Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 076

Monday, December 24 2001

• Mi chocHom veyishmor eileh...
• Re: Avodah V8 #74
• a pshat in the Brocho "Borei Nefoshos
• Re: On Learning Tefillah
• Re: (im)mutability of siddur
• TT
• Re: On Learning Tefillah
• "v'lo sosifu l'da'ava ode."
• Re: No More Pain / Know More Pain
• Re: Chashmona-ee vs. chashmonai
• Re: Pelishtim & R. Soloveitchik as academic
• Re: Torah Temimah
• Re: The Torah Temimah
• Re: Torah Temimah
• Yaakov Karah Keri'as Shma; Rogez
• flax and sheep / wool in ancient Mitzrayim
• Re: halacha methodology
• Moshiach Redux
• RE: Moshiach Redux
• Re: halacha methodology
• Re: halacha methodology
• Re: halacha methodology

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> ...It hit me that "Why me?" presumes that I had a right to expect otherwise.
> My grandfather's generation would not. Yet in the blink of a historical
> eye, the death of my daughter became the abnormality. In truth, it is
> the survival of our other 9 that is the miracle....

> I wrote something similar after Shifra's fall down a cliff last summer.
> The greater miracle was not that she fully recovered from her injuries.
> Rather, think of the Divine Protection offered all those children who
> did not have a close call that day! How many of us remember to thank
> G-d when nothing goes almost-wrong?

Our Rav often quotes the vort from the Baal Shem Tov z'l on the kapitl
Tehillim 'Hodu' - recited by chassidim Erev Shabbos before Mincha -
which refers to the 'Arbo'o tzerichim lehodos'.. and finishes with:
"Mi chochom veyishmor eleh - veyisbonenu chasdei Hashem..."

The BST says that whilst those who are in the "Arbo'o tzerichim lehodos"
category must indeed thank and praise Hashem for saving and rescuing
them...but how much more should we thank Him for not putting us through
the difficult times in the first place!?

And 'dos iz pshat' - "Mi chochom veyishmor eleh - a chochom, who realises
that he has been safeguarded and kept away from all these unpleasant
happenings, "veyisbonenu chasdei Hashem... - should understand and
appreciate the chasodim of Hashem..

SBA
PLEASE NOTE NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: sba@iprimus.com.au

In a message dated 12/11/01 3:35:47pm EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 
writes:
>The CI stated, in R' Schlesinger's presence, that it was not possible
>for the State to survive more than ten years. Of course, the CI did
>not survive that long, so it was not possible for him, in any event, to
>adjust a course that may well have been set with that reckoning in mind.

I recall reading this in a four volume biography of the Griz. After the ten 
years were up they asked him Nu and he answered that if Germany had not 
given EY money they would have not been able to exist. At the time he made 
the prdiction no one expected to get money from Germany

A Maaseh and a Pshat...
(heard from our Rav this Shabbos)

Rashi - Vayigash 46:26: "...Esov 6 nefoshos hoyu lo - vehakosuv koreh osom
'nafshos beiso'...Yaakov 70 hoyu lo - vehakosuv koreh oson 'nefesh'..."
(ayin shom.)

In the days when the Yetev Lev z'l was rov/rebbe in Sighet, a group of
his chassidim from a certain village came to him complaining that the
local Galach was creating serious problems by banning the peasants from
buying the mashkeh produced by these chassidim - this being their main
source of parnoso.

The YL responded with a pshat in the Brocho "Borei Nefoshos":

Borei Nefosho Rabbos - Hashem creates many goyim - who are called
'nefoshos'.

Why?
Lehachyos Bohem Nefesh...to be mechayeha and give parnoso to Yidden -
who are called 'nefesh"...

The story goes on that the shortly afterwards many of the local goyim
became ill and it turned out that the sudden lack of alchohol was the
cause... The galach was arrested and jailed...

