Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 021

Wednesday, April 18 2001

• RE: pseach chumrot
• Electricity on Yom Tov
• Re: IDT/IDL
• Re: rashi and history
• rashi and history
• Re: rashi and history
• Re: rashi and history
• Re: Electricity on Yom Tov
• when to remove tefillin on rosh chodesh and chol haMoed
• Ramban and Ibn Ezra
• Rishonim
• Re: rashi and history
• RE: rashi and history
• RE: Electricity on Yom Tov
• RE: chanifa
• re:sentimental value
• kula-shopping
• rishonim
• RE: Rishonim
• rashi and history
• RE: rashi and history
• Re: Havarah, minhag, Christianity
• Re: Some Questions About Havoroh

On 18 Apr 2001, at 11:48, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> The modern (?) extension of this minhag/hanhaga is that one does not
>> buy any prepared food (except for matzot) and instead everything
>> is prepared at home from scratch.

From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
> Unless you're referring to people who are choshesh for gebrocks, I 
> assume you're referring to manufactured products containing matza 
> meal and not matza meal greida. 

No, he is referring to the custom not to buy any manufactured foods for
Pesach, just as these people will not eat out at other people's houses.
REMT in fact does not buy any manufactured foods and his wife makes
everything from scratch.  Apparently, her mayonnaise is out of this world!

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Eli Turkel [mailto:Eli.Turkel@kvab.be]
>> The following examples I have heard from various rabbis who
>> have heard then from RYBS. I would not use them for psak since
>> I do not know the extent of the heter since they are based on
>> personal example rather than a formal psak.

>> examples:
>> use of electricity on [yom tov]

I vaguely recall hearing that the Aruch Hashulchan permitted it too.
Anybody know the source?  Are there any other poskim who permitted it?

Is the basis for permitting it the assumption that electricity is aish, but
one is not being molid aish mechadash (rather it is transmitted from the
electric company).  According to RSZA, who believes that the issur of
electricity on shabbos is at most drabbanan (presumably because of an
association with aish), is that an additional tzad l'heter, or does one
argue that since it's not aish, the rules of aish do not apply?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 18 Apr 2001, at 9:32, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> On the recently discussed issue of isra'usa dil'tata/le'eila, I wanted
> to point out a piece from Rav Gedalia Shorr in the Ohr Gedalyahu.
> He discusses how Pesach is IDL, followed by sefira which is IDT to regain
> the madrega previously given bematnas chinam at yetzias mitzraim.

How was the madreiga of yetzias Mitzrayim "lost?" I thought Bnei Yisrael
were actually on a lower madreiga at Yetzias Mitzrayim (witness the need
for korban Pesach and Bris Mila to give them the zchus to leave), moved
to a higher madreiga during the time leading up to ma'amad Har Sinai,
and then losing it with chet ha'eigel.

-- Carl

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 18 Apr 2001, at 9:38, gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
> It is also clear that he had before him certain passages that we no
> longer have. The same is true for some of the earlier rishonim/gaonim
> like Bahag and She'eiltos. See Maharatz Chajes' Mevo HaTalmud ch. 31.

There's actually a new edition of Bavli coming out now which is based on
a text from shin-reish-tzade (IIRC). The printing includes many passages
that were eliminated by the censors shortly thereafter, and go a long
way to explaining many of the discrepancies between Rashi's girsaos and
our own. IIRC, the cost is NIS 450 and it's in seven volumes.

> I seem to recall R. Elazar Hurvitz (of BRGS) claiming that Rashi had
> before him other kuntressim that explained the gemara in the same way
> that Rashi did. I don't know what proof he had for this claim.

See above.

-- Carl

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

RET wrote:
> Rashi's knowledge of history seems to come from a sefer known as Yossipon.
> Not much is known about this book except that it was written fairly
> late and has no relation to Josephus which Rashi did not seem to
> know. Therefore, it is unlikely that Rashi knew details of the
> various Jewish/Roman leaders at the time of the Churban.

If not much is known about this book, which I take it to mean "we can't lay
our hands on a copy," then what proof is there that it is NOT Josephus? To
put it differently, do you have any substantiation for your assertion inthe
quote above.  In fact, I was taught that the "Yossiphon" cited by Rashi
/was/ Josephus and that Josephus's writings therefore /were/ known to Rashi.

