Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 033

Friday, October 18 2002

• Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re:Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• RE: Parshas ha-Melekh
• Re: Hakafos sheniyos
• Hakafos sheniyos
• Re: 'hakofos sheniyos' (in Eretz Yisroel)
• hakofos
• RE: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Eli Clark Article
• Prayer for another
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Gedolim and Holocaust
• artificial Insemination
• RE: Parshas ha-Melekh
• RE: Parshas ha-Melekh
• Re: RMF on microphones and modern gezeirot
• Re: Gedolim and Holocaust
• Re: Re: Gedolim
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• The Shem Hashem of Shin-Daled-Yud in Shema

> It seems that Hashem had decided the fate of each person individually,
> as there were some who were saved from near certain murder and some who
> tried with every koach they had and were still murdered. 

If that kind of hashgacha pratit was operative during the war, it
seems akin to the claim that the freier yidden were the cause of the
destruction.

Think about it. If hashgacha pratit was operative, that means that Polish
frum Jewry was meant to die out completely. All of it, or at least 99%
of it. Those who left before US immigration shut down in 1924, became
non- religious, if not immediately, then in two or three generations, like
my family (culturally mostly Polish, from Warsaw and Suwalk and Volhynia).
Those who stayed were killed. There is almost no native Polish frumkeit
today - Bobov is almost entirely recruits from other groups, those in
my generation who are religious are BTs to one extent or another, etc.
And that was the biggest Jewish community which had not been entirely
overtaken by the Enlightenment. Not that it hadn't made inroads, but
it wasn't as dominant as in Germany, or as established as in Hungary
and the rest of Western Europe.

The other alternative is to say that "when God makes a decree, the good
are swept up along with the bad" - which means that hashgacha pratit is
suspended for the duration.

There are other alternatives, such as that of R' Yitz Greenberg, but I
think that idea would be beneath our radar.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

R' Jonathan Baker wrote <<< ... ... The other alternative is to say that
"when God makes a decree, the good are swept up along with the bad" -
which means that hashgacha pratit is suspended for the duration. There
are other alternatives, such as that of R' Yitz Greenberg, but I think
that idea would be beneath our radar. >>>

Another of those alternatives, and one which should *not* be beneath
our radar, is simply, "We don't know."

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 10/16/2002 11:27:41 PM EDT, gil@aishdas.org writes:
> 2) If you follow their advice you have a chance of following divinely
> inspired guidance.  If you don't then you don't have any chance.

Doesn't any individual have the "chance" of divinely inspired
guidance-don't we pray for this daily?

KT
Joel Rich

For more on Prof. Septimus & dina d'malchusa dina see what I wrote at:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n027.shtml#02>
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n028.shtml#07>

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 23:31:41 -0400 Elazar M Teitz <remt@juno.com> writes:
<< For Hoshanos, I'm not so sure. It may be just a chovas hatzibur.
On the other hand, the M'chaber opinion is that even one without a lulav
should be makif. If it is not an individual obligation, why should he?
Let the tzibue do its obligation with those who have arba minim.>>

Maybe the minhag is hakafa, not necessarily with arba minim. Is that
harder or easier to accept than a chov of hakafa as opposed to a minhag
of the tzibur?

<< BTW, in our shul, on the first two days when there is a tremendous
number of lulavim, we split the crowd and there are two hakofos.>>

Concentric circles or different locations?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@juno.com>
<<What obligation is imposed on the individual, that he has to be
yotzei?>>

Related question: I always find it strange that people will go through
all kinds of gyrations to ensure that they've made one complete circuit
around the bima on each day of Sukkos, and seven on Hoshana Raba.

I never joined these squeeze through/take a short cut/knock everyone
in your way down <g> procedures because I didn't see the hakafa/os as
a chovas haguf. Correct?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 10/16/02 5:38:48 PM PDT, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> I don't think so.
> AFAIK it was instituted by the Ari Hakodesh.

Can anyone shed any light on this attribution of the initiation of
'hakofos sheniyos' to the AR"I ? Any mareh mikomos for reliable written
sources ? Reasons ?

