Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 097

Thursday, January 24 2002

• Re: reproducibility
• Re: reproducibility
• Re: Chizkuni on Kriyas Yam Suf
• Re: Yam Suf
• Halachic methodology - Minhag
• Re: Halachic methodology - Minhag {more}
• two different supplications for Sholom at end of Kaddish
• Re:two different supplications for Sholom at end of Kaddish
• From whence Kohanim
• Re: Cholov Yisroel & Cholov Hacompanies
• RE: chalv hacompanies
• Halachic Issues With MLK Day
• eruv
• Re: eruv
• Re: Yam Suf
• Re: Eid Mipi Eid BeIssurim
• Re: Kaddish
• Re: two different supplications for Sholom at end of Kaddish
• Covering hair for unwed girls
• Din Torah
• Re: Halachic methodology - Minhag {more}
• Re: Halachic methodology - Minhag {more}

In a message dated 1/16/02 4:30:26pm EST, David Riceman dr@insight.att.com
writes:
> Perhaps some of the practicing rabbanim on the list might comment on this.
> How does one go about determining exactly what tikkun a particular
> neshama is here to effect? Why does the Shulhan Aruch not discuss this
> more explicitly? This doesn't seem to fit neatly into categories like
> hefsed mruba and shaath hadchak.

About 2-3 years ago I posted thusly
There is objective Halachah.  Chatzos is about midnight...

Then there is SUBJECTIVE Halachah.
When a Cahssid went to r. Nachman of Breslov and asked about getting up
at 4:00 AM to say Tikkun Chatzos: Rav Nachman replied: "for YOU 4:00 AM
IS Chatzos!"

Ths shulchan Aruch is not about to make thse kinds of exceptions

To repeat my other post {Note: micha feel free to combine them} Rabban
Gamliel did not emend th mishna ot make exceptions for his being an
istenis or for Tevi avdo. There is clearly a gap between objective
and subjective that must be recognized by poskim in the field, but not
necessarily by authors of authoritative Halachic works.

Here is an example of such a gap: Where do we bury a suicide RL victim?
The letter of the Halachah is quite clear, {i.e outside the Beis Olam}
but the practice is to be very forgiving and to assume that the "da'as"
clause is absent in any one who does suicide - except for perhaps a person
like Kevorkian who beshita holds it's OK. anyone else is presumed to
have done so under durress and is an anus RL.

so why not re-write the Din? Sometimes we need to have the fallback
position of the Din as written in our "arsenal of reserves"

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 1/16/02 4:30:26pm EST, David Riceman dr@insight.att.com
writes:
> Perhaps some of the practicing rabbanim on the list might comment on this.
> How does one go about determining exactly what tikkun a particular
> neshama is here to effect? Why does the Shulhan Aruch not discuss this
> more explicitly? This doesn't seem to fit neatly into categories like
> hefsed mruba and shaath hadchak.

About 2-3 years ago I posted thusly
There is objective Halachah.  Chatzos is about midnight...

Then there is SUBJECTIVE Halachah.
When a Cahssid went to r. Nachman of Breslov and asked about getting up
at 4:00 AM to say Tikkun Chatzos: Rav Nachman replied: "for YOU 4:00 AM
IS Chatzos!"

Ths shulchan Aruch is not about to make thse kinds of exceptions

To repeat my other post {Note: micha feel free to combine them} Rabban
Gamliel did not emend th mishna ot make exceptions for his being an
istenis or for Tevi avdo. There is clearly a gap between objective
and subjective that must be recognized by poskim in the field, but not
necessarily by authors of authoritative Halachic works.

Here is an example of such a gap: Where do we bury a suicide RL victim?
The letter of the Halachah is quite clear, {i.e outside the Beis Olam}
but the practice is to be very forgiving and to assume that the "da'as"
clause is absent in any one who does suicide - except for perhaps a person
like Kevorkian who beshita holds it's OK. anyone else is presumed to
have done so under durress and is an anus RL.

so why not re-write the Din? Sometimes we need to have the fallback
position of the Din as written in our "arsenal of reserves"

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

<< e. Checking his references in the back, he is gong acccording
 to Chizkuni 14:22 which says they went in a half circle coming in and
 going out on the same side. Does anyone else say this? a midrash? >>

Check out the Toras Chaim ( Mossad harav Kook edition of the Chizkuni)
. The makoros cited in the footnotes are Bamidbar 33: 6-8, and Tosfos
in Erachin 16a D'H Kshem.. These are not exactly unknown references.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Schild" <hgschild@hotmail.com>
> Eliyahu Kitov Sefer HaParshiyot brings that the Yiddin went through the
> Yam Suf "like a bow" and his picture shows they went in and out on the
> same side. Checking his references in the back, he is gong acccording
> to Chizkuni 14:22 which says they went in a half circle coming in and
> going out on the same side. Does anyone else say this? a midrash?
> Or is this a unique opinion? The Artscroll Rishonim book says the Chizkuni
> liked to quote "less popular" views.

