Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 099

Wednesday, June 23 1999

• A pig born of a cow
• Secular studies -- who are we kidding?
• Re: Rama and Birchas Shmuel
• chabad
• Israel
• Artscroll Gemaras
• secular subjects, offensive references to Torah
• Shinuy hateva
• Novi and Metizus
• Being Mahmir on Hazal- NOT(?)
• Re: offensive references to Torah
• Re: Artscroll Gemaras
• Re: Nishtanu Hateva
• Re: Israel
• Re: Secular studies -- who are we kidding?
• Secular studies in the Charedi Yeshivos in Israel
• Elements of Tephillah

In www.asktherabbi.org (a product of Ohr Sameiach) a questioner is told that if a pig fetus is placed in the uterus of a cow and was born of a cow is treif
because "anything originating from a kosher animal" excludes something not
produced by that animal.

What if we implanted a newly fertilized egg?

Based on what I said in the name of R' Dovid WRT kinim, should we say that
the pig embryo lacks halachic mamashus, and therefore the only meaningful
goreim is the cow? Does this require knowing how R' Dovid considers batei kinim
to be unique?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-Jun-99: Shelishi, Chukas-Balak
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 329:2-8
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 99b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari III 37-40

Bi-mkhilat kevod R. Shraga Rothbart, I do not know why this list is
arguing about secular studies.  The mahloket is an old one, going back
to the time of Hazal, and there is no reason to think that anyone on
either side of the debate is going to come up with some perfect argument
that will persuade the other side that it is wrong.

In this case, R. Shraga thinks he has found one: the Rema.  He asks:

>Why would you assume to not act like the Rama if there is no
>comparable poskim  who disagree with him?

There are two problems with this argument, one specific, one general.
The specific problem is the Rema's famous teshuvah, cited by R. Scholem
Berger, defending secular studies (among other things, he notes that he
engages in secular studies on Shabbat while others are off taking
walks).

The more general problem is that pesak Halakhah doesn't end with the
Rema.  Obviously we follow the principle of halakhah ke-batrai.  And,
unsurprisingly, there are many cases where some or all Ashkenazim do not
follow Rema.

The question of secular studies is very much a case where there are two
de'ot, as any number of  20th century Gedolim have affirmed.  I do not
understand why R. Shraga accepts (as I presume he does) that there are
two shitot on, say, tefillin on hol ha-mo'ed or sukkah on Shemini
Atzeret (to take some examples from this list), but not on this issue.

Regarding the study of Shakespeare in high school, which R. Shraga
thinks cannot be justified halakhically, and regarding the entire issue
of studying general culture outside of Torah, I recommend the
comprehensive essay of my rebbe, R. Aharon Lichtenstein, published in
Judaism's Encounter with Other Cultures, ed. Jacob J. Schachter.  The
essay discusses the value of secular studies for a Torah Jew and
evaluates the issues of bittul Torah and negative influences.   The
essay is long and sometimes hard going, but it represents a clearheaded,
systematic presentation of the pro-secular studies shitah.  I cannot
recommend it highly enough.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

<< 1. Why would you assume to not act like the Rama if there is no
 comparable poskim  who disagree with him?<<<

See other postings on the list for the marei mekomos of poskim Rishonim and 
Achronim.
 
>>> 2....you left out the key phrase of the  Rama, the heiter of akrai is 
only by a talmid chacham ...and a person should only stroll through  "pardes" 
after his stomach is full of meat and wine, ie issur veheiter  and dinei 
hamitzvos". <<<

Tamid chacham - no.  Baki b'issur v'heter, yes.  Again, plenty of room for 
interpretation of the degree of knowledge required.  Historical fact: aside 
from the small minority of bachurim who learned in yeshivos to their later 
years, how much did the average European forced into working to help support 
the family know at age 12-13? 
 
>>>3. I believe the answer to R' HIrsch is in the beginning of that teshuva
 of R' Baruch Ber ... but the situation in Germany would not allow that<<<

R' Baruch Ber took R' Hirsch as advocating a hor'as sha'ah for the German 
community - R' Breuer disagreed, and I don't know how anyone who reads Hirsch 
could sustain this position (i would be shocked if R' Baruch Ber read any of 
Hirsch's works firsthand).
 
