Timeline for Holiness status of Yod-Yod
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:42 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://judaism.stackexchange.com/ with https://judaism.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 18, 2015 at 15:59 | history | edited | Yishai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed link. Very weird, the link was valid but changed what it pointed to, and it also pointed to a letter re: issues in the Siddur. Fortunately the exact date was recorded in the answer so I could find the new link.
|
| Nov 10, 2013 at 3:12 | vote | accept | Charles Koppelman | ||
| Nov 7, 2013 at 20:23 | history | edited | Menachem | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed comment, so no longer applies
|
| Nov 7, 2013 at 20:17 | history | edited | Menachem | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
more permanently relevant publication date
|
| Nov 7, 2013 at 20:16 | history | edited | Yishai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Add missing word
|
| Nov 7, 2013 at 19:08 | history | edited | Yishai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Add in reference
|
| Nov 7, 2013 at 18:38 | history | edited | Yishai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Add in Fred's comment
|
| Nov 7, 2013 at 17:52 | comment | added | Fred | Re. the link in your last paragraph, it says that the vast majority of opinions agree with the Rama that the two yuds may be erased for a purpose. The Rama is based on the T'rumas HaDeshen (P'sak 171), who was concerned that maybe, since the two yuds reference the shem havaya and begin with the same letter as does the shem havaya, we should be extra stringent. The T'rumas HaDeshen writes that, even though there's a good chance that the second yud that is not from the name makes it permissible to erase the two yuds, "if there's no great need, why should we permit erasing it?" | |
| Nov 7, 2013 at 17:12 | history | edited | Yishai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarification
|
| Nov 7, 2013 at 15:57 | history | answered | Yishai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |