Avodah: Volume 15, Number 4

Monday, April 25 2005

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
  1. FW: Rambam and miracles
  2. RE: Rambam and miracles
  3. RE: Rambam and miracles
  4. Re: Rambam and miracles
  5. Re: FW: Rambam and miracles
  6. Gebrokts on EP
  7. Re: Eating chometz after z'man sreifas chometz
  8. RE: Thanking Hashem for the land of Israel in the Haggadah (revised)
  9. Re: How wicked can one's child be?
  10. Re: How wicked can one's child be?
  11. RSRH and RYS on Aggadita and Emunas Chachamim
  12. Re: History of the minhagim of the Omer
  13. Sair L'Azazel / Birds of Metzora
  14. Re: Thanking Hashem for the land of Israel in the Haggadah

Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:45:38 -0400
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shin...@rwjuh.edu>
Subject:
FW: Rambam and miracles


"Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shin...@rwjuh.edu> wrote:
>> 4) RHM argues that creatio ex nihilio is an ikkar, and that denying
>> one renders one is heresy - this is not in the moreh nevuchim, who
>> explicitly accepts (in the moreh) that platonic emanation is
>> compatible with torah, nor in the kuzari, who accepts eternal
>> matter as being not kfira 

RHM 
> The Rambam therefore in contra-distinction to Aristotle, beleived in
> creatio ex nihilio. In the begining God alone existed. He then
> produced from nothing all existing things by His own will and desire.

> Plato holds that the "heavens" are transient but their substance is
> eternal. His opinion does not agree with our belief. We believe that
> the heavens were created from absolutely nothing. Plato  believes
> that they were formed from something... a pre-existing eternal
> substance.

IMHO, RHM mixes up several separate issues.
1) What the rambam himself believed to be true.
2) What the rambam believed was required belief

This is complicated by the fact that the rambam himself says (in
his introduction) that one has to be very careful in interpreting
his statements. Thus, while the rambam states that aristotle causes
major problems, major figues such as ibn tibbon (not just modern
academics)understood that the rambam himself believed in aristotle, and
many have understood him to believe in the platonic position. The fact
that plato's position was not the mainstream Jewish one is one that the
rambam was well aware of - but he did not anywhere in the mishne torah
or moreh describe as kfira.

What is clear is that major Jewish commentators of the rambam have
understood the rambam as accepting plato

> As to whether the Kuzari accepts eternal matter as being not kfira, I
> cite the following passage which may be what you are alluding to: 

>      "The question of eternity and creation is obscure, whilst the
> arguments are evenly balanced. The theory of creation derives greater
> weight from the prophetic tradition of Adam, Noah. and Moses, which
> is more deserving of credence than mere speculation. If, after all, a
> believer in the Law finds himself compelled to admit an eternal
> matter and the existence of, many worlds prior to this one, this
> would not impair his belief that this world was created at a certain
> epoch, and that Adam and Noah were the first human beings."

> I must admit that it is a perplexing statement. But I think it falls
> short of endorsing the permissiblity of such a belief. The Kuzari was
> merely using this as a basis for arguing "that this world was created
> at a certain epoch, and that Adam and Noah were the first human
> beings." In other words, he was trying to prove a point by extending
> the argument even to the belief that matter has always existed. He
> does not say that such a beleif is permissible.

Huh???? It seems quite clear, not perplexing at all.... This is not an
endorsement of the statement as true, but as acceptable.
This is symptomatic of much of the debate - having clear convictions
(that may be well based, but that is a different issue), and therefore
assuming and interpreting everything as in line with those convictions.
The Kuzari is quite explicit (and here, actually, is close to the rambam -
perhaps even more radical, as he doesn't have the same problem that the
rambam has with aristotle). He recognizes that creation and eternitiy
are two plausible alternatives, that the "prophetic tradition" supports
creation, and therefore should be believed - but that the "prophetic
tradition" does not deal with ex nihilio (the understanding of bara as
ex nihilio is not simple, nor the only, pshat) - and therefore does not
rule out eternal matter.