 >>>4. Again I think R' Baruch Ber is the answer to the problem of the right
 getting training for a job, its a case of anus.<<< 
 >>> 5. I am totally suprised that you see in R' Baruch Ber's teshuva anything
 at all that justifies more modern movements approaches to secular
 studies.  R' Baruch Ber is only speaking about a heter for parnassah etc. 
(Even the part that you quoted  is speaking about an ones,<<<

This is simply incorrect.  R' Baruch Ber does not say the heter is based on 
ones.  He does not say the heter is based on a need for parnasah. He says 
(reread my quote from yestersday) that the Rama prohibits valuing secular 
studies on par with Torah.  Working for a parnasah or studying for culture 
edification would both fall under the SAME heter:  Torah in both cases 
remains the primary value.   This is an explication of the Rama's heter of 
akrai, of secondary value - note the lashon: the Rama doesn;t say l'shem 
parnasah, or ones, etc. Rather we are dealing with a din unique to T"T -  
placing it as our primary value.  

Quote - "V' Dibarta Bam - make them ikar and not tafel, that is the 
obligation of T"T is for it to be primary  and not to think there is 
fufillment elsewhere...the explanation is just as one mixes spice in to 
flavor a dish, so to the issur of bittul Torah is to minimize the importance 
of Torah... If a person says let me go learn other wisdom for it is of prime 
importance, he is abandoning Torah, for he has another [substitute] item of 
importance...Learning secular studies as a value this is bittul Torah and it 
is of no consequence if he is being paid to say it is a profession, aderaba, 
he is nehena from the aveira of bittul Torah"  

Does that sound like bittul Torah with a ptur of ones, or is he saying it 
isn;t bittul Torah because Torah remains the primary value?  Note esp. the 
last line - a heter ones/parnasah is still nehena m'aveirah because the issur 
is not in the act of studying secular wisdom, but the issur is in valuing it 
apart from Torah.  Ones helps remove a ma'aseh aveirah - it cannot help you 
resolve a conflict of values!
 
>>> 6. I still return to the basic challenge. What is the justification to
 teach our boys Shakespeare in highschool (when clearly you can get a job
 without that) <<<
 
1.  Answer: the Rama doesn;t mandate knowledge of Shas and poskim - 'dini 
mitzvot' is a more minimalist requirement.  2. The heter of 'akrai' is not 
limited to parnasa.

And I return my challenge: why does the community who subscribes to the 
principles you advance have its share of doctors, lawyers, etc, all advanced 
professional degrees which require years of bittul Torah and training, when 
one can be a clerk or truck driver and minimize the ones of bittul Torah?  
Or, to take another angle, even if we assume as you do that the heter is one 
of ones,  why does ones allow for me to seek personal fufillment in the 
career of my dreams at the expense of Talmud Torah but doesn't allow me to 
seek fufillment in the study of Shakespeare or art, music, etc.?

-Chaim  

Those interested in reading about chabad and moschiach in the recent news can see
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-06/20/178l-062099-idx.html

and also the recent jerusalem Post.

Eli Turkel

> 
> The promise 'ki loy sishokhakh mipi zaroy' has many ways of fulfilment
> and if not for the State I have no doubt it would have come to fruition
> elsewhere and in different ways. So stating, as Jordan did, that 'there
> would be very little left of Yahadut without the State of Israel' is
> perhaps a bit wide of the mark.
> 
Nevertheless, that is a reason to celebrate Israel's existence.
We celebrate Purim even though the Gemara states that had Esther not
gone to Achashverosh G-d would have found some other means to save the Jews.
Nevertheless since that was the path that was used we celebrate the facts
not the other potential solutions.

That is basically the approach of Rav Kook. As I heard in the name of 
Rav Zvi Yehuda G-d chose to redeem Israel through the non-religious Jews.
If someone has a complaint with that approach let him argue it with G-d.
In the meantime those are the facts.

