Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 087

Wednesday, January 9 2002

• Re: Rav Ashi's S'mikhoh
• Re: halachik methodology
• Re: halachik methodology
• Re: Methodology of halakhah
• Re: Seli'hot
• Re: Selichot
• Re: secular studies
• TT - Dina and Esav - Makor?
• Re: TT - Dina and Esav - Makor?
• R Wein's latest book- a lay review
• Aishdas Melaveh Malka - 14 Shevat, Jan. 26
• To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group
• Re: halacha methodology - A Conversation
• Halachahick Methodology - Survey of Sources
• Re: Halachic Methodology
• Re: halachik methodology
• Halachic Philosophy
• Re: Selichot

i've been out of the loop a bit, but - lest i be assessed with a sh'tiqoh
k'hodo'oh - did at least want to respond to RYGB's note addressing a
perhaps terminally frayed thread.

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>:
< That the semicha of Bavel was not that of EY is muchach from many places
in the Yerushalmi, in its treatment of Rav Kahana (plain "Kahana" in the
Y-mi) and in its treatment of "Rav VChanina Chavreihon d'Rabbonon." Kol
Tuv, YGB ygb@aishdas.org >

I am sure RYGB is making a point here, but it has escaped me. To recap
-the original suggestion was that – contrary to the usual t’fisoh –
perhaps there was s’mikhoh in bovel. A notable and agreed on by everybody
difference surely exists l’gabbei q’nosos. now, there are certainly
numerous supporting texts in both bavli and yerushalmi to support the
common wisdom that there was no external s'mikhoh – beginning with
the seemingly direct assertion that ‘ain s’mikhoh chutzoh lo’oretz”
(B. sanhedrin 14a). But RYGB’s adducing of r. kahana’s treatment in
yerushalmi does not further support the argument. To have any relevance
to the proposition on the table, RYGB would have had to demonstrate that
chakh’mei EY would not use the bavli honorific “rav” across the board.
But of course this he cannot do since the yerushalmi does indeed recognize
such titles.

The source text problem which is not however being dealt with is the other
source texts (e.g. B. p’sochim 49a) that indicate there was a s’mikhoh in
bovel. There were also gaonim who claim the same thing and do not seem to
recognize the distinction offered by some on this list (that EY s’mikhoh
was the real mccoy- ish mippi ish ad moshe rabbeinu, while bovel was not).
So how to reconcile these contradictory traditions? and why should we
disregard the opinion of gaonim in favor of speculative conjectures?
apodictally styled assertions which recognize one and dismiss the other
are not particularly compelling. for what it's worth my own opinion is
agnostic v'tzorich iyyun.

Mechy Frankel                       W: (703) 588-7424
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com         H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

In a message dated 1/3/02 11:07:16am EST, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> Regarding reading on Shabbos, there were various conditions by which
> one *could* read by lamp light. One was if a friend was there to remind
> you not to tip it. I think having two or more lamps would also allow
> it. These rules make it easier to say that it does not apply to modern
> candles. In contrast, the prohibition against medication on Shabbos was
> extended to *all* therapies, including things like exercise, which could
> not possibly lead to grinding. This makes it very hard to say that modern
> pills are exempt.

This goes along with the idea of hidden agenda!

So nu how can we tell when there is a hidden agenda?

1)  We have a Masorah that the reason given is NOT exhuastive
2)  We have seen how poskim or minhaggim line up on the issue

OTOH when an apprantely outmoded gzeira sticks around, it probably has
the weight of history..

OTOH, if you see poskim encroaching on the gzeira and whittling it away,
you might say otherwise.

Poskim have been very meikel re: medicine on shabbos but have AFAIK
never nullified it.

This is a case where minhag can be a "clarifier" of reality.

