On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Daniel Israel <<a href="mailto:dmi1@hushmail.com" target="_blank">dmi1@hushmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:31:39 -0600 Simon Montagu<br>
>... in 6384, iy"h.<br>
<br>
"Iy"h"? Say, rather, "chv"sh"! We would like to go back to<br>
kiddush haChodesh sooner than that (and may be guaranteed to,<br>
according to some shitos).</blockquote><div><br>I had the same question on the paper that RSZN linked to at <a href="http://tinyurl.com/629syz">http://tinyurl.com/629syz</a>, but on reflection decided that the use of iy"h was appropriate after all. Iy"h, we will restore kiddush al pi re`iah long before 6384, but iy"h we won't.<br>
<br>Be"h, we will be able to discuss the question with Eliyahu Hanavi tomorrow night.<br></div></div><br>