Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 130

Wednesday, March 19 2003

• Re: REED and spirtuality
• Re: Emuna/Bitachon - serenity or dialectic tension?
• Re: Dancing at the Kotel
• Amalek
• Re: Timcheh and Lo Tishkach
• Re: Zecher and Zeicher
• Agag and the Pursuit of Peace
• Re: Question on today's haftorah (Avodah V10 #129)
• Re: REED and spirtuality
• Re: hora'as sh'oah --
• Re: hora'as sh'oah --
• re: timely and important words from Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hirsch Weinreb
• Re: Minhag hamaqom
• Re: Minhag hamaqom
• leining Shema
• Re: Question on today's haftorah
• Chiyuv keriyas hatorah - parshas zachor
• Bigdei Kehunah/Torah Sh'ba'al peh
• Re: Chiyuv keriyas hatorah - parshas zachor
• Shmuel vs Amalek
• why not yotze?
• Re: why not yotze?
• re: why not yotze?
• Beracha Acharona
• Re: Minhag hamaqom
• Piskei Ramo

> Where exactly are the MME's that have been cited in this 
> discussion?

That was exactly one of the major differences posited by Dr David Shatz
in his presentation re RYBS at the Ou Convention in which he compared
the approaches of RYBS and REED to technology and science.

Steve Brizel
eliglaw@aol.com

> I see your long list of sources as proof that both sides of this dialectic
> are well in mesorah. That's not to say that supporting one means denying
> the other. And the picture is more two-sided than you present.

> You don't mention Ya'aqov's struggle to acheive quiet "be'eretz megurei
> aviv, be'eretz Kena'an". Just as it's almost in his grasp, Yosef is
> torn from him ("tarof toraf" not being total sheqer, in this sense).
> He does eventually get it -- in its time.

Let me try to clarify my point. I am not asserting that figures in Tanach
were always struggling while post Tanach figures were always accepting.

1) The issue is that the existential struggles are typically found in
Tanach and not post Tanach.

2)The figures who challenge G-d's justice and remain believers seem to
be in Tanach

3) The model of bitachon found in Chovas Halevavos and other rishonim
does not fit comfortably with figures in Tanach - e.g., Yaakov Avinu's
fear as the Rambam, R' Elchonon Wasserman, Leshem etc point out.

4) R' Soleveitchik's model fits figures very well in Tanach but does
not seem to fit well with that of the Rishonim.

5) The issue that concerns me is that while the Rishonim and medrashim
acknowledge existential issues for figures in Tanach - they do not
seem to use them as a model for contemporary yiddishkeit. The dialectic
model seems to be universally accepted as applying to figures of Tanach
but not post tanach. R' Soleveitchik in contrast seems to be asserting
that dialectic existential yiddishkeit is also the norm for contemporary
yiddishkeit. What sources, justification etc., did he have for asserting
this as universal norm - in apparent absence of support from the Rishonim?


                                             Daniel Eidensohn

On 16 Mar 2003 at 11:41, Ya'akov Ellis wrote:
> Rav Sternbuch makes his point very clearly (and gives psak) that it is
> assur to dance at the kotel and that it is inappropriate to show any
> joy there. Immediately afterwards he notes how hundreds and thousands
> are dancing and singing at the kotel every week. My question is: how
> are we to reconcile these two apparently contradictory shitot
> regarding appropriate modes of behavior at the kotel? Since there are
> so many people who consistently show joy and dance at the kotel,
> presumably there is legitimate halachic grounds for doing so...does
> anyone know of anything specific addressing this issue (especially
> from the position that it is appropriate and permissible to dance,
> sing and show joy at the kotel)?

When I was in Yeshivat HaKotel, I once asked someone how we can
stare at the Har HaBayis and still feel "u'mipnei cha'to'ainu galeenu
mei'artzeinu." After all, we're right there! And he answered quite
simply, "look what's up there. We're so close, and yet we're so far."
And I realized immediately that he was right - seeing what's there and
thinking about what we're missing gave me a greater appreciation for
what we're missing.

So how can one be joyful in the area of Har HaBayis? I think that the
Gemara at the end of Makkos provides an answer. The other tanaim cried
when they saw a fox coming out of Kodesh ha'Kodoshim. But Rabbi Akiva
laughed. And if Rabbi Akiva could laugh because he knew the geula was
coming to "Har Tziyon she'shameim shualim hilchu bo," how much more so
can we laugh when on the one hand we see the nevala that's now on the
Har HaBayis R"L and the attempts made by its occupants to make sure
the churban is complete, yet on the other hand there is such a feeling
of ikvisa d'mshicha here today that I cannot begin to describe it to
you. "Ode yeishvu zkeinim u'zkeinos b'chutzos Yerushalayim." In this week
in which we use Simcha to overcome Safek, with a possible gog u'magog
sitting just a couple hundred miles to our east, may we be zocheh to
see the Geula Shleima b'mheira b'yameinu.