-----------------------------------

willroth@voicenet.com:
<< The gezeirah re: candles included all candles of the time, but all
of those candles were consistent with the reason for the gezeirah,
therefore when a different type of candle was developed, it wasn't
necessarily included in the original gezeirah. The gezeirah re:
medicine, on the other hand, included _all_ medicines, even those
which at the time were not ground. Hence, our medicines, which
might not be ground, were part of the original gezeirah.>>

Ein hachi nami. but minhag and precedent can help one to determine the
scope of what is assur to beging with - esepcially when the matter is
fuzzy to us

Revisiting the Rambam re: Gzeiros . According to Lempel, a gzeria is
only fixed when it was nispasheit

So it is very possible that certain gzeiros were limited by how they
were nispasheit while other gzeiros were construed more widely

An interesting case to discuss is dancing/clapping on Shabbos and Yom
Tov, which seems to be pashut assur migeria but Tosafos tries to mitigate
this a bit.

---------------------------------------------------

Another point to consider is "hidden agenda"

Is melach sdomis the ONLY reason for mayyim acharonim?
Tosafos - Yes!
GRA - No!

What about a Chassan and Kallah who see no blood on their wedding night?
why should they be poreish?

If Dam niddah is the sole issue, then the lack of blood means there is
no issue...and therefore they need not separate OTOH if Dam niddah is
not the sole issue, and instead there is a hidden agenda to cause them
to separate, then even when no dam is issued, they still separate due
to other reasons (or issues --smile--)

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

[This post from RRW did not reach the list by RRW's request. He felt it
was a duplicate of someone else's that he did not see before writing. -mi]

At 09:38 PM 1/5/2002 EST, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote: 
>> The question is benefitting from a malacha done on shabbos. R Meir
>> (Chullin 15a) says that if b'shogeg, it is muter during shabbos; R Yehuda
>> says is it ossur until after shabbos. Apparently the Geonim, the Rif,
>> and Rambam all agree with R Yehuda. (And so does the Rosh, and do the
>> Mechaber). But Tosafos holds by R Meir. The obvious question: how can
>> Tosafos do that? Can a Rishon resurrect a tannaic opinion, even tho'
>> everyone subsequent to the tanna has rejected it? ...

> re: Rishonim if the TB left the matter open then for Tosafos what's the
> problem?  They certainly did not feel bound by the Geonei Bavel.  IOW you
> have classic Ashkenaz vs. Bavel/Sefard split.  Tosfaos in general had a
> mesorah that paralleled - and competed with - the Gaonic/Rif/Rambam
> Masorah.

If it was only the Gaonim/Rif/Rambam/Mechaber, then what you suggest
makes sense.  The reason why I (naively) didn't consider that was that
the Rosh and Rema _also_ agreed, and so it didn't occur to me to be a
Ashk/Sef split.

> <excerpt>I cannot speak to the SA/Rema etc. w/o more information. Do
> you have the mar'eh mkomos? </excerpt>

OH 318:1 (M"B there, at note 7, describes the machlokes briefly).

Kol tuv, and a gut voch,
Eric

Reb Eric Simon wrote:
>  Then the M"B comes along and says, "our candles aren't
> like that anymore, so we _can_ read by candle light." I thought gezeiros
> like that were binding, even if the underlying reason went away.

There is a difference between the disappearance of causality, in which
case the gezeirah remains, and dealing with a different subject, such
as saying 'hazal were talking about oil lamps, and we have parafine
candles. This is very important for poskim who ponder the question of
the applicabiliyt of a gezeirah.

Arie Folger

In a message dated 1/3/02 8:28:16am EST, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> I meant BEFORE Zchor Rachamecha. You're referring (I assume) to Aileh
> Ezkera, which is not exactly a Slicha. For that matter, in Mincha,
> you could have referred to Keil Na R'fah Na l'Tachlooay Gefen Poreeya
> (Tfilla against childhood illnesses R"L) which is also said with
> Chatanu Tzureinu. Note - I only have Artscroll - I don't have HaMachzor
> HaMefurash.

See Artscrolls's Slichos - the intro

The Kiel na and the Eileh Ezkara are "chatanus"

The German Minhag has a big Chatanu on Kol Nidre night starting iirc
elechah esvada... with the refrea "Hein!"