FWIW, that's how we were always taught it happened. You are surprising me
now with the contention that anyone *disagrees* with this. I know the Me'am
Lo'ez brings this shitts also.

Shlomoh

From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
> Re: Birchas Hanosein Layaeif Koach
> Tur Orach Chaim 46
>    There is another bracha in the Siddurei Ashkenaz - Hanosein layaeif 
>    Ko'ach...
>    and it was instituted...according to the Midrash on Chashshim labkorim...
> BY there (SK 6 in the NEW Tur Hashalem)
>   Even though there is a beautiful Smach - since it was not mentioned in the 
>    Talmud I do not know how there is premission to institute this Brachah.  I 
> Aruch Hashulchan {AHS} 46:6
> ...perhaps they had this nusach IN THEIR GMARA...  

I don't know how you missed it, but the Bach says the same thing quite
definitively on that place in the Tur - that it must have come from an
alternate nusach in their gemaras.

In a message dated 1/21/02 7:56:16pm EST, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com writes:
> Re: Birchas Hanosein Layaeif Koach
...

more comments:

The GRA remains an enigma to me.

It also seems that the Yeshivishe Velt has over time adapted the Rambam's
model and that is how come Minhag Ashkenaz has become so problematic. This
Rambam's school inlcudes: Brisk, Maharitz Chayes.

The GRA and Ba'al Hatanya kept SOME minhaggei Ashkenaz, but tended to
be influenced by Zohar into revising much of the liturgy.

What is interesting to note is that while R. Chaim Volozhiner probably
deviated fro mMinhag Ashkenaz due to Kabbalistic influcnecs, his
descendant R. Chim Brisker probably deviated more because of Maimonidian
influence,

Chevra: I have nothing but repsect for the Rambam and Beis Yosef.
But their Halachic methodology is Sephardic and not Ashkenazic.

An interesting side note is that while the Rambam felt that one may always
appeal to the Talmud - at least so I am told by those who claim to know -
the BY did rely upon Poskim and did not himself go back to the Talmud to

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

The ARizal who says to say it is brought down in the Shaarei Tshuvah and
the Kaf Hachayyim. Apparetnly the Arizal felt that Ruach Hakodesh was
enough of a reason to intoduce something into the nusach even though it
was not a bracha in the Gmara.

 From what I understand from a M'kubbal, Kabbalistic hanhaggah is the
province of M'kubbalim alone and therefore the tzibbur at large should
follow the Talmud and poskim and NOT the Kabbalah. Obviously Hassidim
hold otherwise.

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

Can LATER minhagim evolve to overrule Psak? It's possible, but the
Minhaggim I refer to are primarily those of the rishonim and preserved
by Tosasofs, Maharil and Rema. These are what Dr. Israel Ta Shma {DITS}
calls "Minhag Ashkenaz Hakadmon." The suppositoin is that these are
Minhaggim that are gradnfathered in BEFORE "sof Hora'ah". That is a
different genre then LATER Minhaggim.

It is possible - accroding to posts sevearl years ago in Avodah - that
not sitting in the sukkah on Shmini Atzeres in galus has such a pedigree
and is not simply a heter given circa 1750-1800. This shifted its status
in my book.

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

Note again the Mharshal seems to be of the Talmud Only opinion,
this quoted both in the Taz here and IIRC the NoBi YD(1) 86. Why the
Mharshal rejected Minhaggim kadmonim I do not know. ALSO AFIK hIt is
also an opponent of SA and Rema. In fact, any Acharonim who seek to use
the Talmud to abrogate the SA might have their roots in this davaka in
this shita.

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

Despite the BY rejecting post Talmudic Minhaggim, he is OTOH very
defferential to post-almudic POSKIM. By using a BD of Rishonim he in
effect rejects going back to the Talmud himself to revise Halachah.
He just rejects post-Talmudic Minhaggim not rooted in the Talmud.

