Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 088

Friday, August 17 2001

• removing tefillin
• re:source for gilgul teaching
• Re: Forgetting and remembering
• Yerushalayim
• Re: hilchot waiting-in-line
• shiva denechemta
• Mitzvat yishuv Eretz Yisrael and sinne
• Re: calling up an adopted child to the Torah
• Re: Forgetting and remembering
• Re: knowledge and proof
• Re: The SR's views on yishuv EY
• Re: removing tefillin
• Re: shiva denechemta
• RE: knowledge and proof
• RE: The SR's views on yishuv EY
• Re: hilchot waiting-in-line
• Re: Yerushalayim
• The Gmara and SA as binding
• Re: The SR's views on yishuv EY
• Re: knowledge and proof
• The History of the Observance of the Four Fasts

SA makes clear that it is prohibited to remove tefillin in the presence
of one's rebbe before he removes his tefillin.

I have never seen this done in either a shul or a yeshiva. I thought it
might be diffrent because we no longer wear tefillin all day but take
them off right after davening. However, I have not seen this justification
in any posek.

Does anyone know of a justification for removing tefillin before the RY
or shul rabbi removes his?

Eli Turkel

I admit to knowing little about Kabbalah - is it taken for granted that
one can be punished(or rewarded) in a later gilgul for something done
in an earlier one? Iyov is a particularly interesting case since the
gemora itself can't decide whether he existed and if he did which epoch
he was in - did R Berav tie together as gilgulim the various possibilities
mentioned in the gemora?

KT
Joel

In a message dated Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:34:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "shalom berger" <rachelbe@netvision.net.il> writes:
> On several occasions the Gemara suggests that certain practices were not
> innovation, rather the practice was forgotten and later reinstituted. Some
> examples:
> Megilla 3a - Which letters belong in the middle of words and which at the
> end (Sofiyot)
...

IIRC the Gemora in megilla implies that ktav ashurit was forgotten and
then reinstated!

KT
Joel

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>> If ein maskirin batim birushalayim, and some say even mitos, lefi 
>>  she'ena shelahem, how did those people get those houses in the first place?
 
> As R' Aharon Soloveitchik often discusses, in addition to kinyan 
> there is also kibbush

Are you saying that those people simply took houses, or were they assigned
in some extra-kibbush vechiluk manner?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Thanks to Stuart for faxing me the cite from R' Sternbuch. Interestingly
he makes the point that the R"Y gets the deference if it's ikrai baalma
but if he goes regularly (and doesn't send his wife) so as to take
advantage of his priority, it's "nireh kposea al roshei am kadosh"(baruch
shekivanti).

I wonder if there is a dialectic between the R"y's "duty" not to be posea
and the kahal's duty to give kavod. For example in a simplified case,
say an individual who receives no compensation from the community gives
a regular gemora shiur which is about to make siyum. Do the participants
have a chiyuv or predisposition to be makir tov by presenting a gift(eg
shas)? If the maggid shiur becomes aware of it does he have a chiyuv or
predisposition to ask them not to or to give it to tzedaka?

KT
Joel

PS I still hold that one can learn a lot of torah while waiting on line
or being on hold on the phone!

We discussed tlasa depur'anusa being pushed off for Shabbos Rosh Chodesh.
How about shiva denechemta and machar chodesh (i.e. this Shabbos)?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Rabbi Y.H.Henkin" <henkin@012.net.il>
>> It seems strange that if its only a few baalei aveira -- it's a no go,
>>  but if it's in big numbers then it's beseder.
>> Some new version of Tuma Hutra Betzibur?

> .....Nowhere do we find that one should not perform one Torah mitzvah
> because he violates others, and tuma hutra betzibur has nothing to do
> with it.

No, of course we don't say that "Just because you eat treif, you may
also be mechalel Shabbos".

But according to the Poskim who say that a baal aveirah shouldn't be
oleh to EY and if he does, he is not being mekayen the Mitzva of YEY,
it is comparable to someone who puts on Tefilin - but green ones.
Or he makes kiddush with yayin nesech or buys treif meat and 'kashers' it.

