Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 021

Thursday, October 15 1998

• Re: dateline questions
• Re: Leyning on Acharon shel Pesach
• Re: more on humanism
• Birchas Hachodesh - tishre
• Re: Avodah V2 #19 More on chumros
• cooking
• conscience and halachah
• revising the Dor Revi'i
• Re: Chasam Sofer on sevara
• Psak
• Re: Avodah V2 #18
• Aser T'aser
• Date Line
• Re: Reb Shlomo
• Kulos v'Chumros
• Re: Kulos v'Chumros
• Re: Avodah V2 #20

Another question to throw onto the pile:

If one crosses from Shabbos back to Friday, does one make havdala?

Eliyahu Teitz

<<
2) The minhag in "Breuer's" (and, possibly, shuls with a minhag from a
city besides Frankfurt-am-Main) is not only to lein from the earlier point
only when Sh'mi'ni Atzeres occurs on Shabbos (i.e. not like RaShY but in
accordance with OC 658) but also to lein from the earlier point on Acharon
shel Pessach when it occurs on Shabbos, which appears to per se have no
source.  Any [non-flippant!] thoughts re this "lo p'lug"-type of practice
(such as whether it is limited to Pessach & Sukkos because of the
"chami'shi-chami'shi" connection) are welcome
>>

Without getting involved in the other parts of the discussion, I would like to
address the issue of Acharon shel Pesach on Shabbos.  Kol ha-bechor contains
only 22 pesukim, in parshios of 5, 8, 4 & 5 puskim length.  This can maximally
be broken up into 5 aliyos.  The immediately preceeding parasha ( though
containing 6 p'sukim which would add the needed extra aliyos ) begins with "Ki
yimacher l'cha achicha" hardly an auspicious start for an aliya.  The prior
parasha starts "Ki yihyeh b'cha evyon", also not a great start.  The parasha
before that starts "Mikeytz sheva shanim ta'aseh sh'mita" which relates back
to "Miktzey shalosh shanim" and before that to "Asser t'asser".  So the need
for 2 extra aliyos on Shabbos pushes the layning back to "Asser t'asser".

Eliyahu Teitz

In a message dated 98-10-14 14:38:42 EDT, you write:

<< The case of tanur shel achnai, to me, seems to argue against this.  We are
not
 trying to figure out what is r'tzon HaShem is in a specific situation ( He
let
 us know this via the miracles and bas kol, regardless of why they were
 ignored, they were strong evidence of a Heavenly opinion ).  
 
 Rather, the r'tzon HaShem is that we follow the system He set up, and take it
 to the conclusions of our own logic.  I heard that R. YB Soloveitchik
 explained the conclusion of the g'mara ( nitzchuni banai ) as not meaning
that
 they beat Me through My own system ( nitzchuni coming from l'natzeach - to
win
 ).  Rather it comes from the word nezach - eternal - and means My children
 have made Me eternal.  Had Chazal at that time heeded the bas kol, that would
 have spelled the end of the halachic system, for whenever a machlokes arose,
 the rabbis would have turned to Heaven for an answer.  R. Yehoshua was
 emphatic that the system is OURS now, and we must come to our own
conclusions.

Eliyahu Teitz
  >>
Sorry for my usual inarticulate expression of my thoughts. What I tried to say
is that  it is  the ratzon hashem that we use the system , which I agree 100%
is ours .  Part of that system is micro(eg exactly what is lechem) and part is
macro(eg dracheha darchei noam), we use all these to come to a conclusion(ie
its still one system)

Kol Tuv
Joel

     Dear List,
        It's a fact that we do not "bench" chodesh tishre.  The Gemoro 
     mentions kdei l'arbiv es haSoton.  Frnakly i have found it quite 
     difficutly to consue the Soton over the years.  <smile>
     
        A real chidush occured to me over Yom Tov, and I'd like to pass it 
     by you as food for thought....
     
        The problem with bentching chodesh tishre could be it's 
     ipmlications on our caldndar
     
        Normally we bentch 1 day or 2 days.  when we bentch 2 days, we 
     invariably imply that day 1 is the the 30th of the current month and 
     day 2 is the 1st day of the next month.
     