Eli Turkel

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01BEBD4F.1540B7C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

>(Tangentially, I heard an interesting story attributed to R. Nosson
Sherman
>- - the father of Artscroll. Someone lamented to him how Yeshiva
bochurim were
>using Artscroll Gemaras as a crutch to make a lainus. R. Sherman
replied not
>to worry - that this situation is only temporary - Yeshiva bochurim
wlll
>soon be unable to understand or even read the English translation!)

Don't you believe it.  Once people get hooked onto a cruch they don't
abandon it.  Israelis learing in yeshivot use Stenstalz gemaras.  As we
all know people tend (repeat tend) to go the easy path.


------_=_NextPart_001_01BEBD4F.1540B7C0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>Artscroll Gemaras </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;(Tangentially, I heard an interesting story attributed to R. Nosson</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sherman</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;- - the father of Artscroll. Someone lamented to him how Yeshiva</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>bochurim were</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;using Artscroll Gemaras as a crutch to make a lainus. R. Sherman</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>replied not</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;to worry - that this situation is only temporary - Yeshiva bochurim</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>wlll</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;soon be unable to understand or even read the English translation!)</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Don't you believe it.&nbsp; Once people get hooked onto a cruch they don't</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>abandon it.&nbsp; Israelis learing in yeshivot use Stenstalz gemaras.&nbsp; As we</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>all know people tend (repeat tend) to go the easy path.</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BEBD4F.1540B7C0--

	I have nothing more to add on the subject of secular subjects
other then to say that all the reference that people have quoted I don't
believe in any substantial way argue with the Rama's position that only
allow secular studies after one is a talmid chacham and then only "arai".
SInce all people should become talmidei chachamim then I have no problem
with saying all people should also be involved with secular sciences be
"arai". I was only speaking about the reality of most people not being
talmidei chachamim and especially at highschool age. (Also studying for a
parnassah is entirely different as R' Baruch Ber points out. 

 HOwever, I felt the need to answer the following letter since I found it
so offensive.


 The most
>'forward motion in psak' in our generation has come from reb Moishe
>Feinstein who was genuinely forward looking while psak coming from
>Israel is generally reactionary. In Jewish thought there are few to
>match Rabbi JB Soleveichik and, whether you liked them or not, the
>Satmarer and Lubavitcher rebbes from their respective axiomatic
>positions had more influence than any other chasidic leaders anywhere.

	What do you mean whether you liked them or not!? Is this like
baseball players or movie stars. The Satmar rebbe was recognized as from
the gedolei and kedoshe hador, what business is it for us to "like" or
not like them. And the Lubavitch rebbe, without getting into complicated
issues and politics was a recognized talmid chacham.  I also don't know
why R' SOleveichik or R' Moshe did not have the same question attached to
their name, I guess they do better in the allstar balloting.

	I also do not know what you mean by reactionary? (Are we now
knocking out R' Auerbach and the Chazon ISh?)  When R' SHlomon Zalman
paskened for Ohr Sameach that you can have people drive on SHabbos to
programs for kiruv as long as you provided them with ways of not driving
(unlike R" Moshe's psak) was that reactionary? It would be silly to go
through different psaks and try to figure out which is more "forward" and
which not.

>
>On the other hand Torah representatives in Israeli politics have 
>caused
>a chilul hashem as Jews nowhere else ever have, and nowhere but in
>Israel is Torah so desecrated and maligned in the media and politics. 
>In
>addition all trends of backward walking into the dark ages with 
>dibukim
>and cults and mekubalim emanate from Israel. 

	I did not realize that the study of Kabbalah was backward, I
always thought that that was a legitimate part of Torah. Now I find out
that the Arizal was really a cult leader. i will have to remember that
when I sing Shabbos zemiros on my dark ages table this SHabbos.

	Also now I understand that story of the dybuk with the Chofetz
Chaim and R' Elchonan Wasserman, the Polish people are so superstitious!
(The point being the idea of the dybuk is not bad, it is a legitimate
part of our tradition,  but if it is fraudelent obviously that is
different. It is up to the Gedolim who are involved in such things as
kabbalah to decide that)

Similarly nowhere is
>violence the lingua franca of orthodox jews as in Israel.