If you study the sources brought in the VM - which incidentally include
poskim who hold that YEY IS a mitzva bizman hazeh - THAT, LAD, is the
comparison.

Doing aveiros in EY passels the mitzvah - as machsheves pigul passels a
korban. Even more. Being in EY when doing this aveira, has much harsher
consequences than had the sin been committed in CL. That is how I learn
pshat in the various sources that the VM quotes.

Here is a very short summary of the various rishonm v'achronim [VM
p. 240 onwards]:

The KolBo quoting the Tshuvas Maharam [who is writing even according to
those who hold of Yishuv EY] severely warns against people who are choteh
there - calling it 'mored bemalchus' in the Kings palace: "...Koreh ani
aleihem Vatovo'u Vatitme'u es Artzi, mi bikesh zos miyedchem..."

The Charedim who greatly praises the shitas Ramban [that YEY is d'orayso]
uses the same posuk for those who come there "to have a good time"
[my translation].

He adds [and as similarly stated in Pirkei DR"E] that Reshoim after
their death [and burial] do not stay in EY but '...yegorshum chutzoh
kaklovim..." The Charedim ends with: "Lochen kol odom yech'rad b'voyo
l'Eretz Yisroel lihyos Yerei Shomayim kiflei kiflayim mimah shehu b'CL...'
And as the VM explains - the Charedim is NOT talking about mechalelei
shabbos and oichlei treifos - but rather those who are there having many
parties etc.

[Agav, He brings an interesting piece from Sefer Hachaim by the Maharal's
brother: "...al tehei seudas mereim kalo b'einecho..." ayin shom]

The Shelo Hk', where he is cholek on R' Chaim of the Baalei Tosfos
[who says that today YEY is not a mitzva] also agrees with this Charedim.

Similarly the language of the Yaavetz in his siddur - where he very
strongly advocates YEY also indicates that he is referring to shomrei
torah and tzadikim.

Shlomo B Abeles
mailto:sba@blaze.net.au

On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 04:38:55PM +1000, SBA wrote:
: I recall seeing from the Chasam Sofer z'l that an adopted child is called
: up to the torah 'ben his adoptive father'.

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> When the child is a ger katan, this appears to be lechol hadei'os.

> Otherwise, some recommend appending "hammegadlo" after the father's
> name, so as to remind any possible shadchanim to watch out for setting
> the child up with a halachic sibling. Our posek does not.

See Tshuvos CS Even Ho'ezer chelek 1, siman 18 where he discusses
this matter.

SBA

On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 10:57:56PM -0400, shalom berger wrote:
: Although the last example is an occasional Mitzvah, and as such could be
: forgotten (Rashi says that many Mitzvot were partially forgotten during
: Galut Bavel, and this one was totally forgotten), it is difficult to
: imagine people who had written books forgetting the letters, or people
: who davened forgetting Shmona Esrei.

Don't necessarily picture forgetting it overnight... It could be that
practice drifted from halachah slowly, over generations.

In the seifer Metahalachah, our lurking chaver R' Moshe Koppel,
speaks about the innate knowledge of a subject vs. formalized
knowledge. To use his example: a native English speaker goes by
what "sounds right", while an immigrant would require learning
parts of speach and rules of conjugation, etc...

RMK defines "shachechum vechazar veyasdum" (SVV) to mean that the innate
knowledge of how to do it was lost, but they were able to rebuild the
knowledge from the formal textual rules.

In a footnore, he compares this to R' Chaim Soloveitchik's "Rupture
and Reconstruction". The cases of SVV are at similar rupture points:
Osni'el recreating the knowledge lost when Moshe died, or Anshei Knesses
haGdolah after galus Bavel.

Tellingly, RMK notes that the word is "yasdum", not "zachrum".