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Long before RYBS pushed for the re-introduction of the selichot in
shaharit, musaf, and minha on Yom Kippur, the Arukh Hashulchan complained
bitterly about the "new custom" of omitting them. IIRC, he blames it on
the development of chazzanut and ribbui niggunim which left no time for
what he considers most important on Y"K. After all, we are asking, or,
rather, should be asking, for selichot.

Well, at least we all still say them in maariv and ne'ila.

For those who want to see the selichot which no longer appear in our
machzorim, I recommend Goldschmidt's Y"K machzor. R' Daniel Goldschmidt's
siddurim and machzorim have been discussed in Avodah before and should
appear in the archives. He brings not only the "standard" Ashkenazic
seder but also the variations of different kehilot from East and West:
Polin Ashkenaz, Tzarfat, Provence and even northern Italia, as well
as local "city customs". In his introduction, he also has a historical
survey beginning with the geonim and ending with the demise of selichot
only just over a hundred years ago.

I just left my chair to pull out the machzor. There are 88 pages of
selichot before zekhor rachamekha in shaharit and a mere 71 pages in
mussaf. Check mincha yourselves.

For those, like me who like to shorten the davening, use Goldschmidt as
I do. I skip more pages in the machzor than anyone else in the shul. I
also have correct nuschaot without the usual shibbushim.

Lately, new machzor editions have begun to omit completely those piyyutim
that are usually skipped over. The more conservative, having less chutzpa,
have moved them in an appendix at the back of the book. When my kids
were young I made a point that they would have machzorim with all the
piyyutim to skip. At first I pencil marked the machzor with A"A (Ein
Om'rim) and arrows to keep them from getting lost. A few years later,
when they already knew the shittat hadilug, I erased the pencil marks.
Now they can skip b'al peh.

I am machmir on the subject of dillugei piyyutim. One is not yotzei y'dei
dillug if the piyyut is not in the book or if it is an appendix. Tradition
demands that the piyyut be there on the page and only then be skipped. And
don't forget that when the first day of Y"T is on Shabbat you may have
to m'dalleg on the piyyut of the second day and, on R"H or in HU"L, skip
the first day's piyyut on the second day. Skipping the wrong piyyut
does not give the skipper any credit.

So, I now skip away,

K"T,
David

From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
> It has been recently asserted that the important poskim freely use secular
> knowledge in judging technical questions. Unfortunately, that is often
> or sometimes not the case, especially where such knowledge conflicts
> (or appears to conflict) with statements in the Talmud. ...
> I refer to the teshuva about blood typing and paternity in "Tzitz Eliezer"
> 13: 104 (p. 212)....             Harav Waldenberg dismisses the use
> of responsa by Dayan Waldenberg. Harav Waldenberg dismisses the use
> of blood typing as providing a basis for denying paternity since he
> accepts the dictum of T.B Niddah 31a that the blood of the offspring
> is derived exclusively from the mother (according to the Gra's girsa).
> Therefore the blood type of the father is irrelevant and can not be used
> to exclude the husband as the father.

Before continuing there are two issues at hand here: the scientific truth
and the issue of the result of the psika and it's impact on deciding
the issue of Mamzerim. I'll speak of the scientific issue last.

The tendency of Chazal in the past, and the Dayanim (Rav Waldenberg is
a leading Dayan) is to prevent Mamzerim. Allowing the father to disprove
fatherhood based on blood type would increase Mamzerim. It is interesting
that in Israel both the Batei Din AND the secular courts rarely allow
blood tests to determine fatherhood (for different reasons).

As to the scientific issue:
> Never mind that the Vilna text does not mention the offspring's blood and
> that the dictum is given in an aggadic context, blood being strictly of
> maternal origin is considered an inspired statement of fact that medical
> knowledge can not supercede. He argues further that science is always
> changing and therefore unreliable.

In a lecture I heard 3-4 years ago from a top Forensic scientist on
the issue of DNA typing, he discussed that certain types of tissue are
indeed from maternal DNA alone. I'm sorry, I don't have the notes from
the lecture, but I'm sure you can access the information on the NET.
IIRC the book Actual Innocence by Barry Scheck et. al. also discusses
some aspects of forensic use of blood and DNA typing.