RHM
> It seems a basic tenent of Judaism to beleive that God preceded
> everything else. 

The rambam is very clear (MN 2:30) that it is wrong (wrong!!) to say that
hashem temporally preceded the world - because the very notion of time
is part of creation. One can only say that hashem is logically prior
to everything - which is consistent with either creationism, plato,
or aristotle...

Meir Shinnar


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmary...@yahoo.com>
Subject:
RE: Rambam and miracles


"Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shin...@rwjuh.edu> wrote:
> The fact that plato's position was not the mainstream Jewish one is
> one that the rambam was well aware of - but he did not anywhere in
> the mishne torah or moreh describe as kfira.

I don't know that the Rambam was doing anything other than trying to
differentiate between Jewish belief and Aristotalian belief. Since
Aristotle was considered to be the greatest phiolsopher of the era,
The Rambam, who respected Aristotle, felt the need to demonstrate
where Aristotle went wrong and what the correct Jewish belief is.

 From the Rambam's commentary of the Mishnah:
    "...we agree with Aristotle in one half of his theory. For we
    believe that this universe remains perpetually with the same
    properties with which the Creator has endowed it... His wisdom
    decrees that the universe be brought into existence at a certain
    time." 

One cannot reconcile the above statement with the belief that matter
always existed. Please not the Rambam says "we". Not I. IOW he considers
this.

> What is clear is that major Jewish commentators of the rambam have
> understood the rambam as accepting plato

To be honest I do not know well enough the works of the Rambam nor
Plato to make unequivocal statements about their views. But I find it
very difficult to see how it is possible to deny Yesh MeAyin and not be
considered a Kofer.

> Huh???? It seems quite clear, not perplexing at all....  This is
> not an endorsement of the statement as true, but as acceptable.

I don't see why you feel the necessity to assume that. It is quite
common to go to an extreme position in order to make a point. That is
what I think the Kuzari may be doing.

> This is symptomatic of much of the debate - having clear
> convictions (that may be well based, but that is a different
> issue), and therefore assuming and interpreting everything as in
> line with those convictions. 

There are convictions... and then again there are convictions. While
I agree with you that often debate involves pre-conceived notions
that shape one's percetion and interpretation of those perceptions...
but there is a point where one MUST either consider a reasonable
interpretation. Or else one one would have to concede a highly
improbable belief that seems like complete Kefira: that God did not
create matter and that matter always existed. It boggles my mind to
allow as an acceptable belief, the eternal existence of matter. The
only thing that is infinte is God Himself, not matter.

> The Kuzari is quite explicit (and
> here, actually, is close to the rambam - perhaps even more radical,
> as he doesn't have the same problem that the rambam has with
> aristotle). He recognizes that creation and eternitiy are two
> plausible alternatives, that the "prophetic tradition" supports
> creation, and therefore should be believed - but that the
> "prophetic tradition" does not deal with ex nihilio (the
> understanding of bara as ex nihilio is not simple, nor the only,
> pshat) - and therefore does not rule out eternal matter.

Matter is infinte... Doesn't this trouble you?

> RHM: 
>> It seems a basic tenent of Judaism to beleive that God preceded
>> everything else. 

> The rambam is very clear (MN 2:30) that it is wrong (wrong!!) to
> say that hashem temporally preceded the world - because the very
> notion of time is part of creation. 

Time was a part of creation. God exists outside of time. Time is not
relavent to God. It is only relavant to man. To say that God "preceded"
time is only to say that He exits outside that framework. The word
"precede" is not being used in the normal temporal sense but only as means
to deal with a concept that is beyond human comprehension. To therefore
say that matter in some way preceded time seems somewhat absurd. It would
almost be equating matter to God. This is either pantheistic... or some
form of dualism. Either way it is complete Kfira.

HM


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:30:21 -0400
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shin...@rwjuh.edu>
Subject:
RE: Rambam and miracles


RHM 
> One cannot reconcile the above statement with the belief that matter
> always existed. Please not the Rambam says "we". Not I. IOW he
> considers this. 