Shlomo B Abeles
PLEASE NOTE NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: sba@iprimus.com.au

Shavua Tov

One of the items RYBS instituted at Maimonides (at least when I was there
in high school in the mid 60's) was a mandatory weekly shiur in BIUREI
HA'TEFILLAH with the *text* being Baer's Siddur AVODAT YISRAEL. Over a
5 year period, we covered most of daily and Shabbat tefillah.

Josh

On 21 Dec 01, at 12:17, afolger@ymail.yu.edu wrote:
>                                    I remeber seeing that early Ashkenaz
> rishonim were very adamant that the nussa'h is fixed, and even showed
> how important the fixed nature is, by counting words in various tefillot
> and showing how that count is the correct count. Thus, keriat shemah
> has 280 words, including the repetition of Hashem Elokekhem, emet or
> the E-l Melekh neeman, 

AFAIK Kriyas Shma has 248 words (with the extra three at either - 
but not both - ends). That's what it said in the footnotes of the 
Birnbaum Siddurim we used in shul when I was a kid. 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

>                                         Torah Temimah. He feels there
> is a chiyuv to let people know that the seifer is not as valuable as it
> looks...  many of the peshatim given are his and his friends and are --
> again in RAF's opinion ...- "downright silly" (an exact quote).

RSBA>Can we have a selection of this 'silliness'?

I heard the Bais Yisroel of Gur  rejected/ousted the sefer TT due to the
pshat of TT on why Yaakov Avinu hid Dinah from Esav.

Shlomo Goldstein

On 22 Dec 01, at 17:46, BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
> One of the items RYBS instituted at Maimonides (at least when I was there
> in high school in the mid 60's) was a mandatory weekly shiur in BIUREI
> HA'TEFILLAH with the *text* being Baer's Siddur AVODAT YISRAEL. Over a
> 5 year period, we covered most of daily and Shabbat tefillah.

I wasn't that far behind you, but we had the same course, as you 
know (I was about five years behind Reb Josh). We also had a final 
exam in 12th grade on the entire five year course, which you had to 
pass in order to get your diploma.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> In EY, the accepted formulation adds "v'lo sosifu l'da'ava ode." In 
> light of the argument that you subsequently imputed to your father, 
> I honestly have to wonder why that formulation is universally used 
> here, but it is universal. 

AFAIK those words are based on a posuk.

(I am also under the imprssion that this was not standard in all
kehillos. IIRC in previous years only the "Hamokom yenachem.."
was said. Many still only say that.)

SBA

In a message dated 12/22/01 7:29:41pm EST, Akiva Miller kennethgmiller@juno.com
writes:
> For many years, I had the same problem with that phrase. Though said
> with the best of intentions, the implication is that this mourner should,
> chalilah, be the next to go.

> It took me a few years, but I came up with a different perush: May *you*
> know no more pain, and may Moshiach and Techiyas HaMeisim come quickly,
> so that *everyone* will know no more pain, b'meherah b'yamenu.

Funny how moseif can be goreia

Hamakom Yneachem is so beautiful and so sound psycologically.  It is saying 
HKBH will e wherever you are to comfort you.  Not that yo uhave zero pain, 
that HKBH is your Omniprsent companions during tough times

Now we go on and add that you should not know pain.  Well of course if 
Moshaic hcomes that's great. But as humans not knowing pain is a form of 
denial or suppressoin, and the wish - while well-intentoined - can be very 
dangerous in the long haul.

The point of "ki malacha yetzvahe lach" is not that you will never face 
danger. Rather the point is HKBH is there to protect via His agents.  We need 
to be able to face danger and pain with G-d's help, we are not looking for a 
life of painless fantasy or complete avoidance of risk.


Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 12/17/01 9:34:54am EST, Aryeh aes@ll-f.com writes:
> I noticed over Shabbos that Artscroll uses a different nusach in their
> hebrew siddurim (chashmona-ee) and english siddurim (chashmonai).
> If anyone can find out why Artscroll does this, I would appreciate it.