Noach Witty

> There's actually a new edition of Bavli coming out now which is based on a 
> text from shin-reish-tzade (IIRC). 

Which edition? Shin-reish-tzade was 1830. That's not so old. Is it the
Munich manuscript?

Gil Student

[We're drifting off charter, as this is no longer about what tools did
Rashi work with. Future discussion should be taken to Areivim. -mi]

On 18 Apr 2001, at 12:00, gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
>> There's actually a new edition of Bavli coming out now which is based on a 
>> text from shin-reish-tzade (IIRC). 

> Which edition? Shin-reish-tzade was 1830. That's not so old. Is it the Munich
> manuscript?

I think it's 830. In any event, I am told that it is the girsa with which 
Rashi probably worked and that it pre-dates the crusades. I didn't 
pay that much attention to the details, but the guy who told me 
about it just said "reish tzadee." 

-- Carl

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Moshe Feldman wrote:
> I vaguely recall hearing that the Aruch Hashulchan permitted it too. Anybody 
> know the source?  Are there any other poskim who permitted it?

Check the Avodah archives under Electricity.  Moshe, you are consistent in that 
you asked for the source of the Aruch HaShulchan last time as well 
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n067.shtml#16>.

I saw it quoted by R. Sholom Klass in The Jewish Press.  I think that R. Klass 
is related to the AH somehow (maybe throguh his wife).

Gil Student

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> I believe the current custom of some comes from a sort of compromise
> with Sepharadic custom.

Maybe more than a compromise. IIRC, the reason for removing tefilin
before musaf is not to be wearing them when saying kedushas keser.
This has no meaning for nusach ashkenaz (unless one of our scholars will
come up with a nusach ashkenaz keser).

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Steve Brizel Zeliglaw@aol.com:
> True. However, check out the Ramban on the Aseres hadibros in Shemos
> where Ibn Ezra denies that "Zachor vshamor bdibur echad" and Ramban
> dismisses this as a comment made by "someone who is not familiar with
> the Talmud".

AFAIK during the era of Rishonim, Talmudic knowldege was not the
prerequisite it is today to becoming a "somebody". IIRC the Kabbalist
Abulafia was considered {relatively} ignorant of the Talmud and was
therefore not taken as seriously as the Ramban. What made made Ramban
a more influential Kabbalist was davka that he WAS an expert in Talmud.

And the same might be said for the Rambam as a philosopher. Perhaps other
Jewish thinkers of that era remain relatively obscure today because
they lacked a firm foundation in Talmud, while the Rambam as a master
of Talmud was universally respected (even if disputed).

OTOH, I feel we need at least SOME experts in disciplines other than Shas;
e.g. Tanach, liturgy, Machshava. While indeed some g'dolim have mastered
Talmud AND at least one other discipline, yet it is nevertheless rather
demanding to expect every expert have Talmudic mastery as a prerequisite.
 
Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

RMF>
> #2: Often, rishonim, such as the Ramban or Raavad, are somewhat
> enigmatic and it takes subsequent rishonim (often talmidim or talmidim of
> talmidim) to uncover their intent.  In this case, subsequent ratification by
> achronim should be irrelevant--we are trying to determine a historical fact:
> what did the Ramban/Raavad say?

I'm not sure the question is history.  The halakhic process was referred to
as "peer review".  That is what did Klal Yisroel/Later G'dolim(even
Acharonim) think l'halakha about issues raised.  Therefore, it is no longer
a question of history, ie what did the Rishon say.  Rather, the question is
how did Klal Yisroel/Later G'dolim define the issue discussed.  Therefore,
an acharon is not "wrong" if the Meiri has a different interpretation or
even 'kabala' on what the first Rishon said.

Concerning pt #3 and "counting Rishonim for psak halakha":  Even if disputed
by RYBS or even his grandfather, it is still an undisputable(historical)
fact that the MB consistently counts the Meiri as a Rishon in Biur Halakha.