Yes - here the rambam seems to declare belief in creation - but he
doesn't seem to even deal with Platonic creationism, nor is he declaring
aristotle kfira.

Remember, in the Mishne Torah, the rambam adopts a proof of hashem's
existence (the galgalim continuously revolving) that is a classic
aristotelian proof - based on the eternity of the world.

RHM
> To be honest I do not know well enough the works of the Rambam nor
> Plato to make unequivocal statements about their views.  But I find
> it very difficult to see how it is possible to deny Yesh MeAyin and
> not be considered a Kofer. 

This is the crux of the matter. We are so conditioned in certain beliefs
that we find it difficult to believe that others could possibly believe
otherwise.

>> Huh???? It seems quite clear, not perplexing at all....  This is
>> not an endorsement of the statement as true, but as acceptable.

> I don't see why you feel the necessity to assume that. It is quite
> common to go to an extreme position in order to make a point. That is
> what I think the Kuzari may be doing.
zsh: command not found: Fmt

> There are convictions... and then again there are convictions. While
> I agree with you that often debate involves pre-conceived notions
> that shape one's percetion and interpretation of those perceptions...
> but there is a point where one MUST either consider a reasonable
> interpretation. Or else one one would have to concede a highly
> improbable belief that seems like complete Kefira: that God did not
> create matter and that matter always existed. It boggles my mind to
> allow as an acceptable belief, the eternal existence of matter. The
> only thing that is infinte is God Himself, not matter.

1) Infinity of time does not not necessarily mean infinity of matter
(in aristotelian cosmology, matter was of finite extent, although
infinite duration)

2) The fact that it seems like complete kfira to you is the problem -
the rambam does not have the problems with it that you do, nor do the
Kuzari, nor does the ralbag (who more explicitly endorses eternal matter)

If something is complete kfira, then one would expect rambam and the
kuzari to distance themselves from this position - which they do not.

> Matter is infinte... Doesn't this trouble you?

no (it didn't bother rambam...)(I would say that we have today far more
sophisticated understanding of infinity in its different forms, but that
is a different issue)

>> The rambam is very clear (MN 2:30) that it is wrong (wrong!!) to
>> say that hashem temporally preceded the world - because the very
>> notion of time is part of creation. 

> Time was a part of creation. God exists outside of time. Time is not
> relavent to God. It is only relavant to man. To say that God
> "preceded" time is only to say that He exits outside that framework.
> The word "precede" is not being used in the normal temporal sense but
> only as means to deal with a concept that is beyond human
> comprehension. To therefore say that matter in some way preceded time
> seems somewhat absurd. It would almost be equating matter to God.
> This is either pantheistic... or some form of dualism. Either way it
> is complete Kfira.

I am not sure what is being said here. Temporal precedence is no longer
the issue. Rather, logical precedence is. Logical precedence is an ikkar.

Again, popular education has certain teachings, and many imbue them
into their core - which is a testament to the power of education, and
is a good thing. However, not everything that is taught and believed is
necessarily universally taught and believed ....

Meir Shinnar


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmary...@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Rambam and miracles


Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> R Harry Maryles wrote:
> > It seems a basic tenent of Judaism to beleive that God preceded everything
> > else.

> As in "Atah Hu Rishon, veAtah Hu Acharon..."?

Yes.

> But Hashem is "beli reishis beli sachlis".

To me that statement just tells us that He is infinite.

> A number of meforshim comment
> on this. One approach is that He is before all, not that He had an
> earlier start than everything else.

He ... IS... before all (a temporal expression, I dare say) But it
could mean that He is the most imporatnt being... also true. But I like
the definition that He is infintite. That makes the most sense to me.

> However, another is that the pasuq
> is referring to Hashem being logically prior, not chronologically. (And
> similarly, "Acharon" means that He is Ultimate Purpose.) 
> Such a statement would be satisfied by the belief in an Eternal Borei who
> is therefore ne'etzal an eternal universe. The causality is preserved,
> without giving a first moment of time.