Mordechai

From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@juno.com>
> As for the final question, what chiyuv is there on anyone to be "yotze
> hakafos"? There is no chiyuv of any kind. As a prelude to k'rias
> haTorah, we say an expanded version of Vayhi binso'a (Atah Horeisa),
> and on the way to the bimah to read, we accompany the sefer in which we
> intend to read with all the other s'forim, and proceed to show our joy
> by circling the bimah with those s'forim seven times. What obligation
> is imposed on the individual, that he has to be yotzei?

???
We don't read from ALL the seforim that are taken out.
And what about where they do Hakofos on Shimin Atzeres evening when there
is no kriyas hatorah (and those places that do not lein on ST night)?

SBA

>> It seems that Hashem had decided the fate of each person individually, 
>> as there were some who were saved from near certain murder and some 
>> who tried with every koach they had and were still murdered.

> If that kind of hashgacha pratit was operative during the war, it
> seems akin to the claim that the freier yidden were the cause of
> the destruction.

Mah pitom? How do you understand this, since I never said that Hashem's
criteria were solely focused on whether you were frum or not. 

> Think about it. If hashgacha pratit was operative, that means that Polish
> frum Jewry was meant to die out completely. All of it, or at least 99%
> of it.

But Polish frum Jewry DID suffer a 99% death rate, or whatever the true
number is. Thus, since it is Hashem who runs the world and controls
every event therein, then it must be true that Polish Jewry was meant to
almost die out completely, as this is what indeed happened. Since we see
that this was the case, it must mean that Hashem meant for it to happen
for reasons that we have no way of knowing.

> Those who left before US immigration shut down in 1924, became
> non-religious, if not immediately, then in two or three generations

I don't understand what you are getting at here. It is true that many of
those who came to the US in the late 1800's and early 1900's did indeed
become less religious and their offspring more so, but what does this
have to do with the fact that Hashem made a decree on the Jews of
Europe?  

> The other alternative is to say that "when God makes a decree, 
> the good are swept up along with the bad" - which means that 
> hashgacha pratit is suspended for the duration.

But this alternative doesn't seem to match up with reality in this case.
There were a good number of people who were saved in many and varied
miraculous ways, so it doesn't seem that hashgacha pratit was suspended
during this time at all. As I said before, some people lived through
Auschwitz and most did not. Hashem obviously intervened in some cases,
because according to derech hateva the Jews in Europe would have all
been slaughtered.

In contrast, during makot bechorot in mitzrayim we were told that anyone
[or at least any firstborn] venturing outside would be killed, since the
melech hamavet was loose and hashgacha pratit was suspended that
particular night. 

---Rena

Ms. Hapachat Freedenberg: 
>JJB
>>Ms. Hapachat Freedenberg:
>>>It seems that Hashem had decided the fate of each person individually, 
>>>as there were some who were saved from near certain murder and some 
>>>who tried with every koach they had and were still murdered.
 
>>If that kind of hashgacha pratit was operative during the war, it
>>seems akin to
>>the claim that the freier yidden were the cause of the destruction.
 
>Mah pitom? How do you understand this, since I never said that Hashem's
>criteria were solely focused on whether you were frum or not. 

I said it was "akin to": in that both ideas hold that the mass death
in the Holocaust was a Divine punishment, Divinely intended for all who
died.  Whether it was decreed collectively (R' Dessler and others) or
individually (your idea).
 
>>Think about it. If hashgacha pratit was operative, that means that
>>Polish frum Jewry was 
>>meant to die out completely. All of it, or at least 99% of it. 
 
>But Polish frum Jewry DID suffer a 99% death rate, or whatever the true
>number is. Thus, since it is Hashem who runs the world and controls
>every event therein, then it must be true that Polish Jewry was meant to
>almost die out completely, as this is what indeed happened. Since we see
>that this was the case, it must mean that Hashem meant for it to happen
>for reasons that we have no way of knowing.

And you don't see this as a Divine rejection of frumkeit?  When 
liberal Western European Jewry survived in a much larger percentage,
and frum Eastern European Jewry survived in a much smaller percentage?