Artscroll's inconsistency is consistency with their other inconsistency re: 
Sfirah i.e. the English has La'Moer IIRC and the Hebrew Ba'Omer.  <smile>

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 12/16/01 9:12:58pm EST, carmy@ymail.yu.edu writes:
>> Illustration: the way I heard RYBS's positoin re: Avilus on Sefira was
>> based upon a supposotoin that the Chazal instituted Aveilus as formulaic
>> instutoina that therefore must match existing structures. But if you
>> look in the Halachic history (IOW poskim since the Gaonim) you will
>> see terms like "nahgau bo miktzas aveilus" IOW Chazl did not make a
>> formal formulation of aveilus rather minhag evolved out of eclectically
>> pracitcing some forms of aveilus and not others. Therefore IOW, RYB"s
>> structure of AVeilus is not based upon the strucutre of Poskim over time
>> (something Beis Yoseph and Ruch Hashulchan use a lot). Rather it is
>> a super-imposigion based upon a need for RYBS to see things as having
>> been cosntructed loigcally instead of having evolved historically and
>> mimetically.

> I am not ready to swear on a sefer Torah, but this is something that
> others can confirm or refute: Methinks the foundations of this analysis
> were laid by R. Moshe Soloveichik and that I heard it from the Rav as
> his father's basic idea.

> If R. Moshe had university training, I'm sure we would have heard about
> it by now.

This has nothing to do wiht RYBS as an academic. This has to do with
following Svara w/o regard to what the Masorah has to say .

Another example would be Slichos on Shacharis/Musaph /Mincah of YK

Svara stopped the minhag of Roedelshim and Vilna Kol Bo to say slichos
and in Teaneck they now re-insert them al pi RYBS. But they do NOT
restore the old ones, rather they come up with new ones because RYBS
suggested that Slichos shold be said .IOW the Masorah is overlooked and
they do what is told to them al pi wvar w/o actually researching to see
that ther might be a longstanding tradition of how to do this.

Now you may tell me that RM Soloveichik did it too - so what? I would
not be surprised that all Briskers went back and reformulated based
upon their derech in Shas w/o regard to how it played out in Minhaggim
or Massoros of many including Maharil etc.

My impression is that Briskers reformulated Pshat in the Rambam w/o
adressing the Kessef Mishna wh osometimes asked the very same kushya.

BEH we will cover this in the Halachah Methodology thread about countering 
post-Talmduic poskim.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

>>I would. His affiliation with NIRC is only a few months old.

>Isn't he an alumnus?

Yes, R. A. Feldman is certainly an alumnus of NIRC.  In fact he was one of 
the founding Yungeleit of its Kollel.  I'm surprised Micha didn't pick up 
this piece of info when he was there for Shabbos.  His alumnus-ness was a 
factor in his being a candidate for the position of RY.

Raffy

In a message dated 12/20/01 4:33:34pm EST, Zeliglaw@aol.com writes:
> Steve Brizel
> The notion that the TT was not viewed as always reliable has
> been circulating in Yeshivische circles( even within YU) for many
> years. Nevertheless, the TT, The Malbim and Netziv represent the
> response of Easrern European Jewry to the challenges of Haskalla ,
> etc which are simply ignored or condemned in many seforim of their
> contemporaries. There is a well known story that someone mentioned to
> RYBDS that the Nussach haBracha was Mkadesh Yisrael and that HaZamanim
> was a printer's mistake. RYBS completely rejected such a notion
> 
> Zeliglaw@aol.com

1) FWIW ONE of my hypotheses re: Rashi's TSBP oriented peirsuh on the Torah 
was to show how the text of Chumash sugested various Midrashim as a counter 
Karaite technique.  The Chabad Chitas has Rashi as the Trumas Midrashim.  
Rashi is the fater of all those mefaorshim cited above in tying TSBK to TSBP.