This would take away support for the concept of a "First cause". I
have never fully understood the Kantian premise that argues against
that necessity.

Be that as it may, I would argue that when I say that God preceded
everything else, it doesn't have to mean temporally. Time is itself a
creation of God's. And it is incomprehensible for man to think in terms
outside of time. We are inextricably bound to it. An entity that preceedes
time is impossible for the human mind to comprehend. So we must therefore
use the metaphor of time when discussing God's existience relative to
matter. Use of the term "logically prior" does little to clear up our
understanding... as the very word "prior" suggests the temporal.

Never-the-less even if one tries to explain exstence in the
incomprehensible pre-time era one still must say that God preceedes
matter. There can be no eternal matter as that would seem to equate, at
some level, God and matter. It seems illogical to say that the Creator
existed simutaneously with something other than Himself. It is most
logical to say that God created matter in one big bang.

HM


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:19:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: FW: Rambam and miracles


RMS wrote:
> This is complicated by the fact that the rambam himself says (in
> his introduction) that one has to be very careful in interpreting
> his statements. Thus, while the rambam states that aristotle causes
> major problems, major figues such as ibn tibbon (not just modern
> academics)understood that the rambam himself believed in aristotle, and
> many have understood him to believe in the platonic position....

This is why I've argued here in the past that the Rambam picked up some
of Plotinus's position. Ie not Platonic but neoPlatonic.

If the Rambam learned Aristotle in Arabic, he had Averro's
translation. That translation included Plotinus's Enneads along with
Aristotle's Metaphysics.

It also explains why the Rambam identifies G-d as Cause with G-d as Agens
(Moreh I ch 69). The former is Aristo, the latter neoPlatonic. He would
have been under the impression that Aristo held both, and therefore
that they are identical. Once believing they're identical, the Rambam
had reason to find an explanation.

But this means that neither of the above positions are fully true WRT
the Rambam on yeish mei'ayin. He sees G-d as Maker AND as the One Who
chose to emanate the universe.


I didn't get a chance to read RHM's post for content yet, it's still in
the moderation queue. I want to empty the queue before Shabbos, so I'll
just touch on one point I noticed in passing.

A mental image that is a touch closer to correct is to picture the
publication of a timeline in a history book. The publisher doesn't
experience the left beyond the line as "time", and in fact the press
stamps out the entire line at once. So too HQBH didn't exist before the
universe, as He has no before, and there was no time before time zero
for beings that exist within time to have a before either. Nor did HQBH
create the universe 5765+ years ago -- as that implies that His action
has a point in time. Rather, Hashem created a universe. And like the
timeline in the textbook the universe has a duration. The first moment
and last moment are the endpoint of that duration, nothing else. Every
moment is equally the moment of creation, as every moment was stamped
out by that beri'ah, again, just like the line in a book.

Hashem isn't eternal in the sense of having infinite duration. Hashem
doesn't occupy time, and doesn't have positive attributes. I therefore
think we can skip the whole discussion of how the concept of infinity
has been refined since the Rambam's day. Rather, Hashem is Eternal in
the sense of being timeless.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites



Go to top.

Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:58:20 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <y...@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Gebrokts on EP


[R Akiva Miller:]
>The most RYGB is claiming is that the afternoon of Erev Pesach is only
>safek d'Oraisa. But Shmini shel Pesach is definitely not d'Oraisa at all!

>I can see that a posek might say that the lack of karays on Erev Pesach
>is sufficient reason to allow gebrokts. But that's not what RYGB is
>aguing. He is saying that Erev Pesach is no worse than Shmini, and I
>just do not see that.

Valid point. Also made to me offlist by REMT. My logic was faulty and
I was clearly in error.

[Email #2 -mi]

At 10:32 AM 4/20/2005, [Micha] wrote:
>: Gebrokts is a chumrah. And it is not at all clear that in the absence
>: of a korban pesach there is an issur d'orysa of chametz on EP.