Past disasters have affected frum and frei equally - they killed us
because we were Jews.  Here too they killed us because we were Jews,
but if God was behind it, then God selected which Jews were to be 
killed out.  And thus we can say (following RYB Soloveitchik's idea
that God's hashkafah is determined by history) that God puts His 
imprimatur on heterodox Judaism, and has removed it from Orthodox
Judaism.
 
>>Those who left before US immigration shut down in 1924, became
>>non- religious, if not immediately, then in two or three generations
 
>I don't understand what you are getting at here. It is true that many of
>those who came to the US in the late 1800's and early 1900's did indeed
>become less religious and their offspring more so, but what does this
>have to do with the fact that Hashem made a decree on the Jews of
>Europe?  

That those who left became non-religious, and those who stayed were killed:
if God was behind it, then God wanted to stamp out religious Judaism.

If, however, it was not God driving it, then religious Judaism remains
a valid choice.

It's an interesting catch-22:  if you hold by the God-drives-it-all position,
then you have to see that God is against religious Judaism.  If you hold by
the God-is-less-than-fully-relevant position, then religious Judaism can
continue any way it wants.
 
>>The other alternative is to say that "when God makes a decree, 
>>the good are swept up along with the bad" - which means that 
>>hashgacha pratit is suspended for the duration.
 
>But this alternative doesn't seem to match up with reality in this case.
>There were a good number of people who were saved in many and varied
>miraculous ways, so it doesn't seem that hashgacha pratit was suspended
>during this time at all. As I said before, some people lived through
>Auschwitz and most did not. Hashem obviously intervened in some cases,
>because according to derech hateva the Jews in Europe would have all
>been slaughtered.

Why is only the death miderech hateva?  If the salvation
was miraculous, the death was miraculous, and thus God's destruction of
the religious parts of European Jewry are the miracle that confirms His
rejection of religious Judaism.  Modim tells us to thank God for the 
everyday miracles as well as the exceptional - if everything is a miracle,
then that has to tell us what God wants.
 
>In contrast, during makot bechorot in mitzrayim we were told that anyone
>[or at least any firstborn] venturing outside would be killed, since the
>melech hamavet was loose and hashgacha pratit was suspended that
>particular night. 

Why must we rely on specific prophetic information to tell us when 
hashgacha pratit was suspended?  Can't such conditions apply in this
time of hester panim?  If HP can exist with hester panim, al achat 
camah vecamah so can not-HP. 

R' Dessler compares the Shoah to the Esther story: but the miracle
of salvation there told us that God was really saving us.  R' Dessler
uses the "Jews didn't listen to the rabbis, therefore we merited de-
struction, but we did teshuva, so we merited salvation" argument there. 
But if we integrate it with the RYBS argument that history validates
hashkafah, the destruction came.  Thus we have to say, if we're making
parallels, that either hashgacha pratit was suspended (like during
makat bechorot), or hashgacha pratit was operative, and God rejected
religious Judaism.

Yes, I went back and read the two pieces that started this thread.
If one wants them in English, they're in "Strive for Truth" vol 1
p. 217 et seq., and "The Rav Speaks" pp. 25-33.

<<If you look back at vol 3-33 you'll find an extremely helpful response
from Eli Clark (IIRC he made aliya and left our list poorer for it -
of course it was the right thing to do) I think he may have written an
article in Tradition or some such publication . . >>

See The Torah U'Madda Journal -- Volume 8, '98-99 at 97 -- "After the
Majority Shall You Incline": Democratic Theory and Voting Rights in
Jewish Law

Some time ago we discussed this issue. I was just listening to a tape
of R. Nissan Alpert where he says it works from the root of arevut, that
the prayee and the prayer become as one and thus it's like praying for
oneself. He developed the idea from Yehuda - after all why wasn't yaakov
concerned about his other sons, only Binyamin? There was some "mazel"
in that Rachel died, Yosef einenu.... so yaakov feared for Binyamin.
When Yehuda offered arevut he became one with Binyamin(if anything had
happened to Binyamin Yehuda would have been changed/chaser forever)
thus the "mazel"(my word ) changed through arevut and yaakov didn't fear .

