Ragerding the pronunciation of magdil/migdol, someone wrote:
> (WADR to the TT, the theory doesn't work because the Avudraham
> mentions the practice, and he didn't know about a future splitting
> of Shemu'el by people in another part of the world.)

to which R' Simon Montagu asked:
> I don't understand this disproof. The TT's theory seems to me to
> work just as well if the original note said "beit shin" for
> "bishmuel"

But the orginal note was not simple "beit shin". It was "beit shin 
beit", which could mean either "b'Shabbat" or "b'Shmuel Beit".

R' Simon Montagu added:
> A similar example that I heard from the late Rabbi Ephraim
> Wiesenberg of London is the note in some haggadot that on motza'ei
> shabbat one should say "min hapesahhim umin hazebahhim" instead
> of "min hazebahhim umin hapesahhim" shortly before the second cup
> of wine. Now, there is an explanation (which I forget) why on
> motza"sh the pesahh was eaten before the zebahh, but what does that
> have to do with it? In context, it refers to "regalim ahherim
> haba'im likratenu" and davka not this year, so why should the order
> this year be taken into account? Instead, it is suggested, there
> was originally a note "beit mem shin" meaning "bamishna" (referring
> to the mishna within the bavli, Pesahhim 116b) which was
> misinterpreted as "bemotza'ei shabbat".

I concede that this may have had its basis in such a text, like 
magdil/migdol. Nevertheless, this is a great opportunity for me to 
offer an alternate explanation, one which answers RSM's question 
of "why should the order this year be taken into account?"

The answer is that you are correct; it makes no sense logically. But 
it makes a great deal of sense pedagogically.

Shaar Hatziyun 473:80 explains that normally, the chagigah (zevach) 
is eaten prior to the pesach, which must be eaten when already sated. 
But the chagigah cannot be slaughtered on Shabbos, so when Erev 
Pesach is Shabbos, the chagigah had to be delayed until Sunday, i.e., 
Yom Tov afternoon, long after the seder. Therefore, when the seder is 
Motzaei Shabbos, the text of the bracha is changed to reflect the 
order of eating for that year: first the pesach, then the chagigah 
(zevach). (The Shaar Hatziyun does also bring the opposing view, that 
the text is left unchanged, because it is talking about *next* year.)

Now, let's suppose that we want to teach people that when the seder 
is on Motzaei Shabbos, the order of the korbanos is switched. 
Switching their order in the brachos is a great way to teach this. 
There are many things which we do at the seder to inspire such 
questions, to which the father will tell the kids, "Here, have some 
more nuts while I look that up." (Ooops, started to slip into Purim 
mode there... :-)

Now, I grant you that the text of the bracha is about *future* years. 
But so what? Should we change the text only in years when the 
calendar say that *next* year the seder will be Motzaei Shabbos? 
There are several problems with that idea. One is that the bracha is 
not about *next* year, but about future years in general, and 
switching it *all* the time would be absurd. Another problem is that 
it would show a lack of emunah that we hope to be on a new calendar 
(eidei r'eeah) by next year.

So we go the simple route. When the seder is on Motzaei Shabbos here 
and now, we teach about when the seder is on Motzaei Shabbos in Beis 
HaMikdash days. Even though the bracha is about future years. Not 
because it makes sense, but because it is a good opportunity to 
demonstrate the idea.

But this is not the only case where pedagogy trumps logic. A much 
better example is Lechem Mishneh.

Think about it. In what was does it make sense to require double 
loaves on Saturday? That's not when the double manna fell. It fell on 
Friday! If you want to be logical, then you should require double 
loaves when you eat lunch on Friday!!!

But from a chinuch perspective, Friday is just too impractical. Are 
we going to require that people must make hamotzi on friday? If not, 
the lechem mishneh will only apply when people voluntarily choose to 
eat bread. Pretty soon, it'll get forgotten.

So instead, we do Lechem Mishneh on Shabbos. Even though in the 
midbar, when Saturday lunch arrived, we had already eaten one loaf of 
manna and were down to one left. Even so, Chazal still require that 
we use two loaves, and specifically to remember it the double portion 
of manna -- which was already gone by Saturday!!! Does it make sense 
logically? No, not really. But does it teach us about the manna? Yes, 
very well.

I think there are other examples, but I can't remember them. I 
suppose covering the challah on Shabbos is another manna-related 
thing which ought to apply only on Friday.

Akiva Miller