--------------------------------------------------------
Coming attractions BEH
IM Orach Chaim(2) #100
Tur/SA 68 re: "yotzros" 

 Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> We say two requests at the end of kaddish: yehe shelama raba.....alenu
> ve'al kol Yisrael Hu ya'aseh shalom alenu ve'al kol Yisrael.

> Aside from one being leshon hakodesh and one Aramaic, why the two
> seemingly duplicate requests?

Was this never discussed here before?

I was thinking about this a while ago.......

Some thoughts...

Perhaps the former requests some type of infusion of peace from heaven,
while the latter requests HKB"H making sholom - perhaps something like
resolving or alleviating pre-existing conflicts.

I noticed that R. Dr. Seligman Baer in his siddur Avodas Yisroel
(recently republished in Yerusholayim and therefore available, btw)
raises this question.

IIRC he says as follows -

Yehei shlomo rabbo...was originally the end of Kaddish. A bakosho for
Sholom was placed there in order to end with Sholom.

Later oseh Sholom....was added to it from the end of shmoneh esreh to
add the stepping back three steps and bowing left, right and center,
which goes along with that, at the end of Kaddish, as by the end of
shmoneh esreih.

Perhaps there is more on this elsewhere but that it is all I have here
right now, so I will send it along to get the ball rolling on this
matter.......

Mordechai

Phyllostac@aol.com writes:
:Was this never discussed here before?

Not to my recollection.

:Perhaps the former requests some type of infusion of peace from heaven,
:while the latter requests HKB"H making sholom - perhaps something like
:resolving or alleviating pre-existing conflicts.

This is similar to the Aruch Hashulchan's explanation, but I was not
completely satisfied with that.

I noticed that R. Dr. Seligman Baer in his siddur

:Yehei shlomo rabbo...was originally the end of Kaddish. A bakosho for
:Sholom was placed there in order to end with Sholom.

The AH says that da'amiran be'alma was the end, and both bakashos were
subsequently added.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

								Bs"D
Where there more Kohanim m'yuchasim around after Doeg's slaughter at Nov,
or was Evyasar the only one? According to (IIRC) the Ralbag, Beis Eli was
descended from Isamar, while other Kohanim Gedolim were all from Pinchas.
Does this include Tzadok, who took over from Evyasar? If there were others
besides the Kohanim from Nov, how does one tyche Tosfos on Brochos 4b,
which states that it was obvious Evyasar was the CG, because there was
no-one else to be CG since Doeg had slaughtered everyone else? If there
weren't, how does on explain the Gemora in RH 18a which notes that Rabbah
and Abayei were from Beis Eli - which other battei avos could they have
come from?

Eli

The main point of this post is to demonstrate my belief that although
Rav Moshe Feinstein did allow "chalav hacompanies", he was vague and/or
contradictory on whether this was the "ikkar" or a "kulla".

On Areivim, R' Shlomo Abeles wrote: <<< From RMF's words it is quite
obvious that it is a 'kullo' and NOT 'm'ikkar hadin'. To re-quote:
"...ibra d'ikka taamim LEHOKEL ...hu RAK B'SHAAS HADCHAK..." Seems quite
clear to me. ... I have [in recent times] not gone through all RMF's
tshuvos on this subject. The one I quote above is from the volume 8 of
IM - the final one AIUI. >>>

Unfortunately, that last chelek is the only one which I don't have,
but I'd like to bring some quotes from the other volumes.

But first, I must point out something which really deserves its own
thread. And that is the word "machmir" and "mekil" are RELATIVE terms.
Using one of these terms *may* mean that the other case is the "ikkar"
halacha, or it might just illustrate the relative position of the
two terms.

Please consider the following, which is my translation of the last two
paragraphs of Igros Moshe YD 1:47. [Brackets indicate my extra words.]
Please note that he refers to Chalav haCompanies as a kulla, but he
also refers to Jewish milk as a chumra. My opinion is that Rav Moshe
(in this teshuva, at least) holds that allowing ChC is the ikkar, but
I'll admit that there is room for debate.

<<< So the milk which they forbade is only when milked by a non-Jew with
no Jew watching. It can be permitted also when a Jew knows [the milking]
clearly, which is like seeing. The fact is that if they would mix in
[treif milk], they would be punished, and would have to close their
business, which would be a [loss of?] profit of many thousands, and the
government watches over them -- this is certainly a "yediah berurah",
which is just like seeing, so it is not includied in their prohibition.
Furthermore, this is l'kulay alma, for there is no reason to make any
distinction. Therefore, one who wants to rely and be maykil has good
reason [to do so], and is allowed, just like most people who are shomrei
mitzvos - and also many rabanim - are maykil. And chas v'chalilah to say
that they are acting shelo k'din! But nevertheless, for baalei nefesh,
it is proper (min haraui) to be machmir, and this does not constitute
yuhara. And so I am noheg to be machmir myself, but one who wants to
be maykil is acting k'din, and should not be considered as a m'zalzel
b'issurin.