KT
Joel Rich

R'n Freedenberg writes (numbers added to clarify her claims):
> 1) Why did so many frum Jews have to die? We don't know and can't know.
> 2) All of the Jews in the US and England and what have you that
> were not frum and saved from the shoah were NOT saved because they were
> not frum, but for some other reason. 

You make these two claims, but asserting one over the other as Truth
implies that you have some kind of nevuah to tell you that it is Truth.

You cannot be certain of claim 2 if you make claim 1.

IOW, if you can make the theologically difficult claim that God had direct
control over each death and survival, then one has to allow the claim that
God killed out frum Jewry far more than not non-frum Jewry to tell us that
frumkeit should die out.

God doesn't send these destructions without sending a message.  In the 
first Destruction, it was a punishment for avodah zarah, and subtly gave
the message that we should observe shmitta/yovel (which had not been
done).  In the second Destruction, it was not obvious what the punishment
was for, but the message was given that it was for interpersonal sins
(the students of R' Akiva, etc., confirming the anti-LH message of the
actual destruction).  So too here, the message has to be one verified 
by history - and the history tells us that God killed out frum Jewry at
a much higher percentage than non-frum Jewry.  

We like to say that history bears out God's favor: that the Tzdukim,
Baitosim, Karaim, etc. died out because they were not the true Judaism,
and that C/R will die out likewise.  And the C/R said the same about 
the Orthodox 50-100 years ago.  So who's to say that this was not a 
Message of the Holocaust?

(And yes, the resurgence of Orthodoxy makes some kind of hash out of
this Message, but movements come & go.  People stay dead.)

So, if there's a message to be drawn from this, if God directed the killing
and surviving, then it is left to us to speculate what God's message is.

If we don't want to draw such a message, we have to say that God wasn't
sending one, either because HP was suspended, or because (per R' Yitz
Greenberg) God went away and doesn't care about us any more.  But that way
lies Reconstructionism.

RGD:
> RHM: 
> >Of one thing I am completely certain. There was not a single Gadol,
> >had the known that the Holocaust would happen, that would have not
> >urged Jews to flee Europe.>>
 
> ZGG!

People keep saying this, but there was at least one who left,
while telling his followers not to. See Avodah v3n194, first post on
"Historical Perspectives". And this was in 1944. So can we be sure that
"not a single Gadol, had [he] known... that would not have urged Jews
to flee Europe"?

Interesting article.  In this type of artificial insemination is the father 
considered to have been mikayem pru urvu?  If so,would the "embarassment " 
factor outweigh the completion of the mitzvah through a son and a daughter? 
Do any of our Israeli members knw if a shaila was asked?

KT
Joel Rich

FROM HAARETZ
[RAA had Haaretz forward the URL
<http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=220919> -mi]

The couple treated at Hadassah are ultra-Orthodox and in their mid-20s. After 
marrying, they tried to start a family, but to no avail. Consultations with a 
fertility clinic revealed that the husband suffers from a rare disorder and 
has no sperm in his testicles. The doctors explained that the couple could 
use a sperm donation to fertilize the woman's ova. 

Israeli society in general, and the ultra-Orthodox community in particular, 
is averse to giving birth to a child who is not one's "biological child." The 
case of the young ultra-Orthodox couple, however, came with another special 
story, stemming from the fact that the husband is a Cohen: The ultra-Orthodox 
parents want to keep the sperm donation a secret, but if the woman was to 
give birth to a male child, they would only be able to keep the matter under 
wraps until the boy is 13 years old. When the son of a Cohen celebrates his 
bar mitzvah and goes up to read from the Torah, he is heralded in synagogue 
as a Cohen. In the case of the young couple, however, such an announcement 
would be a halakhic violation, as the boy would not be the biological son of 
the father, and the parents would be forced to reveal the issue of the sperm 
donation. 

In order to avoid the dilemma, the couple decided that they wanted a female 
child. A daughter, they explained, would never go up to read from the Torah; 
the community would not know that she was not their biological child; and 
they wouldn't have to tell her either. 

I don't know if this falls within your request, but there is an
interesting pamphlet called "Material for the preparation of a
Constitution for the Jewish State On a Religious Basis" it is edited by
Dr. Isaac Lewin published in 1948.