BTW, since Ksav Ashuris (including the sofios) was reserved for sifrei
kodesh, its loss is not as unlikely as one might think. All it would
take is the mass destruction of Sta"m by the Bavli'im, so that many
communities reached Bavel without examples to work from.

Also, note the Y'lmi's version of Megillah. In it, ayin and tes were
the two letters in the luchos that "beneis hayu omedim". Implying that
the luchos weren't written in Ashuris. (Why "hayu", belashon avar? Isn't
this neis still occuring in the 2nd luchos, whereever they are?)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Emanuel Kant makes a chakirah that may be useful for this discussion.

First, he said that propositions can be analytic or synthetic.

An analytic proposition is one where the conclusion is contained in
the original statement. We'd say they're tautologically true, or true
by definition. For example, "tall people are people". A synthetic
proposition aren't true simply due to logic. For example, "The man is
tall". The other side of the chakirah is the distinction Kant makes
between empirical and a priori proposition.

Empricial proposition are those things we learn from sensory perceptions.
"The man is tall" is an empirical proposition. A priori propositions
are those like "2 + 2 = 4", which we know to be true, well, a priori.

Kant's chiddush was that synthetic a priori statements exist. This is the
"transcentalist" stance.

Emunah peshutah is an example. However, "complicated" emunah can be
founded on such ideas as well. Only the person who rests his emunah
on proving the Borei's existance entirely because of the nature of the
beri'ah -- such as an argument by design, or by the miraculous permanence
of the Jewish people -- who seems to say that only empirical propositions
can be posited a priori.

Ma'amad har Sinai allows the dor hamidbor a synthetic empirical
proposition that G-d exists. They experienced Him directly. To the Kuzari,
this gives us the right to also accept Hashem's existance a priori.

The Rihal made it clear he was NOT attempting a philosophical argument.
Yet modern popularizations of the idea turn the notion of mesorah about
a public revelation into the subject of analysis (which I mean in
the sense given above). Proving that such traditions can't be forged.
The Rihal himself would not have us turn this into a proof. We believe
our mesorah and not someone else's legends for the same reason that
one believes their own perceptions over someone else's. If a ball
is clearly visible to me, and it looks red, I'm not likely to
accept someone else's claim that it's blue. I don't need to prove
why.

On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 04:29:27PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: I have noticed that people often confuse fact with belief assigning
: greater value to fact. But this is IMHO a mistake....

As I noted, I think most people use "fact" to mean "something I'm
REALLY sure of" and "belief" to mean "something for which I occasionally
have to suppress doubts." IOW, it indicates certainty, not the
nature of the proposition -- and is usually used to rate values
such that "belief" is less.

I would think Harry is trying to argue that a priori propositions are
more certain than empirical ones.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 03:46:32PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: >> Bottom line halacha is determined not by the one who quotes the most shitot
: >> but by the one who wins acceptance by the klal.
...
: He meant the klal of shomrei torah u'mitzvos.  We find that we look at
: minhag yisrael from that perspective as well--e.g., what constitutes tznius:
: we look at the practice of bnos yisrael who are shomrei torah u'mitzvos.

Also, I assume he meant that within the realm of "eilu ve'eilu", halachah
is determined by consensus of the kelal. A minhag ta'us doesn't become
non-ta'us just because it became popular.

Solomon Schechter proposes a notion of "Catholic Israel" to parallel
RMF's notion of "the klal of shomrei torah umitzvos. He does not spell out
the klal (pun intended) I am suggesting. I think that without it, aside
from having no anchor in emes (.... ta'abaso emes -- since G-d wrote it,
there is an absolute component), one is left with a circular definition.
One can't just say that halachah is defined by what most observers of
halachah do.

To take it ad absurdum:
If one included all mechallelei Shabbos, one can prove that chillul
Shabbos is "halachic". After all, the majority of people we're calling
observant Jews do it. And their chillul Shabbos doesn't disallow them,
because we just showed that they aren't violating halachah thereby!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In a message dated 8/16/2001 11:34:58am EDT, Eli Turkel
<turkel@math.tau.ac.il> writes:
> Does anyone know of a justification for removing tefillin before the RY
> or shul rabbi removes his?