<<< If someone was [already] noheg to be machmir, is he forbidden because
of a 3-times minhag? It depends. If his kavana was to be machmir even if
[he thought that] the din is to allow it, and certainly if he himself
knew that there is reason to allow it, and he nevertheless acted [as if
it is] forbidden, then there is a neder prohibition on him, which he did
three times. But if he was machmir because he had thought that it is assur
m'dina, or even only assur m'safek, and he thought that the maykilim are
mistaken about the halacha, or that perhaps they are m'zalzel in issurim,
[then] he does not have the din of a neder as a result of his actions,
and he does not need hataras nedarim. >>> Ad caan Igros Moshe.

For an example of where I agree that Rav Moshe *does* describe a certain
milk as allowable but clearly below the "ikkar hadin" standard, see the
end of YD 1:49. In the last paragraph there, he distinguishes between
the milk of a non-Jewish company and that of a Jewish company, and in
his final sentence, he writes <<< Therefore, do not protest those who
act permissibly even with milk of Jewish companies who buy their milk
from farmers even though the heter is not clear, because in any case
they do have upon whom to rely. >>>

The Igros Moshe YD 2:35 presents another perspective on the issue. This
is the famous one where he discusses what the yeshivos should do. First
I'll quote what he writes, and then I'll give my comments.

<<< Regarding the milk of the companies in this country, which I explained
in Igros Moshe YD 47 is not forbidden as "milk which a non-Jew milked
without a Jew watching". But nevertheless, it is proper for baalei
nefesh to be strict, and for this reason it is definitely proper for the
administrators of the Yeshivos Ketanos to give the students milk of the
companies which have a Jew to watch the milking, even if it is a little
more expensive, which will then be a large total for the yeshiva over
the course of the year, and the yeshivos are hard-pressed these years,
for which reason some yeshivos are maykil. Nevertheless it is appropriate
to be machmir, because this too is an aspect of education and learning,
so that they will know that it is appropriate and proper for bnei
Torah to be machmir even when there is only a "chashash issur". From
this they will understand to see how to fear from issurin. Aren't all
the expenses of the yeshiva to teach a geenration loyal to Hashem and
His Torah? Don't be cheap when it comes to chinuch. But in the distant
places where they don't have milk companies where a Jew watches, and it
is a very difficult thing to obtain milk where a Jew was watching the
milking, even individuals do not need to be machmir. >>>

To me, the most sigificant part of this paragraph is the reason *why*
Rav Moshe suggest that the yeshivos go to this extra expense. It is
*not* to willy-nilly follow strict shitos. Rather, it is to teach <<<
bnei Torah to be machmir even when there is only a "chashash issur". >>>
But what chashash issur exists l'shitaso? Didn't Rav Moshe himself write
in 1:47 that <<< this is l'kulay alma >>> ???

Another significant teshuva is YD 2:48. This teshuva concerns the making
of cottage cheese, but he makes an incidental remark on page 69, column 1,
lines 4-5: <<< To those who are maykil regarding chalav hacompanies, not
to consider it chalav akum, and I explained that the din leans that way
(she'ha'din noteh ken) ... >>> This might be the clearest example of all,
that Rav Moshe deliberately tried to avoid pinning down the "ikkar din".

Akiva Miller

RMB wrote [on Areivim]:
> I think the basic problem is that we seem to intuit a difference between
> a normal pesaq lehaqeil, and a qulah that one ought avoid (unless stuck).

> IOW, is is a qulah that we may rely on, except for aspiring ba'alei nefesh,
> or a qulah that the hamon am ought avoid.

Therefore we're arguing (in circles) as whic which RMF meant WRT ChC.

A question for Avodah: are these two separate things? If so, how do you
determine which is which, and how do they differ?

I would argue that there is a gradation.
1) kulla bishat hadehak
2) kulla acceptable by the rov am, given some conditions
3) ikkar hadin (even though ruling lekula against some shitot)
4) a humra for some

The original discussion was started (IIRC) by RSBA, who argued that the
psak on ChC was a kulla based on the needs of the community, (level 1,
perhaps 2).

