<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:41 PM, <<a href="mailto:JoshHoff@aol.com">JoshHoff@aol.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial;"><font size="2" color="#000000" face="Arial">
<div>
<div>In a message dated 7/7/2008 11:13:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
<a href="mailto:avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org" target="_blank">avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org</a> writes:</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid blue; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;"><font style="background-color: transparent;" size="2" color="#000000" face="Arial">Any
sources as to whether 2 pieces of man fell on erev yom tov as well<br>as erev
shabbat?<br>KT<br></font></blockquote></div>
<div></div>
<div>See Tosafos Beitzah 2b, 'vehaya,' 2 opinions from diff. midrashim ,and see
Nefesh Chayah from R. Reuven Margolios, Orach Chaim, 529,
3.</div></font></div></blockquote></div><br>I have not follwoed this thread, but it is pretty accepted taht lechem Mishan on YT is a chiyuv from the Ga'onim not the Talmud [Midrash would usualyl qualify as Ga'onic AIUI]<br>
<br>The raya brura for this is that one of our earliest post Talmudic sources - the BEHAG - claims that the Sder should have 2 matzso except Friday night. This is a very strong indication that in his day:<br><br><ol><li>
There was no ISSUR of having 3 matzos re: lechem oni</li><li>There was not NEED to have lechem Mishna on YT</li><li>There WAS a need to have lechem Mishna on Shabbos<br></li></ol>Tosafos/Rosh take it for a davar pashut that lechem mishna is need on YT, too - hence the 3 matzos.<br>
<br>Gra Attacks Rosh as not reading the Gmara properly, but it is clear that the sugya was not aliba dehilchesa [for the Rosh on this point]. Either the Rosh held:<br><ol><li>Once the Ga'onim required lechem mishan the sugya had to be retrofitted to match noramtive Halacha AS PRACTICED OR<br>
</li><li>The Rosh [and others} might have realized that the Talmud never EXPLICITLY required lechem Mishan on YT, but it was always assumed to be there - albeit IMPLICITLY. This Sugya must have not held it to be noramtive, and Behag would have concurred. But the sense of Shab as awhole might have beeen otherwise<br>
</li></ol>#1 implies a lot About Ashkenazi minhag. One the Ga'onim say you say Baruch Hashem L'olam at Arbis, you do it anyway - the Talmud notwithstanding. The GRA would dissent on this point, too<br><br>#2 implies another factor. That that which is IMPLICT inthe Talmud may have the force of the Talmud. {jsut like 13 middos has a force of the a d'oraisso] So of course the Talmud does not sayexplicitly that lechem mishan is normative on YT but it has the force of Talmud anyway. The Gra would still desent because he would require [like the Rambam usualy] more explicit texts. Ashekanzim often extrapolate<br>
<br>===============================================================<br>Two Tangents:<br><ol><li>Whether the Rambam extrapolate Birchas Ner Shabbs from the Bavli is an interesting hypothesis that woud make the Ramba more Tosafos-like and less fundamentalistic<br>
</li><li>The Gra himslef relies upon Masseches Soferim for saying a Bracha on Megillos [aside from Esther]. Soferim is sessentially Ga'onic albeit it quotes earlier sources. This sort of puts thE GRa on both sides of the Talmud vs. Ga'onic issue re: litrugy.</li>
</ol><br><br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>