See The Aruch haShulchan 38?? in which he makes a case to minimize the
reshus time re: Tefilling. Only a Tzaddik gamur should wear Tefillin
more than the minimum; this implies an imperative to remove one's
Tefilin ASAP.

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

In a message dated 8/16/2001 9:42:16pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> We discussed tlasa depur'anusa being pushed off for Shabbos Rosh Chodesh.
> How about shiva denechemta and machar chodesh (i.e. this Shabbos)?

See KSA 128:4 - no Machar Chodesh
OTOH I believe KAJ does do Machar Chodesh.

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

> Anyone who has fallen in love needs no proofs for love nor will any books,
> poems, or texts convey the experience.

> Same with "knowing" or "loving" G-d.  Proofs are irrelevant, the only thing
> that is relevant is the experience itself.

But proofs are vital nonetheless, since unfortunately in our time there are
so many millions of Jews for whom the Ribbono Shel Olam is not only not a
constant presence, he's not even a once-in-a-while guest. These people need
proofs to help them to understand that there really is an actual creator of
the world. This is where the Torah codes and all other such things come in.

Current "western society" is an atheistic one, and most Jews without any
[Jewish] education must have help to rip down the heavy silk curtain of
atheism and doubt that surrounding society instilled in them. Proofs are
this help. They are not for those who already understand that Hashem exists,
they are for those that still need to be shown.

---Rena

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Solomon Schechter proposes a notion of "Catholic Israel" to parallel
> RMF's notion of "the klal of shomrei torah umitzvos. He does not spell out
> the klal (pun intended) I am suggesting. I think that without it, aside
> from having no anchor in emes (.... ta'abaso emes -- since G-d wrote it,
> there is an absolute component), one is left with a circular definition.
> One can't just say that halachah is defined by what most observers of
> halachah do.

If you lived before the 18th century in Ashkenazic lands, you wouldn't
be making that argument. Until the modern period, it was always assumed
that minhag yisrael was kadosh, and poskim strained mightily to justify
what people did (puk chazi mah amach dabar). Moreover, as I've noted
before, one explanation of why the Gemara and S"A are binding (despite
the halachic concept that in issues of sevara, a later beis din may
overrule a prior one) is that klal yisrael has accepted them as binding.
(See also the articles of Rabbi Rosensweig that I've quoted numerous
times about the power of the klal as an extension of the power of the
beis din hagadol, whose power derives from the klal--that's why according
to the Rambam, the BD hagadol can be reestablished through a group of
rabbanim acting in E"Y.) Also, on the sociological level, poskim are
most influential not necessarily because they have the best sevaros, but
because they are most accepted by the hamon am. (I won't give examples,
as some people might be offended. So long as I do not refer to *your*
posek, I think that you can look to other poskim and agree with me.)

Obviously, with the advent of the modern period, which brought
not only non-Orthodox movements, but O people who were ignorant and
independent-minded enough to justify their practices, we are less willing
to justify the practices of the hamon am. But still, the underlying
concept (of the power of the klal) remains.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 8/16/2001 9:42:07pm EDT, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> I wonder if there is a dialectic between the R"y's "duty" not to be posea
> and the kahal's duty to give kavod. 

How about this idea. We are Mamlich HKBH on RH. Doing it every day would
make the cermeony pedestrian. Nevertheless, at no time do we deny Hashem's
Malchus, we just don't make a big deal about it all the time

Lich'ora a RY should not make a big deal about his kavod on a regular
basis. But once in a while davka he should.

Tangentially, I would also recommend that every community with an Eruv
take it down at least once or twice a year so as to better understand
and appreciate what it DOES do the rest of the year.

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 11:54:51AM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
:> As R' Aharon Soloveitchik often discusses, in addition to kinyan 
:> there is also kibbush

: Are you saying that those people simply took houses, or were they assigned
: in some extra-kibbush vechiluk manner?