	I don't think a writer for the Klu Klax Klan could have said it
better! I guess thats what happens when you follow reactionary poskim.

 These too 
>are
>'facts' one must contend with. I would even venture as far as to say
>that if we are to measure Jewish centers for their conduciveness to
>bring people closer to Torah and its values then Israel is not, to use 
>a
>current catchphrase, the most permissive environment.


	Please don't let Ohr Sameach to Aish Hatorah know that, they
might realize that they are merely wasting there time, and what a shame
that would be for all the people they have and will continue to bring
closer to Torah
>
>
>David Herskovic

Shraga 
>

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Shinui hateva normally refers to physical changes and not social/socilogical
changes (of course I am not denying both occurred just in terms of the
phraseology).


Eli Turkel<<

Indeed, I was attempting/speculating a chiddush that: shinui hateva might mean 
(at least sometimes) a change in human BEHAVIOR, as opposed to ac hange in 
either human nature or "mother nature".

Rich Wolpoe

>>This is a question that has already been asked about Moshe, specifically in 
regards to the miracles surrounding the rebellion of Korach.  There are many 
answers for overt miracles without advanced notice.  They extend from "HaShem 
did tell the navi, but it just was not written down for some reason", all the 
way to "The navi decreed and HaShem fulfilled", and many other stages in 
between.

EDT<<

Indeed and another answer I heard at Shva Borchos Monday is:
Moshe was SO close to Hashem, he knew what Hashem would have wanted to do 
(probably intuitively!)  Bechol beisi neemaon hu.

Simlarly, Elisha, intuivitely knew what to do, w/ a specific maamer Hashem.  
And I am speculating that he knew that the properties of the Yarden would "cure"
the tzoraas.  I am not sure if he knew the underlying HOW. 

This could be via the same types of Chazal observation of cause and effect which
REDT recently articulated.  Elisha diagnosed Naaman and prescribed tevila in the
Yarden (and NOT in Ddamosek).  Naaman, might have been thetypical perons who 
judged waters by their clarity, while Elisha might have judged them by their 
healing capability (salts? Chemicals? who knows?) Remember, clear water is not 
always pure water.

Remember, until about 1898, malaria was considered a function of dirt and not of
moquitoes!  Naaman made a  similar tauos wrt the "dirty" Yarden.  And IMHO a 
possible example of advanced medical knowledge.

Rich Wolpoe

>>

From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>


I would like to go back to this issue.  A specific example I can think 
of is hilkhot shehitah, where, if you learn the sugyot and Rishonim, 
then read the Mehabber and Rema, you will find that the Ashkenazic 
minhag on virtually every defintion of pesul is simply to be mahmir 
across the board.

There many other examples as well, from hilkhot Shabbat, for instance, 
but I do not wish to belabor the point (though others are welcome to).

I would formulate as follows: a recurring feature of Ashkenazic pesak is 
to adopt positions of humrah beyond the rule of Hazal.

I cannot understand how any talmid hakham, let alone a gadol like R. 
Ahron Soloveichik, could say that being mahmir on Hazal renders one 
deserving of herem.

I think some clarification is in order.

Kol tuv,

Eli<<

A breif Teirutz based upon earlier posts
1) Tosfos (and other Rishonim) were not being machmir re: Chazal, rather Minhog 
Ashkenaz was parall to and suppllemental of  Chazal/TB.
2) Ashkenaz never accepted TB as binding carte blanche.  RAther Minhag Ahskenaz 
(an oral tradition) was always there as a caveat.  Tosfos attempted to reconcile
the textual TB with the oral minhag whenever possible. 
3) W/o said minhog, we acharonim cannot (so easily) modify Chazal.
4) Ashkeanv is lich'ora meikel legabei bedika of the lungs in that BY insists on
a pure glatt, and Remo does not.