        Memo nafashach, if we bentch 2 days, then we would imply the first 
     day of RoshHashono is acutally the 30th of Ellul.  Clearly an 
     irbuvyah!
     
        If we bentch 1 day, and keep Rosh Hashono as the 1st day of Tishre 
     we MIGHT be ipmlying that we keep only 1 day of Rosh Hashono.  Another 
     potential irbuvyah!
     
        So either "standard" chodesh benching (1 day or 2) could lead to a 
     confusion.  This is because Rosh Hashono is defacto a 2 day Rosh 
     chodesh but both of its days are counted as part of the new month of 
     Tishre, instead of spanning the end of ellul and the begining of 
     Tishre.  This might be the REAL peshat in kdei l'arbeiv.
     
        Yes, it's just a thought; I didn't get it miSinai.  So feel free to 
     poke holes in it - or just enjoy it as another interesting idea.
     
     Kol Tuv,
     Richard 

     Dear List,
        I would just like to echo Eli Turkels ipmlied sentiments.
     
     to me, halacho is a system.  Lo sossur might be applied when eating in 
     a sukkah when it rains.
     
     
     I was very influenced by the Chumro of Rav Yisroel Slanter when he 
     reused to wash negel Vasser with more water than up to his knuck;les 
     because he did not wish to be matriach the serfvatn who had to shlepp 
     the water.  In other words, his chumro should not rest on someone 
     else's back (quite literally I might add!)
     
     I am also reminded of the very early Chassidishe mekubblim who davened 
     with the tisubb (or pretended to) and finished their amido with the 
     tsibbur and then went hoem to daven shomeh esrei for literlly hours - 
     but on their own time
     
     
     Chumros indeed have their place.  simlar to Takanos Ezra, we should 
     see if rov hatsibbur yochol laamod bo.  And we should see to it that 
     the chumro does not abuse another halocho thereby creating an 
     undesired kullo. 
     
     There is a klal, shavya a nafshei chaticho d'issuoro.  For one's self, 
     you can be machmir on certain things.
     
     While some individuals might be vegetarians, I don't think it's a 
     necessary CHUMRO to advocate it for everyone.  yet, some people talk 
     about it as MORE kosher.
     
     Simlarly re; Tehceiles.  I think it's great that we might revive this 
     ancient practice.  meanwhile, it best be left to individuals and their 
     followers.
     
     I don't think of Glatt Kosher as a chumro anymore.  I think of it as 
     the PSAK of the Beis Yoseph, and I think it's a practical thing not to 
     exclude those who "religioulsy" follow his Psak hahalocho.  So as a 
     common denominator, Glatt makes sense because it can be eaten by Beit 
     Ysof people and Remo people.  As an intrinsic chumro it means little to 
     me.  I am quite satisfied to follow rabbeinu Remo lechumor or lekulo.  
     Only I recongized that it's not practical to have separate 
     slaughterhouses for Ashkenazim and Sephardim.  
     
     My hashkofo, the more clear psak we have without forcing either chumros 
     of kullos - the better.  Let's strive for clarity, objectivity, good 
     hard analysis;  I don't think sentiment or "feels right" should 
     determine psak. (minhog might)
     
     Regards,
     Rich Wolpoe
     
      
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

In message , Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> writes
>>> As an aside, this is why I have always assumed that the idea of eating
>>> all your chullin as if it was kodesh was a feminist plot to make sure
>>> that men did all the cooking.
>
>This problem existed all the more so for cohanim in the days of the Temple.
>If one takes a tour of the Wohl Museum it contains artifacts found in the
>houses of priests a short distance from the Temple. One of the unusual facts
>is that many of the dishes are from stone which no neighboring community used.
>Any good guide will tell you the reason is because of tumah. Stone does not
>become tumah and so was used in all cooking, eating etc.
>Hence, ways were found for women to participate in normal life even while being
>nidah. True some restrictions applied like eating terumah but I doubt that they
>were in isolation.

I wasn't suggesting they were in isolation, but I was suggesting they
were not cooking either kodesh or chullin which was being treated as if
it was kodesh.  I am rather fascinated to know how:

a) you knead flour and bake bread;

b) you kasher and cut up meat;

c) you cook meat;

d) you milk a cow/goat and make cheese; or

e) you draw water from a well and carry it back to your house;

without touching the relevant item of food except via a utensil that is
not mekabil tumah.