I assumed that land not divided as nachalah was among the shelalah
divided, just like metaltelim. (Except for Ai. BTW, was Ai an example
of quasi-bechorah or bikkurim?)

-mi

In a message dated 8/17/2001 12:28:30pm EDT, MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:
> If you lived before the 18th century in Ashkenazic lands, you wouldn't
> be making that argument. Until the modern period, it was always assumed
> that minhag yisrael was kadosh, and poskim strained mightily to justify
> what people did (puk chazi mah amach dabar)....
> (See also the articles of Rabbi Rosensweig that I've quoted numerous
> times about the power of the klal as an extension of the power of the
> beis din hagadol, whose power derives from the klal--that's why according
> to the Rambam, the BD hagadol can be reestablished through a group of
> rabbanim acting in E"Y.) ...

As you know I esentially agree with this. Can you cite specific sources?

>                                              Moreover, as I've noted
> before, one explanation of why the Gemara and S"A are binding (despite
> the halachic concept that in issues of sevara, a later beis din may
> overrule a prior one) is that klal yisrael has accepted them as binding.

Caveats that I would add:

1) The SA was not accpeted in Asheknaz until the Rema added the Ashkenazic 
Minhag

2) Similarly, Talmud Bavli was not accepted wholesale by Ashkenaz until 
modifed by Tosafos to include Ashkenazic practice - sort of a grandfather 
clause saying: "we accept the Bavli EXCEPT when it conflicts with our bona 
fide Minhaggim"   

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    
    
    
    



--part1_d5.aec930f.28aea78c_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>In a message dated 8/17/2001 12:28:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
<BR>MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> Moreover, as I've noted
<BR>before, one explanation of why the Gemara and S"A are binding (despite
<BR>the halachic concept that in issues of sevara, a later beis din may
<BR>overrule a prior one) is that klal yisrael has accepted them as binding.
<BR>
<BR>Kol tuv,
<BR>Moshe
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>Caveats that I would add:
<BR>
<BR>1) The SA was not accpeted in Asheknaz until the Rema added the Ashkenazic 
<BR>Minhag
<BR>
<BR>2) Similarly, Talmud Bavli was not accepted wholesale by Ashkenaz until 
<BR>modifed by Tosafos to include Ashkenazic practice - sort of a grandfather 
<BR>clause saying: "we accept the Bavli EXCEPT when it conflicts with our bona 
<BR>fide Minhaggim" &nbsp;&nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>Shalom and Regards
<BR>Rich Wolpoe
<BR>Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
<BR>"Knowledge without <I>Insight</I> is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="arial" LANG="0">    
<BR>    
<BR>    
<BR>    
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT></HTML>

--part1_d5.aec930f.28aea78c_boundary--

On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 10:59:32AM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: If you lived before the 18th century in Ashkenazic lands, you wouldn't
: be making that argument. Until the modern period, it was always assumed
: that minhag yisrael was kadosh, and poskim strained mightily to justify
: what people did (puk chazi mah amach dabar)....

I'm not denying this idea -- I'm saying it has limits.

After all, when the S"A felt that kaparos failed this test Maran Bet
Yosef concluded that kaparos should be stopped.

Another ad absurdum:
Malchus Yisrael during bayis rishon comprised a majority. I somehow don't
think that would mean that during Achav's malchus, Ba'al worship was
halachic behavior.

In fact, your sentence "poskim strained mightily..." implies this as well.
One had to be meyasheiv the minhag with the mekoros. Occasionaly one will
fail -- and then the practice is considered keneged halachah. They worked
with an assumption that such a justification can exist. And we, in a
"reconstruction" period (to use R' Haym Soloveitchik's terminology), don't
make that assumption. But the dynamic is the same.

IOW, "puk chazi" is used fewer than a dozen times in Sha"s. It's not a
ubiquitous klal of psak, like applying yachid verabim to the ba'alei
mesorah. It's a means of choosing between eilu va'eilu "only".