2)  The word Zmanim was said by some to have been a place marker (like an X) 
for
the specifc Hag.  So on Pesach it would have been mkadesih Yisrael v'hag 
Hatzos and printes - in order to save ink - put in hazmanim as a fill in the 
blank.  that is the theory. I have not clue if it is true.

3) otoh it is claer that various confusoins DID creep into the Siddur.  Hertz 
points out that the Baruch hu and the Baruch Shmo in Baruch Seh'amar were 
responses and not part of the text mamash.  Now the Tur strongly indicates 
otherwise, but I suspect Hertz is on to something because we see in many 
places the term Baruch Hu and is is likely to have once been a response that 
got flattened by a non-punctuated text into the basic text  There are of 
course commentaries of the Saboraim and Geonim in the text of the Gmara.  
Outside of Tanach - it took a lot of vigilance to separate the Core text from 
commentaries etc.

4) The Gra claims that the siyyum for Borei Nefashos is Baruch Ata Hasehm 
Chei Olamim and for Modim Derabbanan it is B"A'H Keil hahodaos... IOW the 
text omitted the Ata hashem but meant to imply it.  IMHO the Gra was probably 
right but I am reluctant to change the minhag based upon a svara w/o 
corraborating evidence etc.  And so I say Baruch HU and Barchu Shmo in Barcuh 
se'amar as written.  But you should knwo that German congregatoins recite the 
entire Brach out loud and it is liekly that the responses were encoded in the 
text.  There are piyyutim that have that same structure.     

Regards and Kol Tuv,
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>

Whenever the book of "My Uncle, the Netziv" comes up in conversation,
people pull out the, "well, we don't hold of everything the TT says
anyway" argument. It seems to me to be used in those circles to discredit
him since the book has so many ideas which they are opposed to (and
can't disprove, so instead they discredit the source).

Avi Burstein

Yedu'im divrei Chazal. Yesh makshim that if it was zman Keri'as Shma
then why was Yosef not reading Shma. While sha'arei teirutzim lo nin'alu
(Yosef held like the Gr"a, Yaakov like the M"a - dok v'tishkach, or that
Yaakov could not read till now since he was travelling and one has to
stop for the first pasuk, etc.), the kashya itself elevates my blood
pressure. It is a true anachronism! Hachi hayah ad halom a Keri'as Shma
that had a zman, etmahah?!

Nohr vohs, ha'devarim amukkim. Yaakov was talking to himself: "Shma
*Yisroel*!" The pshat iz azoi vee the Gemara in berachos 5: The first
line against the yetzer ho'ra is Torah - es Yehuda shalach lefanav. The
third line is yom ha'misa - al derech ha'chidud that is why he said
"Amusa ha'pa'am." This was the second line: "Yikra Keri'as Shma." Yaakov
never faced before a nisayon of To"v (gem. of his seventeen years in
Mitzrayim) - his nisyonos were all bechinas rogez* and lachatz. Now
both Yosef and HKB"H promised him kol tu"v Mitzrayim. Yaakov feared
"shema yigrom ha'cheit" and "va'yishman Yeshurun va'yivat." What is
the antidote? Shema Yisroel" - to retain the madreigah of Yisroel -
Havaya"h Elokeinu Havaya'h Echad - achdus Hashem. v'ysh l'ha'arich -
yishma Chochom v'yosif lekach.

*Rogez: yesh l'dakdek in the chilluk between "rogez" and "ka'as" - based
on the Malbim I understand that ka'as in internal anger while rogez is
external anxiety and tension - the former is therefore always negative
while the latter can be positive ("rigzu v'al techto'u") - based on Reb
Aharon Marcus's yesode, ReGA is related to RoGeZ - the difference is that
the calm of "Margo'ah" is a calm in the face of tension and movement while
"Menuchah" is static, and, of course "Tzaddikim ein lohem *menuchah*
lo ba'Olam ha'Zeh v'lo ba'Olam ha'Bo." V'duk.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

We just read in the Torah in parshas Vayigash that 'toavas mitzrayim kol roeh 
tzon'.