For the cohanim a fair number of their meals would presumably have been
eaten in the beis hamikdash (and women weren't doing the cooking or
eating in there).
 
>kol tuv,
>Eli Turkel
>

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

Zvi Weiss wrote:

<<<
The Halacha of Lifnim Mishurat Hadin is based upon various verses and
not simply a s'vara.  Darchei Shalom -- outside of the Eivah aspect
[which is a matter of pikuach nefesh] -- is likely based upon a verse, as
well.  The implication is that the basis for these "manners of conduct" is
NOT independant of Torah at all.  The question of "independant
standards of right and wrong" has been discussed elsewhere (I believe
that Shalom carmi had an article about it).  And, it is a complicated matter
--- but the "proof" that you bring is not significant since the Gemara
appears to link the matter to various verses.
>>>

My point is not that there is no basis in the Torah for the concept of lifnim
m'sharet ha-din, but that if halachah already encompasses all relevant
ethical considerations, and there are no standards outside of halachah
by which to evaluate what is good and just (tov v'yashar) in the eyes of
the Almighty, then the idea of lifnim m'sharet ha-din is self-contradictory. 
How is it possible to be naval bi-r'shut ha-torah, if there are no standards
of proper conduct that the Torah assumes that we can understand on
our own even if they are not formulated as explicit commandments?

<<<
The Rambam talks about the development of Machlokes and there is no
intimation that this is a matter of "conscience".
>>>

I don't wish to start a new thread on the Rambam.  Suffice it to say that
his explanation of machloket which focuses on a decline in the reasoning
power of the generations (as minds became less great they no longer
thought alike) does not address whether the disagreements might, as in
the case of R. Akiva and R. Shimon b. Gamliel, have been motivated by
underlying eithical disagreements.  E.g., is the obligation to be merciful In
the administriation of justice more relevant to the accused or to the
possible victims of future crimes if present crimes go unpunished?

<<<
Note that R. Shimon b. Gamliel does NOT state that R. Akiva was
halchically incorrect -- only that "using" the Halacha in such a manner
would have counterproductive results for the society.  In this case, there
is no evidence that there was a question of "independent judgement of
right and wrong" as you seem to assert.  And, I believe that BOTH are
totally subservient to the will of the Ribbono shel Olam.  Rather, it is
simply what is the more appropriate manner to apply the halacha.
>>>

I did not mean to suggest that they were not totally subservient to the will
of the Ribbono shel Olam.  Just that their subservience to His will did not
preclude their having a substantive disagreement about the right and
proper way to apply halachah.  I think that we are really in agreement
here.

<<<
I would suggest that you review the Maharsha on that gemara before
making [what appear to be] rash statements.  The Maharsha makes clear
that the Bat Kol was NOT a valid proof in any event for R. Eliezer. 
>>>

I never suggested that R. Joshua was not on absolutely solid halachic
ground in refusing to listen to the bak kol.  That is the point of the story. 
After giving us the Torah, the Ribbono shel Olam relinquished control
over the halachah to us (our judges).  But knowing what the ratzon
ha-shem was, why didn't R. Joshua et al. change their opinion?  I don't
know, but clearly they decided, for whatever reason, not to change their
opinion even though that is what the Ribono shel Olam wanted.  I read
the Mahrsha over Yom Tov and saw nothing inconsistent with my
opinion.  In fact the mahadura batra is, if anything, even more strongly in
agreement with me than I had expected.

David Glasner 
dglasner@ftc.gov

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

<<<
On the other issues, I think that much more clarification is needed as the
nature of the Oral Law prior to the Mishna. 1) The Gemora Berachos 5a -
states
that the Mishna and Gemora as well as Tanach were given on Sinai 2)
Doros
HaRishonim states that the basic Mishna was composed by the Anshei
Knesses
HaGedola 3) Rabbi Akiva seems to be the source of the Mishna - what
did he do
differently than Rebbe 4) Was the Mishna a code of law or a summary of
concepts
5) How does the Mishna differ in purpose and origin from medrashei
halachos? 5)
Was the Mishna's authority that of Sanhedrin? 6) Why isn't the halacha
always
like Rebbe? 7) Perhaps more critical is the nature of Divrei Sofrim and
Halacha
L'Moshe which the Rambam talks about and which are very difficult to
understand
8) Finally are the discussions in the gemora the generation of the
Halacha or
only a search of asmachtos for that which was known (Malbim vs Doros
Rishonim).