Shlomo Goldstein

In a message dated Wed, 18 Apr 2001  1:10:18pm EST, "Carl M. Sherer"
<cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes:
> There's actually a new edition of Bavli coming out now which is based on
> a text from shin-reish-tzade (IIRC). The printing includes many passages
> that were eliminated by the censors shortly thereafter, and go a long
> way to explaining many of the discrepancies between Rashi's girsaos and
> our own....

Which ties back to our discussion about "lost" rishonim and their role
in deciding current day halachik issues(except now it's lost gemoras)

KT
Joel

RET wrote:
>> Rashi's knowledge of history seems to come from a sefer as Yossipon.
>> Not much is known about this book except that it was written fairly
>> late and has no relation to Josephus which Rashi did not seem to
>> know. Therefore, it is unlikely that Rashi knew details of the
>> various Jewish/Roman leaders at the time of the Churban.

From: Noah Witty <nwitty@-ix.netcom.com>
> If not much is known about this book, which I take it to mean 
> "we can't lay our hands on a copy," 

I always understood that we do have copies.  The point is not much is known
about the *authorship* of the book.

> then what proof is there that it is NOT Josephus? 

My father's scholarly endeavor has been largely devoted to Josephus.  From
what he has told me, there is no question that Sefer Yosifon is not
Josephus, though some in the Middle Ages may have thought that it was.

> In fact, I was taught that the "Yossiphon" cited by Rashi
> /was/ Josephus and that Josephus's writings therefore /were/ known to Rashi.

As Josephus was not translated into Hebrew at the time, and its original
language is Greek, it is unlikely that Rashi actually read Josephus.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: gil.student@citicorp.com [mailto:gil.student@citicorp.com]
> Check the Avodah archives under Electricity. Moshe, you are consistent
> in that you asked for the source of the Aruch HaShulchan last time as well 
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n067.shtml#16>.

But I never received an answer!  

Also, at that time, RYGB wrote: 
>> Lest we conclude that all poskim in the past generations were machmir, I
>> would cite a p'sak by the Orach Hashulchan to the effect that the use of
>> electricity on chag is permitted

> Generally chalked up to misunderstanding of the nature of electricity.

What was the misunderstanding and how did it affect the use of electricity
on Yom Tov?  I was told to look at Yecheh Daas on this.  Anyone have the
cite?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> I'm preparing my tikun lail shavuot on this topic.  Other than R' Moshe's
> tshuva concerning giving an honor to a doctor who married a non-jew, are
> there any other tshuvot relating specifically to this subject?

I just listened to a R' Y. Reisman tape (Shmuel Bais, beginning of ch. 15)
on chanifa (or, to be accurate, "chanufa," although RYR acknowledged that
everyone pronounces it chanifa.)  He mentioned how some count chanifa as a
lav (Sefer Yereim), but most don't (Rambam, Ramban, Chinuch, R' Saadya
Gaon).

The Satmar Rebbe (Parshas Shoftim) indicates that any type of false flattery
is chanifa, while R' Moshe (OC 2:51, presumably the teshuva that you
mentioned) holds that chanifa is only asur if one will appear to be
supporting/condoning a person's rishus/evil acts.  (So, while it is asur to
give an aliya to a mechalel shabos/intermarried Jew, it is OK to give him
pesicha.)  

(RYR mentioned how his "hair stands on end when I imagine if they had asked
this shaila ("can a shul give a kibud to a mechalel shabos/intermarried
Jew?") to the Satmar Rebbe!")

RYR also mentioned that Rashi is mashma like the R' Moshe (the root of the
isur of chanifa is " Lo Sarshiun) and that the Ramban is mashma like the
Satmar Rebbe (chanifa is any kind of false flattery).  (RYR later explained
that there is no real machlokes here.  R' Moshe agrees that any type of
false flattery is chanifa, except that chanifa is mutar (and even a mitzva)
in certain situations, and asur in certain situations.)

The Sdei Chemed (chelek bais p. 447 and chelek gimel,  p. 241) discusses
chanifa WRT using fancy titles in shailos and teshuvos.  (IIRC, someone
wrote the Sdei Chemed complaining that the Sdei Chemed omitted these titles
in addressing him (or used fancier titles when addressing someone else) (and
while he (the letter writer) didn't care about these titles, his talmidim
did....)