Rich Wolpoe

--- Paul Rothbart <sroth4@juno.com> wrote:
>> whether you liked them or not, the
> >Satmarer and Lubavitcher rebbes from their respective axiomatic
> >positions had more influence than any other chasidic leaders
> anywhere.
> 
> 	What do you mean whether you liked them or not!? Is this like
> baseball players or movie stars. The Satmar rebbe was recognized as
> from
> the gedolei and kedoshe hador, what business is it for us to "like"
> or
> not like them. And the Lubavitch rebbe, without getting into
> complicated
> issues and politics was a recognized talmid chacham. 

I didn't take "whether you liked them or not" as a negative phrase. 
All it meant is that those two figures were more controversial and
were accepted by a smaller percentage of klal yisrael than the others
mentioned.  I thought that the point of "whether you liked them or
not" was exactly R. Shraga Rothbart's point-- a person can be a gadol
even if you don't agree with his perspective.  (PS, in contrast, I'm
sure that Rav Shach did not consider the Lubavitcher Rebbe a gadol.)

>  These too 
> >are
> >'facts' one must contend with. I would even venture as far as to
> say
> >that if we are to measure Jewish centers for their conduciveness
> to
> >bring people closer to Torah and its values then Israel is not, to
> use 
> >a
> >current catchphrase, the most permissive environment.
> 
> 
> 	Please don't let Ohr Sameach to Aish Hatorah know that, they
> might realize that they are merely wasting there time, and what a
> shame
> that would be for all the people they have and will continue to
> bring
> closer to Torah

Ohr Sameach and Aish HaTorah are American-created and staffed.  Their
perspective is not shared by the Israeli charedim.  Israeli charedim
I spoke with this past Pesach had the attitude that they are at war
with the chilonim, and that in this generation the phrase "she'bechol
dor vado omdim alenu l'chaloteinu" applies to the chilonim. 
Non-religious Israeli Jews are less likely to go on the Aish haTorah
discovery program (even though they have a program for Israelis) than
Americans visiting Israel (I heard this from by my brother-in-law,
who spent many years at Aish and received his smikhah from Aish, and
from my sister, who worked in the Aish Discovery Program).

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Ben Waxman wrote:
> Don't you believe it.  Once people get hooked onto a cruch they don't
> abandon it.  Israelis learing in yeshivot use Stenstalz gemaras.  As we
> all know people tend (repeat tend) to go the easy path.
> 
> 
Few are the people who leave hospitals with broken legs and don't use
crutches.  
E.G.

In a message dated 6/22/99 10:07:36 AM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> >  
>  That hasn't changed when one wears gloves V'kadomeh, he definitely touched 
>  Bemokom Tinuf with hefsek of glove etc.
>  
>  Yitzchok Zirkind<<
>  
>  See Beiur Halach on SA4:13 DH im hoyo Neiur..
>  "im yosehin be'vaotei yadaim shebavaddai lo nago bemakom tinuf"
>  
More or less that Loshon is in Pri Mgodim, IMHO Teitch is that he is certain 
that his *hands* (not his gloves) didn't touch Bmokom Mtunof, (In any case 
the Din of gloves would have been the same Bizman Hashas, it has nothing to 
do with Nishtanu Hativi'im).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 6/23/99 2:00:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:

<< We celebrate Purim even though the Gemara states that had Esther not
 gone to Achashverosh G-d would have found some other means to save the Jews.
 Nevertheless since that was the path that was used we celebrate the facts
 not the other potential solutions. >>

Says it in the Megillah, too:"Revach v'hatzoloh yovo mimakom acher.."

Actually, I don't accept that I was overstating the case. With the P'tirah of 
R' Moshe, zt'l, we saw the passing of the last of the prewar giants from 
Europe. How much more often, when discussing contemporary poskim on this 
list, are we referring to Eretz Yisrael G'dolim? That is not to say that 
there are no G'dolim elsewhere, but it does seem that a definite shift has 
been in the making for the last 35 years that leaves Israel preeminent in the 
world of Torah. The truth is, my statement applies just as much to other 
parts of the Jewish spectrum as well, in areas of scholarship, learning, 
culture, and Jewish life in general.