>Moreover, he feels that blood type
> is not constant but can change as a result of transfusions, for example.

I was recently told by an eminent doctor that in the process of bone
marrow transplants -- it is possible that there will be a change of
blood type. It is extremely rare -- but it has been documented.

> We can state confidently, for example that a husband and wife of the same
> blood type will not produce offspring of type "AB". The latter can only
> come from parents of mixed blood types.

Type AB is extremely rare and it is far more likely that the child
will have one of the other blood types, so we shouldn't use this as a
definitive proof or example.

Parents with types "A" and "B" (one each) can have children that are:
A, B, O or AB (depending on the particulars). Even if both parents have
type A, the child can still have type O.

But I feel the issue is more concern with the results than with the
actual scientific accuracy of the information.

Shoshana L. Boublil

From: S Goldstein <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
> 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.

I'm a bit embarrassed but I have not found this TT

Can you help me?

Reuven Miller

From: S Goldstein <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
>> 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.

From: Reuven Miller <millerr@mail.biu.ac.il>
> I'm a bit embarrassed but I have not found this TT

Breishis 32:23

Kol Tuv,
Shlomo Goldstein

My younger daughter recived two of R Wein's previois works for Bas
Mitzva presents. She read them cover to cover before I did aboit a year
ago. As list members will note, I commented on the far better treatment
by R Wein of RYBS and the reasons relating to the same. In his latest
work, R Wein has helped put all of the major events and players in the
20th Century into perspective while maintaining his ability without
pejoratives or aplogia. I emailed him one comment which I believe
warrants further inquiry by list members. R Wein claims that Shaar
Yashuv was the first BT Yeshiva and was founded in 1967 by R Freifeld,
ZTL. IIRC, YU's James Striar School (JSS) was functioning at least since
the mid 50s and Chabad had a similar school in Manfattan (Hadar HaTorah)
of possibly older vintage. Anyone wish to verify this comment?

The book itself is an excellent portrait of all of the major trends and
upheavals that faced all of world Jewry and reads like a March of Time
documentary, along witb R Wein's almost patented comments and footnotes
in his unique big shoulders Chicago accent. If you have ever heard R Wein
in public or listened to his tapes, you will understand my comment ( HM
and RYGB-Chicagoans have unique accents and takes on the world?!) . With
these caveats, I highly recomend the book, despite the fact that R Wein
is neither a historian or sociologist. It is an excellent read on where
we were circa 1900 and where we stand now.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

Please mark your calendars for motzaei Shabbos 14 Shevat, Jan. 26 '02.  We 
are planning the second annual Aishdas melaveh malka for that time.  It will 
IY"H be at 8pm in Cong. Shaarei Shalom in Brooklyn (Nostrand Ave. and Ave. 
P).  Directions are available on the shul's website 
(http://shaareishalom.tripod.com).

I hope everyone in the area will be able to come for an evening of 
friendship and chizuk.  More information will be forthcoming shortly.

Gil Student

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

RYZ>4) Tos. Y"T 2nd Perek of Tmura says that it is not possible to reject a
Sevara Lhalacha (rather it's application).

Do you mean on the first Mishnah?  All Tos YT says is that when there is NO
distinction in practice, then HALACHA does not PASKEN in a disagreement in
TAAM.

Shlomo Goldstein

Conversations on Women's Issues - (C) 2002 by Richard Wolpoe

Recently I had Friday Dinner at the home of Sara Leah {not her real name} .. 
We had a brief conversation on Women's issues

1) Re: Women's Tfillah.  Sarah Leah maintained that several leading Modern 
Orthodox Rabbis had put down Women's "Minyan" for a number of resaons.  She 
reasoned that they were NOT being intellectually honest. . Why?  Well for one 
thing women's TEFIILLAH did/does NOT call itself a MINYAN, so the imposition 
of the term MINYAN was ispo facto not intelleuctally honest.  This was but 
one illustration of how the rabbis had failed to check out the facts 
first-hand and therir predeilictions to making decisions solely based upon 
textual considerations - and perhaps hearsay.     IOW their Halachic 
methodology was lacking a "reality" or a hands-on component.