>Wouldn't that make it a zikkaron bizman hazeh, and therefore ke'ein
>de'Oraisa tiqnu?

Kehn zein. I rescind the argument.

[Email #3 -mi]

BTW, very interesting, in the Yechaveh Daas's discussion of EP she'chal
b'S (#91) he suggests that the Maharach Ohr Zarua's chiddush [the basis
of the Brisker chumrah not to eat cake and cookies on Shabbos unless
one has washed] that just as Shabbos is koveia l'maasros it is also
koveia l'inyan keviyas seudah of hamotzi, can be employed as a snif on
this Shabbos to say that the berachah on what is normally mezonos can
be on EPsbS hamotzi (ROY says this is especially true on this Shabbos,
as regular hamotzi is not available).

YGB 


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:09:24 -0400
From: "m...@yeshivanet.com" <m...@ksimail.com>
Subject:
Re: Eating chometz after z'man sreifas chometz


>> I have never heard of this Minhag Yisroel to refrain from eating
>> chometz after the fourth hour on the 13th of Nissan when Pesach falls
>> out on Motzei Shabbos (and frankly, it doesn't make that much sense to
>> me....). Is this a widespread minhag that I somehow never picked up on?
>> Sources anyone?

[R J Kaufman:]
>I don't remember if eating chometz was mentioned, however, my Rav did
>tell us that it is proper to burn the Chometz on Friday within the proper
>time so that there would be no confusion for the following years.

Burning the chometz on Friday before the every year zeman is mentioned
in SA 444, that it's prefferable to burn the chometz before the z'man,
v'chein ima debar.

However the minhag not to eat chometz is in disagreement between the
Achronim, till todays poskim. The first (I saw) bringing this minhag
is the Chavos Daas in Mekor Chayim, who writes "kibalti m'rabosai" not
to eat chometz after the zeman sreifas chometz even in a year as this.
However other achronim, including the Pri Hasodeh (3 187) conclude
there shouldn't be any problem eating chometz on Friday after the zeman
s'reifas chometz.

The Klauzenburger Rav related that the Yeshuos Yakov (Rav of Lemberg)
once sent a message to the Belzer Rav Reb Shia'le, that he he should
publicize not to eat chometz after the z'man sreifa on a year like this.
The Belzer Rav sent back that he for himself is makpid not to eat chometz,
but for the masses he doesn't want to be machmir.

A Kosher'e un freilich'e Peisech tzu gantz Klal Yisroel
 - Avigdor Feldstein


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:21:39 +0300
From: "Moshe Feldman" <moshe.feld...@gmail.com>
Subject:
RE: Thanking Hashem for the land of Israel in the Haggadah (revised)


I had noted that Rabbi David Mescheloff suggests that the requirement of
doresh m'arami oved avi ad she'yigmor es ha'parsha kula means that one
should also darshen the 5th pasuk: "v'yivi'einu el ha'makom hazeh va'yiten
lanu . . . eretz zovas chalav u'dvash." His suggestion for the darshening
may be found at: <http://www.lookstein.org/resources/hagada2.pdf>.

Chag kasher v'sameach.
Moshe 


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:26:02 EDT
From: Mlevi...@aol.com
Subject:
Re: How wicked can one's child be?


[RML, earlier post:]
>> 'The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor legislation from his
>> descendants . Nations will submit to him until the final tranquility
>> comes.

>> Rashi clearly says regarding "Yikhas" aseifas ha'amim. "Yikhas" denotes
>> "a gathering" of the nations. For the letter yud of "Yikhas" is an
>> integral part of the root of the word.....

>> The Ramban if I correctly recall discusses the use of the word here
>> in Genesis and in Mishlei (Yikhas aim).

(Response from Cantor Wolberg) [offlist -mi]:
> The only use of the word "Yikhas" in the entire tanach is Genesis 49:10
> as you indicated. It does not occur anywhere else. It is possible that
> another form of the word appears in Mishlei, but certainly not according
> to the Concordance.