When R' Akiva Eiger ("RAE") instructed his son WRT to printing his (RAE)
shailos and teshuvos, he told him to be careful about two things: 1) use
good quality paper and binding in the seforim; and 2) delete all titles that
the shoalim ascribed to RAE, because if these were used, the showail (sp?)
would be over on "avak chanifa" and RAE would be over on "avak gaiva."

As for whether RAE used these honorific titles in addressing the shoalim, he
did use them when he wrote the showail individually (so as not to hurt the
showail's feelings), but, when printing the teshuvos in the sefer, he
deleted the titles (because of "kol ma d'sona alach, lo avad l'chavercha,"
and since RAE wanted _his_ titles removed, certainly the shoalim would want
_their_ titles removed!)

(RYR mentioned that R' Yisroel Salanter initially used to fold over the
letters addressed to him so that he wouldn't see the titles ascribed to him.
Eventually, R' Salanter realized that everyone used these titles to describe
everyone, and he stopped folding the paper.) 

RYR explained why most don't count chanifa as a lav:  chanifa is a midda,
just like envy, anger, etc.  Therefore, it is not only permitted in certain
situations, but is, according the Ohr Sameach, a "mitzva gedolah."  These
situations include: shalom bayis (e.g., saying "this is the best cholent
ever" every shabbos to your wife) and a rebbi to a talmid and parent to a
child (to compliment them so they will be encouraged to learn.)

RYR brought other examples showing that chanifa is not an isur, but rather a
midah:

a) Torah Temima (Gen. 33:10)  - "bemakom hefsed mammon," chanifa is OK.  

b)  Orchos Tzadikim - a debtor can be machnif his creditor in an honest
effort to delay payment.

c)  RAE (above) - so as not to insult his shoalim, he used honorific titles
when sending a personal letter.

RYR concluded by relaying the gemora in Bava Metzia 85a.  R' Elezar b'r
Shimon had a son, Yosi, who had gone "off the derech."  Rabeinu HaKadosh
asked to speak with Yosi, gave Yosi semicha, and arranged to have Yosi learn
with a rebbi.  Rabeinu HaKadosh instructed the rebbi as follows:  "Everytime
you see Yosi battle with his yetzer hara and is tempted to sin, tell Yosi:
'You, who have semicha from Rabeinu HaKadosh, should do such an aveira?!?'"
This method worked, and Yosi ended up remaining on the derech hayashar.

The message: chanifa is a tremendous tool for motivating children.  When you
catch your kid, e.g., lying, don't call him a liar; rather, say "You, such a
tzadik, should tell a lie?!"  Or, if he doesn't know the gemara that he
learnt that day in yeshiva, don't call him an am ha'aretz; rather, tell him
"You, such a talmid chacham, should forget the gemara?!"

KT
Aryeh

The question was raised about destruction of an object with sentimental,
but not intrinsic, value: "Do we not recognize, value things that have no
"monetary" value.

WHY is this considered  "lo smei hezek"?"

If it has "no monetary value," what monetary payment should be assessed? 
Indeed, even had the Torah imposed a payment in such circumstances, it
would be a k'nas (yoseir mimah shehizik), and as such would not be
applicable today.

I believe that the characterization of the damage as hezeik she'eino
nikkar is misapplied. In fact, it is its mirror image.  Hezeik she'eino
nikkar is a loss of monetary value with no physical change (such as being
m'tamei t'rumah).  Here, there is no monetary loss but there is physical
change.  It is not hezeik she'eino nikkar, but rather non-hezeik nikkar.

[Forwarded by R' Akiva Atwood with permission by the author. -mi]

Dear Akiva, shlit"a

Thanks for sending me the correspondence. I am responding to you with the
assumption that this letter will be forwarded to all the interested parties.

There are several misunderstandings that permeate this entire
correspondence.

First, there is a basic misunderstanding on the meaning of the term "koach
di'hetera adifa".

Second, there is a ignorance about how one deals with a shaylah in halachah
in which one is aware of the existence of more than one opinion.

Third, there is a misunderstanding as to the extent of learning required to
be a"posek".