My point was that it seems from the conduct of RMF's family is that he
viewed it as being the third shitta - it was ikkar hadin (his family
isn't quite the rov am, and they don't take kulot lightly), and that
Chalav Yisrael rather than ChC was #4 - something that he took on himself.

Meir Shinnar

Someone had asked [on Areivim] what halachic issues there can be
with Yoma deMalka - King Day. According to Chaim Berliners, it is
assur to acknowledge any day that is based on the secular calendar.
See R. Michael Broyde's analysis in his article on Thanksgiving
(http://www.tfdixie.com/special/thanksg.htm#A06).

Gil Student

>As noted it is common practice for yeshiva bochurim not to rely on
>an eruv and see their wives push the carriages and shlep the kids
...

If the couple is going to visit people why is it more shaat hadchak for
the mother than the father of the children?
In many cases I know they are visiting relatives of the man but it is
still the wife that pushes the carriage

Eli Turkel

On 22 Jan 2002 at 10:23, Eli Turkel wrote:
> If the couple is going to visit people why is it more shaat hadchak for
> the mother than the father of the children?
> In many cases I know they are visiting relatives of the man but it is
> still the wife that pushes the carriage

I think because there is a presumption that the wife is the one who is
tied to the child. This would certainly be the case if the child were
an infant and the mother were nursing.

-- Carl

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

In a message dated 1/21/02 7:20:39pm EST, hgschild@hotmail.com writes:
> Eliyahu Kitov Sefer HaParshiyot brings that the Yiddin went through the
> Yam Suf "like a bow" and his picture shows they went in and out on the
> same side. Checking his references in the back, he is gong acccording
> to Chizkuni 14:22...

See Tos. D"H Kisheim She'onu Olin, Eirchin (or Arochim :-)) 15a

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 1/21/02 7:20:09pm EST, avrahamyaakov@hotmail.com writes:
> Gil Student writes:
> >I have this vague recollection that eid mipi eid is kasher be'issurin.
> See Gemara Bechorois 36:1, and S"A Y"D 314:5, Even Hoezer 7:2,

See Below.
> >I thought it was in a Ketzos but I could not find it.

> you're probably reffering to Chap. 284:1

IIUIC there is in a case of Yerusha pure Dinei Momonos.

Here is my off line response,

See Shabbos 145b, Bchoros 36a (brought Lhalacha), note the language
"Leidus S'h'isha Ksheira Lah" and see Rashi D"H Beidus Bchor (brought
in the Gilyon Hashas) where it is obvious that by all Eid Echod Nemon
Bissurim it is good, note also Rashi's language Chulin 10b D"H Eid
Echood that implies that it is Bichlal not Bgeder Eidus, Nafka Mina WRT
Eid Echod Bhakchasha (Y"D 1:14, 127:1, 185:4, see TZ there) see Arichus
in S"A Horav Y"D 1 Kuntres Achron 15, this also has some Nafka Mina WRT
Hazama see Ktzos 38, and in his Mishoveiv Nsivos (printed in the back)
where he briefly mentions Ei Mpi Eid, however even his Din is where 2
testify, (Wether MItzad Hasfofeik or because he rules that one is not
Bgeder Eidus), (the same issue might be raised WRT Mpi Ksavam).

And see Shach (And S"A Horav) on Y"D 188:2.

and here is a third persons comments on above:
...just some points lfum rihata:
I question wether the sugya in shabbos and bchoros is relevent since it's
a milsa davidu liglua (like Rashi writes in Sanhedrin) - which is lichora
the reason of eidus isha also.
OTOH see Sfas Emes 145b in Shabos were he makes a chiluk if geder aidus
is not needed then EME works (like you wrote), however eidus bchor and
isha is begeder eidus ay"sh. See also Chavas Daas YD 98:1 (mentioned in
the Mishoveiv you brought).
Just found this issue in Sdei Chemed v3 p 618 (maareches ayin klal 7).

My response to above:

See Sugia in Bchoros 36a (which Rashi quotes in Sanhedrin) that asking
of the Rav is what makes it a Milsa Davida Ligluei.

WRT Shabbos and Bchoros if we are to hold that it is Bgeder Eidus then
it will also help in any case that an Isha would be Nemon, see Sugia in
begining of Gitin and many places, Machlokes in issue, also i.e case of
checking for Toloim where there is issue of Atzlonus, could be question,
or that Lav Davka (Derech Agav, there are opinions (brought in Darkei
Tzhuvah Al Asar) that Bizman Hazeh women are more carefull then men).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 1/18/02 12:32:04pm EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> We say two requests at the end of kaddish: yehe shelama raba.....alenu
> ve'al kol Yisrael Hu ya'aseh shalom alenu ve'al kol Yisrael.