Without a full discussion of these issues - I don't think we are sharing a
common language to produce a productive dialogue. I don't think this
forum is
the appropriate one for a full discussion. I do appreciate that you have
forced
me to clarfiy issues that I hadn't thought about before as well as realize
how
fuzzy much of our knowledge is about the Oral Law.

In sum, my original point is the more limited issue of the Dor Revi'i. He
states
the static nature of a written document is what gave the Mishna its
authority.
You have extended it to the processes of transforming the Oral Law into
a
Written Law. I assert that he would not accept your extension and base
myself on
the above quotation.
>>>

I think that you have well summarized the issues that require further
thought and research.  I am glad that you have found this discussion
useful.  I certainly have as well.  Thank you again.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, David Glasner wrote:

> First of all, thank you for the friendly tone of your posting.  Second, I

You are welcome.

> don't think that you are reading what I wrote correctly.  When I spoke
> about a sevara, I was not refering to "perspectives" but to bedrock
> principles of good and evil, right and wrong that are shared in common
> by all decent, moral human beings and which even most indecent and
> immoral human beings pay lip service to.  
> 

I am under the impression that the Torah defines bedrock values. Were the
Torah not revealed, we may have learned modesty from a cat, etc., but now
it is the revelation that determines values.

Even the value 	"shelo le'heyos naval bereshus haTorah," while is revealed
- in "Kedoshim tee'heyu" - and, corollaries, in "Ve'asisa ha'yashar
v'ha'tov" etc.

> Thank you for the reference to the Chasam Sofer.  Your b'kius in his 
> t'shuvot certainly far exceeds my own, which I regret to say, is 
> practically nill.  However, thanks to my friend Mechy and his trusty

No beki'us. One of the few that I know.

> computer, I obtained a print-out of this t'shuva on erev Sh'mini Atzeret
> (which was, by the way, the 74th yahrzeit of the Dor Revi'i who was
> niftar in Yerushalayim ir ha-Kodesh during hakafot).  As I suspected (for
> reasons that will become clear momentarily) it is clear from the t'shuva
> that the sevara that the Chasma Sofer was refering to was the sevara
> of pilpul and the Chasam Sofer was, to say the least, not overly found of

Yes, but to turn it around, there were many great Acharonim who were very
fond of pilpul - yet the Chasam Sofer negated their "sevara" decisively.
Yet they held what they were engaged in was "Emes - Sevara." Furthermore,
he used a Ma'amar Chazal to do so. This seems to indicate that he held
Chazal were making a statement about the reliability of sevara as well,
no?

> uphold their direct and clear reasoning.  And this was the meaning of the
> Chasam Sofer when he wrote "ki ha-d'hukim rubam amiti'im." 
>

I have always wondere as to the precise location of this quote from the
CS. You say that the Dor Revi'i is quoting the CS in an earlier teshuva.
Do you know precisely where the teshuva is?
 
> David Glasner
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

>to conform to this chumra or do we pick one shitta of the chasom sofer 
>and not another, do we have guidelines on how to posken from the sefarim
of our gedolim?
	Seems to me that a posek whom you trust could decide that for you.

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>  This created an unbelievable machlokes in Chicago at the time.  
>Instead of cross fertilization of the minds of our children, there was 
>a complete separation.  I think in the end both schools lost out in the 
>sense that each is missing a piece of yahdus that is reflective of 
>certain hashkafos no longer available to all students.
	I think it is important to make the distinction between
"cross-fertilization" of different strands of Yahadus haTorah,  and
cross-fertilization with the influences of what we can call "Western
Culture"  for lack of a better name.  I would not mind and in fact would
welcome the former,  (i.e. contact and dialog with other Jews of all
levels of education,  religious committment and education) but the latter
I would not allow into my house.  I do not mean secular education;   but
the kind of stuff that has even non-Jewish people decrying the debasement
of (even) the newspapers and radio.   Who would have believed that you
would not be able to turn on "all-news" radio with kids in the car,  or
open up a New York Times in front of them.  And we deserve no less, 
ourselves,  than what we are suggesting for our children. 