Jordan 

Clark, Eli wrote:
> regarding the entire issue
> of studying general culture outside of Torah, I recommend the
> comprehensive essay of my rebbe, R. Aharon Lichtenstein, published in
> Judaism's Encounter with Other Cultures, ed. Jacob J. Schachter.  The
> essay discusses the value of secular studies for a Torah Jew and
> evaluates the issues of bittul Torah and negative influences.   The
> essay is long and sometimes hard going, but it represents a clearheaded,
> systematic presentation of the pro-secular studies shitah.  I cannot
> recommend it highly enough.

Is there any way to get an online copy of this essay? Or perhaps someone 
could e-mail a copy to the list.  If not, how does one go about 
obtaining a copy?  I would love to read it.

HM

I have a dillema.

My son who is a student in the Yeshivas Mir Kolel has recently decided 
to make Aliya and buy a house in Israel.  This means that he will be 
sending his children (my grand children) to the Charedi school system. I 
have been made aware of the fact that in the Charedi school system, 
there are absolutely no secular subjects offered, especially for boys.  
I know that this bothers my son as well as it does me but there seems to 
be little that he can do about it. My son feels that sending his 
children to a school which offers secular subjects would be tantamount 
to violating some unwritten code for avreichim who all seem to send 
their children to scoools w/o secular subjects.  Recent e-mails on the 
subject seem to validate my fears.  Is there, indeed, no alternative for 
these American educated avreichim who would like to see  at least a 
minimal secular education for their kids?

Help!

HM

There are five items in David haMelech's tephillah thankng HKBH (Dh"Y I
29:10-13) that I feel were afterwards used in other tephillos, including
Sh'moneh Esrei. Perhaps it's even the origin of formal structure in Jewish
prayer.

Those elements are:
    1- The opening. Often this includes mention of the avos. According to R'
       YB Soloveitchik, our only excuse for approaching the Creator of the
       universe with anything as petty as our personal problems is that our
       ancestors did so. Therefore, he explains, we make sure to invoke this
       precedent (e.g. by saying Ashrei, which includes "dor lidor
       yishabach..") Perhaps that explains David's choice to open with
       that concept.

    2- Gevurah, possibly as gedulah ugvurah

    3- Declaring Hashem as G-d in heaven. Sometimes His rule over the earth
       as well.

    4- Declaring Him King over everything.

    5- Praising HKBH in a manner relevent to the request about to be made.

For example, in David's tephillah:
    1- Baruch atah Hashem E-lokei Yisrael avinu mei'olam vi'ad olam
    2- Licha Hashem hagdulah vihaGVURAH vihatif'eres...
    3- Ki chol bashamayim uva'aretz
    4- Licha Hashem hamamlachah
    5- vihamisnasei lichol...

In Sh'moneh Esrei:
    1- Baruch .. E-lokei avoseinu ... v'E-lokei Ya'akov
    2- haKel hagadol hagibor vihanorah
    3- Kel elyon ...
    4- Melech ozeir umoshia umagein
    5- ... magein Avraham

As I posted here in the past, the Gaon sees the first b'rachah as the
repetition and elaboration of the concepts in Moshe's praise "haKel hagadol
hagibor vihanorah". Interestingly, no.s 1-4 above are each one of the
Gaon's repetitions.

Other historical examples:

Daniel (Dan 2:19-23):
    1- Sh'ma d'E-lokah mivorach (no mention of avos)
    2- di chachmasa ugvurasah di leih hi
    3- vihu mihashnei idonaya vizimnaya
    4- di milas malakin hodatena
    5- yaheiv chochmasa ...

Yehoshafat (Dh"Y 2 20:5):
    1- Hashem E-lokei avoseinu
       G'vurah is omitted. Yehoshafat is asking for personal gevurah, so it's
       included in part 5 and doesn't require mention here.
    3- halo atah hu E-lokim bashamayim
    4- vi'ato mosheil bichol malichos hagoyim
    2,5- Uv'yadcha ko'ach ugvurah..

Daniel 9:4, Nechemiah 1:5, Melachim I 8:23 (which is also Dh"Y 2 6:14).

-mi
(Makor, if any, lost in the depths of my forgetfullness.)

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 23-Jun-99: Revi'i, Chukas-Balak
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 329:9-330:3
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 100a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 5

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


[ 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         ]