I recalled that pishtim (flax) was a signature crop of Mitzrayim back in the 
old days (today I think cotton is big there - I don't know if flax still is), 
e.g. there is a posuk in which Mitzrayim / Mitzriyim are referred to as 
'avdei pishtim' (Yeshayahu 19) ......also someone reminded me of the Rashi in 
Bereishis 2:11 (see 'davar acheir' there) re the name of the river Pishon 
having to do with pishtim.

My question is as follows -

Being that wool and flax were the main (?) textile 'crops' of the ancient 
world, what relationship, if any, did the fact that sheep were 'toeivah' to 
the Mitzriyim have to the fact that they were famous for growing pishtim ?

Did the Mitzriyim not use wool because it was from sheep ('toeivah' to them) 
and used linen / flax instead? Did they use the wool from sheep but just not 
slaughter the sheep? Is linen more comfortable (e.g. cooler) in a Mitzrayim 
like climate?


Mordechai

In a message dated 12/22/01 7:28:59pm EST, Shlomo Goldstein
goldstin@netvision.net.il writes:
> Yet, for the limit, when push comes to shove, Shas
> seems to be an absolute cut-off.

Quick Thought: 

There are 2 broad schools of thought (as I wax Brisker <smile>)

1) Those of a fixed Text
2) Those of a continuous process

For R. Shlomoh Shas appreas to be such as fixed text
For others the process continues on and on and on.

Lemashal #1:
RYBS was OTOH someone who went back to Shas - regardless of what the SA
said - and re-constituted psak. His shita legabei 5 shevarim instead
of 3is IMHO a case in point.

Yet RYBS - who felt that Minhag was easy to set aside was adamant that
dictums such as Tav lemeisavv were immutable and permaent and never
subject to change. Hence his position against Rackman was firm and
inflexible. You cannot undo chazakos in Shas at all.

Thus RYBS was fixed re: Shas, but flexible about anything else subsequent
to Shas. I would guess REB might have bee nable to abrogage anything
in the SA that was not fixed in Shas onthe same basis...


OTOH someone who is from the continuous process school does not see the
Shas as the last word. Therefore things can evolve after Shas is closed.
However, nothing can be alttered without considering the entire coninuum.
Thus Shas is more flexible, and not rigid but so is Minhag and precdent!
Sahs counts and so does everytnig Post-Shas count too, nothing is totally
firm and fixed but nothing may be overturned by simple lamdus or psak,
only by grudual change of Minhag.

Lemashal #2:
The Aruch Hashulcahn defens the Minhag of those who do not sit in the
Sukka on Shmini ztseres which is kengged a befieush Shas that has NO
alternative opinion.
Tosfafos on Mayyim Acharonim is another case in point.  

Now go line up Poskim from various schools and see who fits where.

Many will lurch from one to the other. The Rema in ChM seems to take
Ravina and Rav Ashi as sof hor'ah like school #1 but in Or. Ch. and YD
he bases a lot of fixed opnions based upon Minhag - mostly folllowing
the Maharil.

The concept of Ravina/Ravashi as sof ho'ra'ah needs a major investigation.
Almost no one disgarees with it, but as to what it means appears to have
a wide range of interpretation.

 Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Micha and I debated re: the proepr role of Moshaich emphasis

I have been emphasizing "sheibaneh Beis Hamikdash" w/o mentioning the
persona of the Moshiach for a while.

Today it occrued to me

There are two German "hymns" that are nearly universal amongst all
Ashkenazim and they both have 15th Century Germanic tunes:
    1) Adir Hu
    2) Maoz Tzur

Note:
Adir Hu - Yivneh Beiso bekarov...
Maoz Tzur - tikkon Beis Tefillasi...

