p'suqim from TaNaCH (starting with Moshe Rabbainu's "mchaini na
miSifrcha") to argue that (quoting from the English translation of his
Siddur commentary) "all the works and ways of His sovereignty together
may be construed and taken as the content of one single 'Book' of God,
and 'kasvainu bsaifer chayyim tovim' etc. actually means, 'Number us
among those who, through Your Providence, will be alloted a good life.'"
Hence, the number of "kasvainu"s needn't be significant.

> What kind of bakosho is 'Kosveinu besefer Zochiyos'?

RSRH's thought can be used to answer this question, too.

All the best from
 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

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


[ 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         ]