Kol Tov
Ezriel

I don't know if this falls within your request, but there is an
interesting pamphlet called "Material for the preparation of a
Constitution for the Jewish State On a Religious Basis" it is edited by
Dr. Isaac Lewin published in 1948.

Kol Tov
Ezriel

Reb Stuart Klagsbrun got quite upset at my use of words:
> From: Arie Folger
>> Anyway, in both cases (microphones and abortion) we are dealing with
>> tshuvot by RMF that make claims that some may say are outlandish, and
>> take positions that could much more readily be explained as gezeirot of
>> sorts.
> ...
>> Now most of us may disagree with RMT about the justification for RMF
>> making gezeirot, but he does agree with the observation that RMF was
>> making gezeirot bizman hazeh.

RSK:
> Bimchilas kvodchoh, and that of JDB, the only thing I have seen in this
> debate which one might justifiably call 'outlandish' is the use of the
> word 'outlandish' regarding a teshuva from RMF a"h.
<snip>

I ask me'hilah from all whom I offended (although IMO this does not
include RMF. It does, however, include RSK).

I clearly explained that RMF claimed in both cases he was talking lekuli
'alma. In both cases he was countering arguments by others and clearly
fighting them. In both cases RMFhad a good argument that would have
sufficed for many, even without the claim of talking lekuli 'alma.

The part of his argument that is neither necessary to support his psaq
nor necessarily true (meaning, it could be argued to be true, but there
is ample way to argue that that particular proof is unconvincing. RMF's
psaq is not thereby undermined, as he brought sufficient proof to support
his psaq even without resorting to the claims I labeled as "some may
interpret as outlandish") is there clearly to give a coup de grace to
the opposing shittah.

IOW, RMF was not happy with supporting his psaq with solid proofs, but
wanted to make sure, above and beyond what he expected in other cases
involving issurim deOraita, including Shabbat, that no one would follow
the opposing shittah. To achieve this he had to undermine the opposing
shittah not only by pasqening against it, but by discrediting it.

To base a claim on evidence that more likely or equally likely points the
other way is not RMF's habitual approach to psaq and could be described
legitimately as outlandish if taken at face value. Same goes for claiming
authority which he was not officially granted (by constituents. See a
previous discussion on the source of the qehillah's power or that of a
beit din qavu'a, at least post Sanhedrin.

However, the careful reader will notice that I did not label RMF
outlandish, nor did I label his psaq outlandish. What I said is (in
different words) that as a purely halakhic technical argument, those
claims of RMF are outlandish, however, RMF did not intent these to
be halakhic technical arguments, but rather extreme tactics akin to
what one poster quoted from Rambam's description of some of 'Hazal's
pronouncements: (legitimate) scare tactics. Legitimate, but only in
extreme circumstances, which RMF saw in those two and some other cases.

Furthermore, I hope that RSK will have recognized that I did not
base those impressions on my own private reading of RMF's tshuvah on
abortion. The idea that RMF was making gezeirot while throwing a smoke
screen of arguments that are not as rigorous as RMF was wont to use,
that idea is attested by a number of well recognized rabbonim, including
his own grandson.

Git Shabbes,
Arie Folger

Jonathan Baker <jjbaker@panix.com> wrote:
> RHM: 
>>>Of one thing I am completely certain. There was not a single Gadol,
>>>had the known that the Holocaust would happen, that would have not
>>>urged Jews to flee Europe.>>

> RGD:
>> ZGG!

> People keep saying this, but there was at least one who left,
> while telling his followers not to. See Avodah v3n194, first post on
> "Historical Perspectives". And this was in 1944. So can we be sure that
> "not a single Gadol, had [he] known... that would not have urged Jews
> to flee Europe"?

I do not beleive for a minute that when a Gadol gives advice to Klal
Israel that he does not include himself. If a Gadol advised people to
stay in Europe, he meant himself as well.