Both poems are from the same era, both are traditionally set to the
same genre of music, both are pleas to re-build the Beis HaMikdash and
neither mentions Moshiach.

I would guess that subliminally these are consistent with looking forward
to Binyan Beis Hamikdash as a dwelling place for the Shechina w/o dwelling
on the personna of who is Moshiach --smile--.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

> Both poems are from the same era, both are traditionally set to the
> same genre of music, both are pleas to re-build the Beis HaMikdash and
> neither mentions Moshiach.

OTOH, Ani Ma'amin DOES dwell on the comng of Moshiach -- and it doesn't
mention the Beis HaMikdash.

To use modern terminology, I suspect Ani Ma'amin has gotten a lot more
"airtime" over the centuries than either of the two songs you mentions.

Akiva

(Whoops! I just now (*after* writing all the paragraphs that follow
this one!) saw a post in Avodah 8:75, where Rabbi Rich Wolpoe begins
by writing <<< Remember the issue here is dayan shet'aah, it is NOT
necessarily the case of lechatchila psak or hora'ah >>> Well, I thought
that we *were* talking about the use of the word "binding" in a psak or
horaah context. And I already submitted a few posts on this, so I think
I have to submit this one too, so as to defend my position.)

In Avodah 8:74, Rabbi Rich Wolpoe raised some questions about whose
statements are halachically binding. My response, in Avodah 8:75 was
that there have been NO binding statements since real semicha was lost
about 1600 years ago.

I should clarify my stand on this. We may be using the word "binding"
in different ways. We need to define our terms more specifically.

If we are talking about the operative rules when a monetary suit is
brought to Beis Din, then I suspect that the "binding"ness is directly
related to the fact that the litigants have agreed to accept the ruling of
this Beis Din, with an implicit stipulation that the Beis Din will follow
Generally Accepted Paskening Procedures as specified in Shas and Poskim.

That's not what *I* mean by the word "binding".

When I refer to a psak as being "binding", I mean that I have to follow
it, whether I agree with it or not. "I have to follow it" means that
I am halachically obligated to follow that psak. "I am halachically
obligated to follow that psak" means that if I do NOT follow it, I will
have violated the Mitzvah d'Oraisa of following a psak.

Who has the authority to issue such a psak? It is the Shofet, of whom
the Torah writes (Dvarim 17:8-11), "You will not stray right nor left
from the thing they tell you." And who is the Shofet? I'm unclear on
where this is defined, but it is obvious that the Torah is not requiring
me to follow what a *layman* tells me to do. I've been taught (though
I welcome other thoughts) that the Shofet described in that pasuk is a
person who has real semicha.

Thus a binding psak can come only from a posek who has real semicha. A
psak from any other source would not be binding (but one would be
pretty stupid to ignore it, depending on the level of Torah knowledge
of that posek).

Binding obligations can come from another source, however, and that is
Minhag. When an individual (or a community) takes on a Minhag, that is
effectively a Neder of sorts, which carries a d'Oraisa obligation to
be followed. It's not the same as a p'sak, which is a directive issued
from a posek. Rather, a minhag is activated by oneself. Examples of this
would include Kitniyos and Cherem D'Rabenu Gershom --- as I understand
it, acceptance of a minhag creates a d'Oraisa obligation.

It is generally presumed that we are bound by the entire Gemara Bavli,
even though it includes statements made by Amoraim who lacked real
semicha. And in fact the editors themselves - Ravina and Rav Ashi -
lacked real semicha. If we *are* bound by them, I suspect that it is
because Klal Yisrael accepted the Gemara as a Minhag or Neder, which
also creates a d'Oraisa obligation.

On the other hand, there *are* many cases where we *don't* pasken like
the Bavli. This could be because the Amoraim involved lacked semicha. Or
maybe it is because the neder-acceptance of the Gemara applied only
to those parts which were actually followed at the time. Or something
like that. And even statements in the Bavli made by someone who *did*
have real semicha might not be considered binding on us, if that Rav was
merely expressing an opinion, rather than paskening l'doros. (I think
the answer is in some combination of these, because if semicha is what
makes the Gemara binding, then the Yerushalmi would be far more binding
than the Bavli could ever be.)