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@fandz.com      mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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.

Gershon:
> Why did Shemuel tell Agag "ka'asher shikla nashim charbecha..."? Why did
> he need to give a reason and not just kill him because of the mitzva of
> mechiyas Amalek? And particularly to explain it to Agag?

Rashi (if memory serves) says that shikla nashim refers to Amalek
being misareis B'nei Yisrael (aka vayzaneiv), and that Shmuel was
explaining an (additional?) aspect of Agag's culpability.

On R' Carl Sherer's suggestion that we <<< learn it as "timcheh", but
until you're m'kayem "timcheh," "lo tishkach." >>>, I responded <<<
the corollary would be that once "timcheh" has been accompliched, then
"lo tishkach" will no longer apply. >>>

R' Micha Berger's comment: <<< One second: has timcheh happened already?
According to pretty much everyone but RCBrisker, Eliyahu haNavi will
locate Sancheirev's other victims, the 10 shevatim. Will he identify
Amaleiq, or is their current anonymity their destruction? >>>

Whoa!!! Are you suggesting that we might consider Amalek as already
destroyed, and that (according to R' Carl) "lo tishkach" *already*
doesn't apply? If so, then is Parshas Zachor a real d'Oraisa, or merely
a zecher of a d'Oraisa?

I wrote <<< That's quite a chidush, and I think it should be held with
some delicacy unless a source can be cited that this chiyuv d'oraisa will
(or may) become batel at some point in the future. >>>

R' Micha answered <<< there are already statements in the Zohar about
mitzvos not applying in yemos hamashiach. >>> Yes indeed, and I totally
concede that point. Thanks.

Akiva Miller

I asked about the Gra: <<< For example, did he see a manuscript where
the zayin had a segol? No one has ever shown me a "zecher" anywhere in
any Tanach, although "gefen" abounds, and I suppose there are many other
"segol-segol" words as well. >>>

R' Micha Berger answered <<< Zecher and zeicher also comes up in Ashrei,
with mesoros pointing in both directions. >>>

That is close to answering my question, so I'll fine-tune it and ask:
Did these "mesoros pointing in both directions in Ashrei" exist PRIOR
to the Gra, or are they a RESULT of his comments?

Here's another way to rephrase my question: It seems that the Gra noted
that "zecher" means one thing, and "zeicher" means another thing, so
the context proves that the pronunciation in a given pasuk must be this
or that. But was this an extrapolation of what was obvious to him from
words like gefen/geifen and beged/beiged, or was he simply explaining
the meaning of specific manuscripts which had zecher in some psukim and
zeicher in other psukim?

I think R' Micha has questions similar to mine, and phrased it as <<<
The MB speaks about the need to repeat "zekher" and "zeikher". Was there
such a concept before the Gra asserted they meant different things,
and then his talmidim argued over which means what? >>>

Akiva Miller

One other point, maybe: Since Shmuel did more to Agag than mechiyas
Amalek requires by chopping him into pieces, some explanation (to Agag,
to onlookers) may have been appropriate.

Meyer

In Avodah V10 #128, GDubin asked:
> Why did Shemuel tell Agag "ka'asher shikla nashim charbecha..."? Why
> did he need to give a reason and not just kill him because of the mitzva
> of mechiyas Amalek? And particularly to explain it to Agag?

There are shitos that explain the story of Agag and Amelek as a separate
"tzivui meyuchad" not related to the mitzvah of mechiyas Amalek from the
Torah.  See, e.g., Rinas Yitzchok (R' Avraham Yitzchok Sorotzkin), on
Shmuel Aleph Perek 15, Pasuk 3 and the sources he brings down. For
example, he relies in part on the shitah of the Smag to the effect that
the mitzvah in the Torah regarding mechiyas Amalek is not applicable
(not "nohag") until y'mos hamoshiach.  See also Hagahos Maimoni on
Rambam., Hilchos M'lachim 5,4, os aleph. 

Yitzchak Kasdan

At 12:52 PM 3/16/03 -0500, Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
>> Where exactly are the MME's that have been cited in this discussion?

>That was exactly one of the major differences posited by Dr David Shatz
>in his presentation re RYBS at the Ou Convention in which he compared
>the approaches of RYBS and REED to technology and science.

I was there and found precisely that undocumented point objectionable. I 
would very much like to know where this MME might be.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

<There is a longer term of hora'as sh'oah -such as an es la'asos, etc.>

The longest (and still ongoing) probably being the allowance to write
down Torah Shebealpeh.

On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 05:13:43PM -0500, I Kasdan wrote:
: <There is a longer term of hora'as sh'oah -such as an es la'asos, etc.>

: The longest (and still ongoing) probably being the allowance to write
: down Torah Shebealpeh.

Only if we're sure that "eino resha'i" implies issur.

I suggested that this "eis la'asos" was in violation of an aggadic value,
a commonly observed lifnim mishuras hadin, not an actual issur.