2) Re: Shelo Asani Isha:   Sara Leah claimed this was typcial and 
illustrative of a certain Rabbinic mysoginistic mindset. I pointed her to the 
Tur, Shulchan Aruch, Mishnah Brurah etc. and said they they have a completely 
different ratoinale based upon a hierarchy of Mitzvah obligation.  She objec
ted that it was patently obvious to her what the rabbinic philosopjhy was. I 
asked her: "have YOU seen the classical texts inside ?" She said no.  I told 
her that JUST as the rabbis in case #1 failed to investigate the reality of 
Women's Tefillah so had she failed to investigate the Rabbinic "reality" - 
IOW the classic poskim - and that therefore her conclusions about the 
underlying psychology was flawed because it failed to take into consideration 
THEIR Gestalt.

Points?
It is painfully obvious that the methodologies ought to consider BOTH the 
facts on the ground AND The classcial Halachic texts as well and that one may 
not ignore either lest one come to intellectually dishonest conclusions.

Later on that evening I turned to Sara Leah's husband Shlomoh {not his real 
name} and asked him if I was ever going to be invited back?  He told me yes, 
but it might be a while --smile--
-------------------------

This to me is an example of how texts and minhag ought to be properly weighed 
and balanced in reality.  If text alone was "uber alles", e.g. Tosafos would 
simply have dismissed various minhaggim as flawed.  He did not. He sought to 
harmonize.

And that is how talmidei chachamim are marbim shalom ba'alom.  IMHO this 
requires a sensitivity BOTH to the classic understanding of Halachah and to 
how it  "apprarently deviated" in reality or over time. 

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Quick Survey:
 
R Y Karo's Bedek Habayyis - Tur Choshen Mishpat 25
<< And I say in this age it has spread (pashat hadavar) in all of our 
territories to decide like the Rambam - EXCEPT in a few places where his 
words are difficult and they have not plumbed to the depths of his  
thought...>>

RY Karo in SA Choshen Mishpat 25:1
....if he erred in revealed things such as those expressed in Mishna, or 
Talmud OR POSKIM {empahsis mine}... {IOW the Mehcabeir adds the workd Poskim 
to the Rambam's formulation

Darchei Moshe Tur 25:4 
<<... There is no power for an individual to argue to be lenient in something 
the Sages have been stringent in the compendiums that have spread UNLESS one 
has a Tradition {kabbalah} in his hand that we do not behave like that 
Compendium...>

Sefer Me'iras Ha'eynayyim 24:18/19
<<The Mordechai wrote in Ksubbos that we always decide like Rav Alphas Except 
in the case that Tosafos argues upon him...>>
Also cited by Ba'eir Heitev 25:13

Pischei Tshuva 25:1
..that everything that is sasam {closed} like the Bes Yoseph in the SA and 
none after him argued upon him it is a dvar mishna, and i nthe place that the 
Rema brings those who argue and he agrees with those {i.e that argue} it is 
also like a dvar Mishna in those lands that behave {nohaginn} like him.  
{However,} where the rema says "some say"  {yeish omrim} and he did not 
decide thhen the Sefer M'eroias haynayim and the shach are like dvar 
mishna....

Beiur haGRA
<<25:6: that upon the gmara we have no permissoin to add or detract and 
certainly not to argue as it says in Bav Metzia chapter 6:1 Rabbeinu and Rav 
Ashi are "sof hora'ah" {the end of decision}...>>

GRA - 25:7
<<Avoda Zara 36:A in all you can nullify since it has spread... if it has 
spread to the majority of Israel even the  great court may not nullify; 
{OTOH} not spread and most of the tzibbur cannot withstand it even a small 
court may nullify...>>

----------------------------------------
NB:
Tur, BY, Rema and Shach were Ma'arich so much it is hard to do justice in 
this post.
The Shach wrote a full compendium on this  

NB: I will commentBEH on these point in a subsequent post.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 12/27/01 1:02:50pm EST, Eliyahu acgerstl@hotmail.com writes:
> So this example illustrates that the process of Pesak requires
> deliberation by the Dayan/Posek and therefore it follows, IIUC, that even
> if a Sefer has become authoritative by reason of widespread acceptance, a
> Dayan/Posek cannot merely rely on such authority without first considering
> the specific Halachic issues involved in the case before him, as Horaah
> emanates from the Dayan/Posek, not from the Sefer.