First issue above-
The term "Koach di'hetera adifa" is a pedagogic term, not a legal one. It
is used by chazal EXCLUSIVELY to mean that when a dispute between two
authorities applies to two different applications, one in which the kula is
the bigger chidush, and the other in which the chumrah is the bigger
chidush, and the statement can be taught in one of two ways, one
emphasizing the kula and the other emphasizing the chumra, we are always
taught the case where the kula is the bigger chidush. See Berachos 60a and
Beitzah 2b.
This is because it is a bigger chidush to teach the lenient ruling than the
strict ruling. (Se Rashi to Beitzah ad loc.)

Any usage of this expression to say that a meikil opinion has more
authority is in error. There is no such rule in halacha.

Second,
The gemara in Avoda Zara 7a discusses the issue in which there are two
opinions, one lenient and one stringent. The ruling cited by this Gemara is
the final word on what to do about such a case- According to the halacha
(the opinion of Rav Yehoshua ben Karcha), the halacha follows the stringent
opinion in a Torah law, and the lenient opinion in a rabbinic issue. (There
is a question among poskim whether this rule is also followed when one of
the two halachic authorities has a greater following or is the greater
scholar.)
This rule does not apply when there is a case of one authority versus a
majority. There the halacha follows the majority opinion.
Certainly, any reference to "vi-chai bahem" in this context is totally out
of place.

Third,
Although it is true that one who is a Torah scholar has the right to decide
a halachic issue on its own merits and thus to determine what the halacha
is, this applies only to .001% or less of people who can be called poskim.
I refer the readers to what the gemara in Sotah 22a says about a Talmid
chochom who is not qualified to paskin shaylos and does. Certainly, anyone
rendering an opinion on the subject at hand, who does not make any
reference to the Gemara in Avoda Zara above mentioned and the poskim that
discuss it qualifies as someone who is paskining shaylos and should not be.

There are several other issues that impact on this discussion, but I think
the above covers the major issues of what I read.

With all my best wishes,
Yirmiyohu Kaganoff

From: Eli Turkel <Eli.Turkel@kvab.be>
> How about Chiddushei Ramban, Ritva and others that were not available
> to early acharonim. It is well known today that many of the chiddushin
> were mixed up as to their authors and some were not available.

> How about Ri Migash who is acknowledged to be a major rishon who heavily
> influenced Rambam but whose commntaries were lost?

You answered your own question. Once the Ri Migash got considered
important he became important. For some reason, the jury is still out
on the Me'iri's influence on "Halachah" {say in contradistinction to
lamdus or peirush}.

Ask yourself, how did the Zohar get nearly immediate credibility after
its publication? Did it not, too, bypass the Halachic process?

The answer to me is simple. If a consensus of Poskim say the Zohar is
the genuine article, then it gets accepted. Otherwise, it becomes an
academic or intellectual curiosity and not Halachically significant.

Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com (at Information Builders)
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

From: S. Goldstein [mailto:goldstin@netvision.net.il]
> RMF>
>> #2: Often, rishonim, such as the Ramban or Raavad, are somewhat
>> enigmatic and it takes subsequent rishonim (often talmidim or talmidim of
>> talmidim) to uncover their intent. In this case, subsequent ratification by
>> achronim should be irrelevant--we are trying to determine a historical fact:
>> what did the Ramban/Raavad say?

> I'm not sure the question is history.  The halakhic process was referred to
> as "peer review".  That is what did Klal Yisroel/Later G'dolim (even
> Acharonim) think l'halakha about issues raised.  Therefore, it is no longer
> a question of history, ie what did the Rishon say.  Rather, the question is
> how did Klal Yisroel/Later G'dolim define the issue discussed.  Therefore,
> an acharon is not "wrong" if the Meiri has a different interpretation or
> even 'kabala' on what the first Rishon said.

Having studied these issues with Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik, who specializes in
the history of halacha, I disagree.  In the case where a rishon is
authoritative (e.g., Ramban, Rambam), what he intended is important.  That
fact that achronim (often because of girsa problems) misinterpreted the
rishon's words should not detract from the importance of the shittah as
originally meant by the rishon.  Dr. Soloveitchik pointed to cases where the
Maharsha and others grapple with unclear language in Tosfos, and the correct
interpretation is obvious when one reads the later published Tosfos Ri
Hazaken of Dampierre (DCS explained that the Tosfos on the daf were synopses
of the original Tosfos, which were longer; sometimes a synopsis will skip
some crucial words, sometimes there will be a "hashmata al yidei hadomot"= a
line was missed in transcribing) or even the Tosfos HaRosh (which IIRC,
contrary to common belief, is not a commentary of the Rosh but the set of
Tosfos that he had--he made sure to obtain a very good collection).