> Aside from one being leshon hakodesh and one Aramaic, why the two
> seemingly duplicate requests?

AIUI from the Rokeach that the Aramaic form is said as the Kadish is said
in that language that the people spoke, the Loshon Hakodesh version is
said for those Malochim that don't understand Aramaic, as Oseh Sholom
Bimromov refers to them.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

IIRC R'YBS explained the last (oseh shalom bmromav) as a prayer that
HKB"H create in this world the same peace that exists in the upper world
between the midot of din and rachamim(or maybe it was chesed and emet)
which we've discussed before as seeming often to yield conflicting
drachim in olam hazeh.

I always understood the penultimate (yhei shlama) as the more traditional
definition of peace.

kt
Joel Rich

As there was discussion regarding whether unwed girls need to cover there,
and if so when, enclosed is the URL that one can see discusion on this
topic taken from the Sefer Halichos Bas Yisroel from Rav Yitzchak Yaacov
Fuchs (Targum press), thanks to RMB.

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hairCovering.pdf

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

This is slightly different from a typical Avodah post. 

I am involved in a Din Torah, which is being called for approximately two
weeks from now. As many of you know, this is not typical of my practice
(I do corporate and securities work), and in fact, I am involved in
this Din Torah as a litigant and not as an attorney. But what I would
like to do is give you the facts, without telling you which side I am on
(changing one minor fact, which is not relevant to the outcome, to hide
which side I am on) and see where you all come out. Sources appreciated.

Reuvain and Shimon are driving side by side along a street in Yerushalayim
one fine day. As they are coming to a stop light, Reuvain's car hits a
pothole and the door swings open. The door hits Shimon's car and damages
the side of Shimon's car. Reuvain and Shimon exchange pratim.

Shimon notifies his insurance agent, who calls Reuvain. Reuvain says
that Shimon should get the car fixed and send him the paperwork and
that he, Reuvain, will pay for the damage directly, and to please leave
his insurance company out of this. Shimon gets the car fixed, gives his
insurance agent the bill, and the insurance agent sends the bill on to
Reuvain, with a request that Reuvain send payment to Shimon in care of
the insurance agent.

A few weeks go by, and the insurance agent does not receive a check.
The insurance agent calls Reuvain and asks why payment has not been
received, and Reuvain says, "I sent the check." The check does not
arrive. Eventually, after several more phone calls, Reuvain produces a
copy of the check, which has been paid by the bank. The check was sent to
Shimon at the insurance agent's address - no "in care of." Furthermore,
instead of being made out to "Shimon Joseph," the check was made out to
"Josepha Shimon." The check was also marked "pay only to payee;" it's
not supposed to be endorseable.

Shimon is suing Reuvain in Beis Din for the money that he never
received. Who wins and why? What are the other side's ta'anos?

Looking forward to hearing from all of you :-)

-- Carl

P.S. Once the discussion is finished, if you all want to know, I'll tell
you which side I am.

RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> Note again the Mharshal seems to be of the Talmud Only opinion,
> this quoted both in the Taz here and IIRC the NoBi YD(1) 86. Why the
> Mharshal rejected Minhaggim kadmonim I do not know.

You might want to reread his tshuva about tfillin on Hol HaMoed.  Seemed
pretty pro-minhag to me (admittedly it's  been a while since I looked at it).

David Riceman

> The GRA and Ba'al Hatanya kept SOME minhaggei Ashkenaz, but tended to
> be influenced by Zohar into revising much of the liturgy.
>
The GRA?! Can you give such an example . . . ?

> What is interesting to note is that while R. Chaim Volozhiner probably
> deviated fro mMinhag Ashkenaz due to Kabbalistic influcnecs,

Again, example . . .
> The ARizal who says to say it is brought down in the Shaarei Tshuvah and
> the Kaf Hachayyim. Apparetnly the Arizal felt that Ruach Hakodesh was
> enough of a reason to intoduce something into the nusach even though it
> was not a bracha in the Gmara.

I wasn't following the whole thread, so forgive me if I repeat, but what
where in the gemara does it say that a nusach b'racha can't be coined later?
That we can't change a bracha *already* coined I can find a m'kor, but that
more can't be added? Isn't this an "invention" of the Rishonim? So couldn't
the Achronim decide to pasken like "the Gaon" against the Rishonim?

Shlomoh

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


[ 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         ]