I more or less agree.

But if for example the Mishna Brurah's take on the Shulchan Aruch is 
widespread and then a poseik uses his own interpretation - and overooks this 
widespread versoin - then AISI he can be deemed a toei'h bedivar Mishna

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 1/5/02 10:37:00pm EST, erics@radix.net writes:
> The question is benefitting from a malacha done on shabbos. R Meir
> (Chullin 15a) says that if b'shogeg, it is muter during shabbos; R Yehuda
> says is it ossur until after shabbos. Apparently the Geonim, the Rif,
> and Rambam all agree with R Yehuda. (And so does the Rosh, and do the
> Mechaber). But Tosafos holds by R Meir. The obvious question: how can
> Tosafos do that? Can a Rishon resurrect a tannaic opinion, even tho'
> everyone subsequent to the tanna has rejected it? Further, the Mechaber
> and Rema hold by R Yehuda, but then the Gra held like R Meir. Again:
> how can he do that? If Rosh, and Mechaber and Rema all hold one way,
> how does one simply take a Tosafos and overturn all that?

Another point about resurrecting.

Was the matter decided or still in flux? 

See Kahatii at the end of Massechess Rosh Hashanha re: the way we blow 
shvarim

R. Abahu institued the chumros of Shvarim Truah Sharaim and Truah
q:  How come we just don't follow our Masorah?  
a: they DID but there were varying masoros.  R. Abahu standardized them into 
ONE common collective inclusive normative chumradik way. BEFORE R. Abahu 
people wer yotzei each in their own way. (as per Kahatti beshiem R. Hai Gaon 
Iirc)

Thus the matter was in flux and it was settled.  But it was not settled by 
one hista overcoming another, but by anb inclusive chumra.

FWIW, I opose that methodoolgy of tyring to be yotzei lechal hadei'os but I 
do agree that we have authority to overturn R. Abahu NOW.

in terms of pluralism I would like to see a good article on nahara nahara 
upashtei

and I am curious why this was not good enough for shvarim and what prompted 
R. Abahu to make this standardized  

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

One of the best artciulatoins of Halachic Philosophy - IMHO - is Rabbiy
Binyomin Forsts intro to Artscroll's "The Laws of Kashrus" poarticularly
pp. 21-23.

IIRC this is quite Hirschian - after all R. Forst is related to Schwab
clan.

It would be nice if someone could scan in these pages and post them -
with proper copyright notification etc.

I might add that AISI the Nishma - i.e. personal reflection upon the
preformance of a Mitzvah - is indeed just that personal. Michah and I
seem to have a dispute if there is a valid, normative range or acceptable
reflections.

Maybe there is, but that is IMHO between the person and his Creator and
falls under the rubric of Hanistaros Lashem. OTOH, normative Halachic
conformance is a communal responsiblity falling under the rubric of
v'haniglos Lanu.

The Na'aseh - ie. Halachah and observance remains societal, public and
somewhat stable, while the Nishmah is personal, internal and evolves as
times and places change, as wel as education and philosophies.

The Halachos of Kashrus are relatively immutable, whether you see them as
Rational and Hygenic {e.g. Rambam} or Spiritual and Inspriratoinal {e.g.
RambaN} is a matter of taste.

What makes them required is both the commitment at Sinai and the communal
commitment to Mamleches Kohanim v'Goy Kadosh. The insight from observance
is not a factor in creating the obligation, rather it is a derived
benefit in this world from the Nishma aspect.

With that same approach we can deal with Theodicy.