Surely, you would agree that where the Meiri shows that a Raavad is not a
daas Yachid but the view of all of Provencal Jewry, the Meiri should have
important halachic weight.

> Concerning pt #3 and "counting Rishonim for psak halakha":  Even if disputed
> by RYBS or even his grandfather, it is still an undisputable (historical)
> fact that the MB consistently counts the Meiri as a Rishon in Biur Halakha.

As an aside, I seem to recall that the MB counted rishonim in determining
whether we should rely on the kula of shishim ribo for determining the
existence of a r'shus harabim.  I think that Dr. Soloveitchik would disagree
with the MB's methodology.  Instead of counting rishonim such as Ramban,
Rashba, Ritva, Ran as four different rishonim, I would guess that DCS would
count schools of rishonim (in the case above, as the four rishonim had
rebbe/talmid relationships, they would count as a single school).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Eli Turkel <Eli.Turkel@kvab.be>
> In a similar vein there is frequent confusion in the Talmud and rishonim
> between R. Gamliel hazaken and his grandson R. Gamliel of Yavne.
> In a number of places Tosaphot struggle with various Tannaim and Amoraim
> trying to decide when a single name refers to the same person or several
> people with the same name.

And FWIW according to Prof. I. Agus, since RYBZ "instituted" the honorifcs
of Rabban and Rabbi (or Ribbi) therefore the application of the title Rabban
to Gamliel Hazakein is an ananchorism foisted upon us by well-intentioned
scribes and printers who did not know better. 

Ironically, the title Rabban here can be construed as a "demotion" since we
know Hillel Hazakein was considered superior davka becasue he lacked the
honorific.  This is - as per Agus - due to the fact that the lack of
honorific is pre-churban,  and that the post-churban Chazal were subject to
a big niskatnu - mostly because of the churban itself.

Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

On 18 Apr 2001, at 14:09, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> My father's scholarly endeavor has been largely devoted to Josephus.  From
> what he has told me, there is no question that Sefer Yosifon is not
> Josephus, though some in the Middle Ages may have thought that it was.

Interesting. 

Around Chanuka time here, a sefer called "Yosifon" was published (in
Hebrew) which AIUI was marketed as Josephus (we have it in the house if
you want me to check - it was my oldest son's Chanuka present).

-- Carl

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

"Rabbi Y. H. Henkin" <henkin@surfree.net.il> wrote in Avodah V7 #18:
>I also wrote that only the Espaniolic

Interesting word.  Is it in use by anyone else?

>(Spanish) Sephardit pronounciation that everyday Hebrew is based on
>does not distinguish between kamtatz and patach. The pronounciations
>of other Eidot Hamizrach do distinguish between the two,

The Teimanin do indeed distinguish between them, but I am unaware of any 
other group that makes such a distinction.  Could you provide details?

>and these are
>what my grandfather ztza"l was referring to in Eidut leYisrael no. 60
>when he detailed how Sehpardic pronounciation is preferable to Ashkenazic.

This sounds like an interesting haqira.  Perhaps a summary could be 
provided for those of us without access to Eidut leYisrael no. 60.

                 IRA L. JACOBSON
                 mailto:laser@ieee.org

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote in Avodah V7 #18:
>Perhaps you have found another justification for R' AY Kook's pesak. RAYK
>holds that lechatchilah an Ashkenazi ought daven in traditional havarah.

Ad kan, Harav Kook.

>However, for someone raised on Israeli Hebrew and could not be consistant if
>he tried to daven in Ashkenazis, Israeli havarah is better than inconsistancy.

Is this Harav Kook or Harav Berger?  How do we weigh the requirement not to 
change one's minhag against the chance of inconsistency?

And why do you assume that such consistency would indeed be 
impossible?  And what about davening in a havara different from that 
mandated by the particular congregation?

                         Ira L. Jacobson

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]