Gershon
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>city besides Frankfurt-am-Main) is not only to lein from the earlier 
>point only when Sh'mi'ni Atzeres occurs on Shabbos (i.e. not like RaShY
but in accordance with OC 658) but also to lein from the earlier point on

>Acharon shel Pessach when it occurs on Shabbos, which appears to per se
have no source.  Any [non-flippant!] thoughts re this "lo p'lug"-type of 
>practice (such as whether it is limited to Pessach & Sukkos because of
the
>"chami'shi-chami'shi" connection) are welcome.  TIA.
	The reason to start earlier on Acharon Shel Pesach is simply to have
sufficient room to fit in seven aliyos.  The reason for starting earlier
on Shmini Atzeres even when it doesn't come out on Shabbos is that it is
the time of harvest and hence of giving maaser.

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>Another question which might be a fourth, like the three above -- or
>perhaps it is more comparable to Shabbos and Sefira -- would be the 
>daily prayers. For example, if one has already davened Shacharis, and 
>crosses the date line from 9 AM Tuesday to 9:01 AM Wednesday, does he
need to daven again because it is a new day? What if he did *not* daven >
	 Try this on:  If you travel eastward (I think) across the IDL,  leaving
on,  say,  Shiva Asar B'Tamuz,  then although you already fasted,  you
must fast again.  This is because the fast day is a function of the
calendar,  which is local,  rather than specific to you.  If,  however, 
you do the same trip on Shiva Asar B'Tamuz which is nidche to Sunday, 
you need **not**  fast again.  This is because the taanis in this case is
tashlumin for Shabbos,  and therefore personal,  and therefore depends on
time elapsed  -for you-  rather than on the (local) calendar.  This was
heard b'shem an adam gadol whose permission I do not have to use his
name.

Gershon
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From RYGB:
> From the Reb Shlomo Digest:
> >From the Jerusalem Post, Oct. 11, 1998 Sunday, October 11, 1998 21 Tishri
> >5759 Last update at Sun Oct 11 02:58:46 EET 1998
                        
>    Especially Moscow. Reb Shlomo was there long before anyone else was
> paying attention to Russian Jews. His 1965 song Am Yisrael Chai - The
> Jewish People Lives! - became synonymous with the struggle to free Soviet
> Jewry. 

Was he actually in Moscow early on?  I was under the impression that
he had written Am Yisrael Chai at the request of Yaakov Birnbaum and
Glenn Richter, who were running the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry.
They were having trouble getting much attention, so they turned to 
Reb Shlomo to write an anthem for them.  He was happy to oblige, and
Am Yisrael Chai came to him almost immediately.

	Vesamachta becholecha...
	Jonathan Baker
	jjbaker@panix.com

							BS"D

	In V2 #18, Cheryl Maryles wrote that it is "preferable to pick a 
single posek (lkulla vlchumra) because otherwise you run the dangerous 
course of 'picking' poskim who are mekal for each particular question."  

	It seems to me that an at least equally, and perhaps more, dangerous 
course -- and certainly a much more common course -- is "picking" poskim 
who are machmir for each particular question.  I read recently a 
translation of a sicha by Rav Yehuda Amital in which the Rosh Yeshiva asked 
whether by striving always to fulfill chumras one suggests that the mitzvos 
of HaKadosh Boruch Hu are inadequate.  If the halacha says that it is 
permissible to eat the meat of cattle that have certain types and numbers 
of lesions on their lungs, who are we to refuse to do so -- particularly 
when by doing so we drive up the cost of kosher meat, and thus create a 
disincentive for some people to keep kosher?  (This question is mine, not 
the Rosh Yeshiva's.)  

	There are problems with "picking" poskim just to rely on their kulos, 
but those problems affect only the individual who does this, and those 
individuals do not present any danger to k'lal Yisroel.  On the other hand, 
we are all paying a very high price -- materially and spiritually -- 
because of the pressure to embrace chumros.

