- This topic has 13 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
DY- rashi in RH i think on yud ches amud beis towards the bottom says that because klal yisroel was noheg chanuka for a long time and everyone was noheg to treat it as a quasi-y’t therefore it is kitorah. but the end of rashi says ulichain eino nachon livatlo, which would be mashma that this concept isnt mamash mamash. im remembering, not quoting.
I can’t look yet.
Were we discussing this?
Oh, right. Thanks!
Toi: Look at the Taz (quoted in the Beur Halachah) that says that Pirsumei Nisa is D’oraisa (I think it’s towards the beginning of Hilchos Channukah but I’m not positive). I think it explains the Rashi better. There’s a Rashi somewhere in Shas on the phrase Hanach Lahem… B’nei N’vi’im Heim that I think explains Minhag Yisrael Torah well (I’m either remembering a Rashi or a P’nei Moshe in Peah on the line about if you’re not positive about the Halachah then check out the Minhag).
Mod- can u change the title to: Minhag Yisroel Torah Hu so e/one can know what the discussion is about?
Toi- please use descriptive titles for new threads in the future.
Yetels, please use one sn in the future so that everyone knows who’s posting.
DaasYochid, I’d love to accommodate that request if afforded that opportunity.
Stick with “Joseph”.
I’ve been told you’ve already been afforded the opportunity. So no more opportunities.
I disagree with how its been told to you. It isn’t as cut and dried. But if you could accommodate a fresh name with a fresh start that will be the only one thereafter used, I’d be happy to comply with that.
not happening
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.