> Thank you so much for your input and feedback. It is always enlightening
> to have different views and to realize that there is SO much we don't
> know. If I had 100 lifetimes to learn, I would probably even feel more
> strongly about realizing there is so much we don't know.


I now had the chance to refer to Gen 49,10 the Ramban. The pasuk in
Mishlei is 30,17. He cites baalei dikduk that shoresh is YKH but he
himself thinks that it is the same word as in Yirmia 31,29 -- tikhena
shinov and understands it to mean "weaken:, as you did in your original
post.

I share your sentiment about how much we do not know and how much there
remains to learn. May Hashem enighten us and all readers of Avodah on
this Pesach.

M. Levin


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:00:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: How wicked can one's child be?


R Dov Bloom wrote:
> "hak-heh his teeth," a difficult verb. The root is found 4 times in
> Tenach.  when the object is teeth "avot
> achlu boser ve-shinei habanim tik'hena" ( 3 other times in Yirmiyahu and
> Yehezkel) it means to give a sour taste....

More significantly, it indicates that the hagadah's line is an explicit
reference to an idiom in the pasuq. The parent should do something to
themselves, to "eat bosem" in response to this question. Perhaps because
the Torah tells us the question comes when "venoshantem ba'aretz", with
the more negative "yashein" for getting old rather than ziqnah. IOW,
when you've gotten a little to settled in, your sons see mitzvos as
"ha'avodah hazos", a lot of hard work, and problems settle in. Bosem is
young grapes, back before "venoshamtem".

BTW, bosem is a nice metaphor for the "invei hagefen" of that kerem in Yavneh.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites



Go to top.

Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:00:40 -0500
From: "Gershon Seif" <gershons...@yahoo.com>
Subject:
RSRH and RYS on Aggadita and Emunas Chachamim


R' Micha, Where can I find that quote of RYS? It sounds like much can
be learned from its context.


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:02:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: History of the minhagim of the Omer


R Russell Levy wrote:
> I had seen the AhS and footnoted him extensively in the essay, but I am
> looking for a source pre-MA that discusses music and dancing. If it was
> from the time of the geonim, why isn't the chiluk made earlier? What was
> the source of the AhS to say that it was geonic? I don't own a set, so I
> can't look it up anymore :(

He just says the practice dates from the days of the ge'onim. No meqoros.

:-)BBii!
-mi


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:30:15 -0400
From: "Moshe & Ilana Sober" <so...@pathcom.com>
Subject:
Sair L'Azazel / Birds of Metzora


RnRS:
> Has anyone seen a meforesh that makes a connection between the two
> concepts in Metzora and Acharei Mos, both involving a pair of creatures,
> one of which is set free?

Ramban 14:4 and 16:8.

Chag Sameach,
Ilana


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 08:01:19 +0300
From: Simon Montagu <simon.mont...@gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Thanking Hashem for the land of Israel in the Haggadah


> I note that even though the Rambam says that one should darshen the entire
> parsha, the haggadah in the back of the Rambam (even in my Frankel Rambam)
> does not darshen the fifth pasuk. (Does anyone know the history of the
> text of the haggadah printed in the Rambam?)

In the same halacha, the Rambam also says that one should first say
"bathila hayu avotenu bimei Terah umilfanav kofrim veto'im aharei
hahevel verodfin avoda zara" etc. and then say "avadim hayinu lefar'oh
bemitzrayim"; however in the text of the haggada the order is the
reversed. I heard in a shiur from R Nahum Rabinovitz that the reason for
this apparent contradiction is that the psak inside the Yad is for zman
hamikdash, but the text of the haggadah is for use today, and indeed
the Rambam explicitly prefaces the haggadah text "nussah hahaggadah
shenahegu bah Yisrael bizman hagalut kach hi".

AFAIR RNR didn't mention your question, but it seem to me that the same
answer would apply.

Mo'adim lesimcha to all the hevre.


Go to top.


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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avo...@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majord...@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majord...@aishdas.org         ]
< Previous Next >