As you write:
>                          Also, on the sociological level, poskim are
> most influential not necessarily because they have the best sevaros, but
> because they are most accepted by the hamon am....

But what about when the hamon am leap on an idea no poseik would sign
on to?

: Obviously, with the advent of the modern period, which brought
: not only non-Orthodox movements, but O people who were ignorant and
: independent-minded enough to justify their practices, we are less willing
: to justify the practices of the hamon am...

Let's not play down the role of O movements. Chassidus, mussar, TIDE
and Yeshivish were new lifestyles that therefore placed reasoning about
what ought to be done over watching what was done. (I also think that
RHS overestimated the role of "Rupture and Reconstruction" because he
doesn't see this textualism as part of a process that began well before.)

For similar reasons, I don't think Chassidei Ashkenaz shared the approach
you described. They, unlike the ba'alei Tosafos, couldn't work with the
assumption that minhag Yisrael is ideal until proven otherwise.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 09:09:25AM +0200, Rena Freedenberg wrote:
:> Same with "knowing" or "loving" G-d.  Proofs are irrelevant, the only thing
:> that is relevant is the experience itself.

: But proofs are vital nonetheless, since unfortunately in our time there are
: so many millions of Jews for whom the Ribbono Shel Olam is not only not a
: constant presence, he's not even a once-in-a-while guest. These people need
: proofs to help them to understand that there really is an actual creator of
: the world. This is where the Torah codes and all other such things come in.

I disagree. See my signature, below.

Lima'aseh, it's experience, typically experiencing Shabbos, that is
the cornerstone of kiruv. Codes are a hook to get people curious
enough to walk into Aish's real programs. Whether or not one accepts
all the logical or philosophical arguments in the world boils down
to whether one is brought to the point where they want to.

Yiddishkeit isn't an analytic proposition, it relies on postulates.
Postulates are either taken "on faith", or in the case of emunah,
accepted by the weight of experience. Which brings us back to
the original topic of this thread.

Also, I wouldn't assume that being observant makes G-d a presence in
your life. It's a tool: mitoch shelo lishmah... -- not a guarantee.
The line under discussion isn't identical to that between O and non-O.
To quote R' MM Weiss, one needs "Passionate Judaism".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

The History of the Observance of the Four Fasts
{Including the 9th of Av}

This is a synopsis of the prologue for the talk I gave on Tisha b'Av in
Congregation Bnai Jacob of Park Slope.

Sources: Shulchan Aruch {SA}, Rema, and Mishnah Brurah {MB}Hilchos Tisha
b'Av 589, 590, and 591.

MB 590:1 Even though the Gmara concludes "... that the matter depends upon
Israel's will..." The Poskim and wrote that NOW Klal Yisroel {Community
of Israel} have accepted these from generation to generation and it is
prohibited to pierce the fence.

590:1 Rema: Pregnant and nursing women who are suffering should not fast
5902: MB: That during the time they accepted to fast they were lenient
{i.e. exempted} from these ab initio.

590: Rema: Even if they {i.e. pregnant and nursing women} are not
suffering they are not obligated, nevertheless they have been accustomed
to be strict. {it seems that they are bound NOW even though they wer
originally exempt}

591:3 SA: ...and they have been accustomed to be prohibit Linen even in
our manner of lundering - and it is not to be lenient SINCE THEY MADE
THIS A CUSTOM {emphasis mine}

589:4 MB: And they did not obligate them {to fast also} on the 9th {of
Tammuz} because we do not inconvenience the community more than necessary.

Conclusions
Certain laws - especially these that are from the Nvi'im {prophets}
are observed with all the leniencies and restrictions as accepted.

Certain laws evolved to become stricter because subsequent acceptances
were made later and they became binding.

{Note: It is possible that, certain leniencies might have evolved later,
too. As I see it all depends on what became accepted as normative.}

Next part, I will trace this back form the Nevi'im based upon a lecture
by Mitchell First

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard

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


[ 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         ]