What you are perhaps reffering to is the fact that a certain Gadol did
in fact take advantage of an opportunity to escape the Holocaust after
advising his Chasidim to stay. I think we need to look at this with
some historical perspective. When the advice was issued, it is likely,
or at least possible that he did so in earnest belief that this was
the best advice he could issue and included himself. I'm sure that he
had every intention to stay. It is also possible that the severity of
the Holocaust became known to him only after the advice was issued. At
that point in time a quick judgement had to be made as to whether to
take advantage of a unique opportunity offered only to him and escape
the certain fate of Jews transported to Auschwitz, or to stay and die
along with the rerst of his flock. You have to ask yourself, What would
his Chasidim wanted? Did they want him to get on a train with them only
to arrive at Auschwitz and walk immediately to the "Showers"? Or would
they have preffered that their Rebbe be saved?

I don't think it serves any good purpose to second guess what was in
the best interests of Klal Israel given the options available to this
individual. To say, for example, that he should have stayed with his
people is the height of arrogance. Who are we to say what any individual
should have done during the Holocaust? Who are we to say what is right
or wrong? We were not there. We cannot imagine the extreme suffering
that went into every decision. These were matters of life and death and
decisions needed to be made in a split second!

I for one refuse to condemn anyone who suffered during the Holocaust,
no matter what he was accused of doing. None of us has any right to
judge anyone.

IMHO there were more than 6 million Kedoshim. Every survivor of the
Holocaust is a Kadosh and a Tahor, no matter what level of Mitzvah
observance.

HM

On 17 Oct 2002 at 22:04, Arie Folger wrote:
> On a different note, one poster drew a possible parallel between Melekh and 
> gadol bizman hazeh. My reply is that I find this relationship intriguing and 
> agree that if a LOR decided that the best way to save his community would be 
> to fight, he would have the right to pasqen that every ablebodied individual 
> participate, and one would not be allowed to disobey *even* *when* *that* 
> *individual"s* *life* *is* *in* *peril*, because such is the reality of war. 
> Poskim discuss this and such is obviously the halakhah, that an individual's 
> (safeq) piqua'h nefesh does not absolve him from soldiering duties.

I was actually thinking about this yesterday as well in the context 
of the Daf Yomi and the machlokes between the Maharsha and the 
Maharshal over whether one would be permitted to disagree with the 
head of the Sanhedrin if he stated his view first. If one holds that 
it would be assur to disagree, it would seem to me that would be a 
source for "da'as Torah" that far predates the last 2-3 generations. 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

In a message dated 10/18/2002 11:12:32 AM EDT, jjbaker@panix.com writes:
> We like to say that history bears out God's favor: that the Tzdukim,
> Baitosim, Karaim, etc. died out because they were not the true Judaism,
> and that C/R will die out likewise.  And the C/R said the same about 
> the Orthodox 50-100 years ago.  So who's to say that this was not a 
> Message of the Holocaust?

And Xtians interpret the Jew's lowly plight as eveidence of G-d's ongoing 
rejections
and that we sruviev- albeit as a minimum - davka to remind people about this.

The truth is that we really do not know Hashem's motives and that kind of 
speculation about who is right and who is wrong based upon historical 
interpretation is very tricky. 

It might be OK to say, history teaches us that X works over Y.  It is IMHO 
not OK to say Hashem judged X over Y.  Im kein, then Hashem loved Romans 
better than He did Jews in 70 CE.  Such interpretations could abound.   

Summary: True, we can learn from History, but it is not so simple to use 
History as guide to reading Hashem's mind.  I am betting that none of us are 
on that madreiga .

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On Friday 18 October 2002 08:22, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> I was actually thinking about this yesterday as well in the context
> of the Daf Yomi and the machlokes between the Maharsha and the
> Maharshal over whether one would be permitted to disagree with the
> head of the Sanhedrin if he stated his view first. If one holds that
> it would be assur to disagree, it would seem to me that would be a
> source for "da'as Torah" that far predates the last 2-3 generations.

I don't follow daf yomi. Could you quote exact MM, I am very interested.

Git vokh (because RCS will see this after Shabbes),
Arie

In Meseches Brachos daf 16b the Maharsh"a in the chidusei agodos dibur
hamaschil Bphros say that the name shin-daled-yud comes out from
the parsha of krias Shema. Does anyone know what the Maharsh"a is
refering to? Is there another source that says the same thing?

Kol Tov
Ezriel

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


[ 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         ]