E.G.: I cannot EXPLAIN the holocaust 
BUT I can dreive lessons from it.

And it is this very confusion that led people to ab-react to R. Ovadiah
Yosef's (ROY) point re: gilgul

What do I mean?

Only HKBH can command us to do a given mitzvah but EACH of us can derive
a personal meaning from performing a mitzvah

Similarly ONLY HKBH can explain or justify a Holocast, but any of us
can derive lessons from reflecting upon the Holocaust.

It is sad that some people feel that these reflectoins engender some kind
of blaming mindset. That is perhaps due to the sensitivity of the issue.
Maybe time will heal that as it has re: the Churban which is quite freely
interpreted nowadays w/o regard to hurt feelings.

It is beyond human comprehension to fathom the depths of what triggers
a mitzvah or a tragedy, but it is a MOST human function to reflect upon
the experience. All of us in the NYC environs certainly have taken a
deep reflectoin on the events of 9/11 and no doubt those in EY have been
a deep state of reflection with the advent of the latest intifada that
has lasted well over a year now. RL.

Bottom line:
It is our obligatoin to find meaning, but that found meaning is in no
way a reflection of what triggers the obligation. Similarly we can find
meaning in suffering but that is no way mean we are truly capable of
knwoing tis true underlying cause.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 1/7/02 9:00:33am EST, dbnet@zahav.net.il writes:
> Long before RYBS pushed for the re-introduction of the selichot in
> shaharit, musaf, and minha on Yom Kippur, the Arukh Hashulchan complained
> bitterly about the "new custom" of omitting them. IIRC, he blames it on
> the development of chazzanut and ribbui niggunim which left no time for
> what he considers most important on Y"K....
> Well, at least we all still say them in maariv and ne'ila.

> For those who want to see the selichot which no longer appear in our
> machzorim, I recommend Goldschmidt's Y"K machzor. R' Daniel Goldschmidt's
> siddurim and machzorim have been discussed in Avodah before and should
> appear in the archives. He brings not only the "standard" Ashkenazic
> seder but also the variations of different kehilot from East and West...

> For those, like me who like to shorten the davening, use Goldschmidt...

> Lately, new machzor editions have begun to omit completely those piyyutim
> that are usually skipped over. The more conservative, having less chutzpa,
> have moved them in an appendix at the back of the book...

> I am machmir on the subject of dillugei piyyutim. One is not yotzei y'dei
> dillug if the piyyut is not in the book or if it is an appendix....

just to re-iterate a few points
1) I am glad RYBS restored slichos. My complaints were only that
some/many of his talmiddim did not use traditional sources but went on
and added their own ideas of what the slichos SHOULD look like rather
than investigate how they a cutally DID look

2) My complaints about liturgy in general is that while it IS OK to
skip certain pasages due to Time/Tircha, it is IMHO NOT OK to re-write
or omit traditional pasages. The Roedelheim YK Avodah constins full
paragrahs, many of which the first and last 2 lines are in bold print
while the remained is in small prin- suggesting that they be omitted.
But for those scholars who are in need of the missinglines in order to
make sense of the piyyut as a whole the entire passage is there.

Illsutration:
When I started as Chazzan in my shul the choir leader gave me choir
notes to learn. but the chori notes were so over-simplified as to omit
the Cantorial solos! Many were uselfes to me. IMHO a good set of music
has the notes you sing/play and ALSO the ones you do NOT sing. Then you
can see where your piece or line fits into the whole!
Similarly, it is certainly OK for a shul to say less than the entire
corpus of litrugy, but it is IMHO NOT a good idea to re-write the texts
out of a sense of convenience. This is how the chain of tradition gets
broken! And that is precisely what happened to the talmidim of RYBS.
W/O a living Msorah of what Slichos to restore, they went off and
published their own! Now if they were masters at piyyutim themselves that
might have been OK, but let me say that some put together a patchquilt
hodge-podge. That is because they were often Talmudic scholars who had
no knoweldge nor sensitivity to the litugrgy as a structure. OTOH note
that RYBS himself was well aware of the nuances.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

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


[ 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         ]