Jeffrey I. Zuckerman

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, JEFFREY ZUCKERMAN wrote:

> 	It seems to me that an at least equally, and perhaps more,
> dangerous course -- and certainly a much more common course -- is
> "picking" poskim who are machmir for each particular question.  I read
> recently a translation of a sicha by Rav Yehuda Amital in which the Rosh
> Yeshiva asked whether by striving always to fulfill chumras one suggests
> that the mitzvos of HaKadosh Boruch Hu are inadequate.  If the halacha
> says that it is permissible to eat the meat of cattle that have certain
> types and numbers of lesions on their lungs, who are we to refuse to do
> so -- particularly when by doing so we drive up the cost of kosher meat,
> and thus create a disincentive for some people to keep kosher?  (This
> question is mine, not the Rosh Yeshiva's.) 
> 

Nowhere does "Halacha say that it is permissible to eat the meat of cattle
that have certain types and numbers of lesions" - "Halacha" is not an
oracle. There are "Poskim" that discuss Halachic matters. And there are
Poskim that forbid non-glatt, those that permit it under difficult
circumstances, and, perhaps, a rare source that allows it without
restriction.

"Who are we to refuse to do so?" - Those who take into account the
significant, predominant, body of opinion, that except in extraordinary
circumstances - and even then, perhaps not - that glatt (let us say, for
simpliciity's sake, Ashkenazic "Glatt") is mandated.

Again, "Halacha" does not say anything (unless, of course, it is an
Halacha l'Moshe Me'Sinai).

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

     >>I agree.  Once a mesora has taken hold, it should be at least 
     considered minhag, which should not be lightly reversed.
     
     As for the other opinions that differ, as long as we have opinions to 
     rely on,we have nothing to worry about.  Actually, this impacts on an 
     earlierdiscussion, about accepting as many non-contradictory chumros 
     on an issue.Here we see that we do not simply wear R. Tam's t'fillin, 
     as a non-contradictory chumra to Rashi t'fillin.  Rather, one mesora 
     clearly rejects this notion, by not wearing R. Tam's t'fillin.  This 
     would seem to argue thatp'sak is deciding an issue and rejecting those 
     opinions that disagree, and not merely following many opinions "to 
     play it safe".<<
     
     Agreed.  Playing it safe actually undermines the halachic 
     investiagtion/decision making process by bypsing the lomdus and taking 
     the "intelleuctally" easy way out by using chumro.  Thus Chumro in 
     action can be a kullo or even an abuse of learning - an avoidance 
     technique! 
     
     I think what made Reb Moshe Feinstein such a great poseik is that he 
     avoided nothing, he dealt with any and every issue.  The fact that 
     aontehr Talmid chohcom might differ in his pesak is secondary.  The 
     beauty in Reb Moshe's hashkofo is to give it "his best shot" with al 
     lthe tools available, sources, analysis, lomdus, percednets, science 
     and technology, etc.  He came up with some "kulos" and some "chumros", 
     but he didn't have a preconceived notion of what the psak should be; 
     rather he looked into each case in depth, and naturally fell on 
     differing sides on a case by case basis.
     
     My rebbe in Yoreh Deah, Rav Yosef Weiss shlito, rejected the notion 
     that a certain poseik (I think it was the Pri Megoddim) was a Machmir. 
      He maintained that he called 'em as he saw 'em.  I don't know for 
     sure that the poseisk involved didn't have an unconsious tendency, we 
     can debate that.  I will agree wti hm yrebbe that the poseik in 
     question never purposefully SOUGHT to be machmir or meikil.
     
     As stated, chumro is something an individual may feel the need for; it 
     shouldn't cloud the psak.  
     
     I stayed one shabbos with a Rosh Yeshivo (who was by his own admission 
     NOT a poseik) and he told me he didn't know of any clear cut issur 
     about making ice on shaboss, he just refrained from doing so himself.  
     My point is that he was clear that his hanhogo was NOT to be construed 
     as normative halocho, per se.  (perhaps now, 28 years later he has a 
     definite psak on the matter...)
     
     I'm also not sure about 100 kolos as a chumro - I see it more of a 
     MINHOG.  To me a chumro would imply blowing the shofar in such a way 
     as to do shitas, plone and then shitas ploni (yes I am aware of the 
     Shvorim-Teruah controversies).  Ok we ARE stuck with certain chumros.  
     Anyway, I still see this as a minhog, and we need go no further.
     
     Regards,
     Richard Wolpoe
     
     
     
     
     
     
       

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]