I cannot stress strongly enough, that all the above is intended only to
demonstrate that if one goes against the psak of a post-semicha posek,
then he is not oveir on "Lo Tasur". It does not mean that this individual
is justified in going against that psak! Post-semicha poskim might not be
*binding*, but they are certainly *authoritative* in the sense of being
closer to the source, and having a better grasp of the issues. Those who
trifle with such authorities do so at their own peril, and had better
be prepared to defend their case in the Beis Din Shel Maalah.

I publicly admit that I do not have a deep knowledge of the topics above.
It all makes a lot of sense to me, but I've probably made a lot of
mistakes too. I greatly appreciate any corrections which anyone would
like to offer. If anyone thinks that I am so far off base that you'd like
to use this post as an example of how dangerous a half-brain can be,
then I only ask that you leave my name off of it.

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 12/23/01 11:31:10pm EST, Akiva kennethgmiller@juno.com
writes:
> When I refer to a psak as being "binding", I mean that I have to follow
> it, whether I agree with it or not. "I have to follow it" means that I am
> halachically obligated to follow that psak. "I am halachically obligated
> to follow that psak" means that if I do NOT follow it, I will have
> violated the Mitzvah d'Oraisa of following a psak.

To me binding means - I as a poseik MUST respect the precedent and not
overule it- unless it is a hora'as sho'o or an eis la'asos.

Now what if the MINHAG repealed a binding Halachah already? Now we have
a ddivedd, I am not OVERTURNING a Halachah when I pasken this is OK rather
I am ofregin a ratoinale for what has already been done defacto. This is
a gray area and seems to be what Tosafos and Aruch Hashulchan do....

Example re: Bruial on Yom Tov:
Do I have the right to say
Since refrigreation is now an optoin there is no reason any more to
viollate YT to bury the dead, let the body remain in cold storage
OR
Must I stick with dina digmara that says YT sheini In conjunction with
burying a dead is "k'chol"? And therefore a new mtzius of refrigetaion
does NOT change the din...

This issue came up during the Tragedy in Williamsburg when they followed
the dina digmara and buried the people who died in the fire on YT Rishon
that was on a Friday. AIUI, Breuer's also holds in burying on YT Rishon
Erev Shabbas...

Regards and Kol Tuv,
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>

Rabbi Rich Wolpoe wrote <<< To me binding means - I as a poseik MUST
respect the precedent and not overule it- unless it is a hora'as sho'o
or an eis la'asos. >>>

That's virtually the same as my definition. I said a binding psak
obligates me how to act, he says a binding psak obligates how to pasken.
Same thing.

He asked <<< Now what if the MINHAG repealed a binding Halachah already?
Now we have a bdieved, I am not OVERTURNING a Halachah when I pasken
this is OK rather I am offering a rationale for what has already been
done de facto. This is a gray area and seems to be what Tosafos and
Aruch Hashulchan do.... >>>

Granted that this is very weird. But I think one can draw a line between
offering the rationale for what has been done, vs. actually sanctioning
it. The first is a limud zchus at most; the second shows that he original
halacha was an error and it does involve overturning. Gotta be careful
of the lashon you use.

<<< Must I stick with dina digmara that says YT sheini In conjunction with
burying a dead is "k'chol"? And therefore a new mtzius of refrigeration
does NOT change the din... >>>

I think you are describing the need to determine which halachos are of the
"we can't change it even if curcumstances have changed" type, and which
are of the "it was only set up for specific circumstances me'ikara"
type. Beats me. Sounds similar to trying to figure out when teva can
change and when it can't. Dontcha wish Chazal had been a little more
specific when they said stuff?

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]