Picture if it were an actual issur: it would imply that the same lashon
used in the other half, WRT learning pesuqim be'al peh, also means a
true issur. So much talking in Torah if it involves a single pasuq...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

On Areivim today, R' Mordechai Phyllostac writes in the name of Rav
Weinrib: (and I've heard similar things in other places as well)

<<< There is no mitzvoh to get drunk on Purim. If you look carefully at
the words of the gemara, it says 'chayav inish * livsumei * biPuria' -
a person is obligated to *sweeten* themselves (with wine) on Purim. Note
that it does not use the aramaic word for being drunk / intoxicated
('lihishtaker') - and deliberately so >>>

But Rashi on the spot (Megilla 7b) translates "livsumei" as "l'hishtaker
b'yayin". Are there any Rishonim who argue on that Rashi?

All the discussions I can remember have focused on the *shiur* of shikrus
required, or what the goal of this drinking is, but to deny that the
goal is reached via drinking --- Is this a genuine interpretation of
"Chayav inish livsumei"? I wonder if it might actually be a shift in
priorities, putting satefy issues above Purim observance.

I'm not suggesting that this priority shift is inappropriate, only that
we should be honest about what we are doing. Long-established pirsumei
nisa issues of Chanuka were forced away because of safety issues, and
the menoras were brought indoors. But we are honest about the priority
shift, and we all know that the ideal is to light outdoors. My question
is whether we are being revisionist or not when we say that "livsumei"
does not mean to drink.

Akiva Miller

From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> 
> BTW, RRW, do you know where the minhag comes from that the rav reads 
> the entire last passuq of shm'a every sha'harit & ma'ariv, except Fri 
> night when he recites from lema'an yirbu till the end, with trop? 

It is obviously an old yekkish and Ob minhag.

When Rav Betzalel Stern z'l (baal shu't Btzeil Hachochmo) was our rov, he
usually began loudly from 'Vesamtem es Dvoray' - but usually only Shabbos
and YT. Probably weekdays it would have been a tircheh detzibureh..

SBA

I asked:
> BTW, RRW, do you know where the minhag comes from that the rav reads
> the entire last passuq of shm'a every sha'harit & ma'ariv, except Fri
> night when he recites from lema'an yirbu till the end, with trop?

RSBA replied:
> When Rav Betzalel Stern z'l (baal shu't Btzeil Hachochmo) was our rov, he
> usually began loudly from 'Vesamtem es Dvoray' - but usually only Shabbos
> and YT. Probably weekdays it would have been a tircheh detzibureh..

But we do it only Friday night. Why not Shabbat morning? BTW, why start
at lema'an (as in Basel)? At vesamtem (as your rov did), I understand,
because it is the commandment to internalize the public mitzvot inherent
in Shma' (the 2nd parshah being a public commandment, while the first
parshah private).

You are right, though, about it being an old minhag. Rav Levinger was
here a few days agao and told me about how his grandfather was asked
about the minhag when a old rav passed away. The problem? Who should say
lema'an till end out loud while there is no new rav yet. This places the
story before WWI, and according to this story the minhag enjoyed strong
support (the question caused a ma'hloqet which reached the emperor who
then asked Rav Levinger the grandfather).

Arie

From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
> BTW, RRW, do you know where the minhag comes from that the rav reads
> the entire last passuq of shm'a every sha'harit & ma'ariv, except Fri
> night when he recites from lema'an yirbu till the end, with trop?

I would guess that what is involved here is the minhog to lein krias
shema with the taamei hamikro ('trope'). There is a lengthy piece on
this by Rav Binyomin Shelomo Hamburger in cheilek gimmel of Shorshei
Minhag Ashkenaz', where he makes quite a strong case for the practice -
for the tzibbur in general - not just Rabbonim. I believe this was to
a significant degree the 'Yekke' minhog, although followed by others as
well. IIRC, a (the ? ) main part of the basis for it is the use by Chaza"l
of the word 'koroh' when discussing recitation of krias shema - rather
then, e.g. the word 'omar' (as in 'kol ho'omeir Tehillah lidovid bichol
yom....), etc. Koroh means leining - like leining the Torah betzibbur -
which means with the trope.

IIRC, R. SBA has in the past reported that (non-'Yekke') Rabbonim in
his down under kehillo practiced it as well.

Anyway, perhaps in some places, over the years, people have forgotten
this and all that they recalled is hearing the Rav do so at the end of
his Shema - when the Shul is more quiet usually and the Rav's voice can
be heard. Perhaps / likely the Rav (at least in earlier times, if not
always) did same for the whole Shema, but just was not heard over the
hubbub, created by simultaneous recitations (usually quicker) by the
tzibbur. So some less-learned folks thought / assumed, incorrectly,
that it was just a minhag for the end, when the Rav's voice doing it
became more audible to them, rather than for the whole Shema. Perhaps
on Shabbos this end period segment started earlier as then davening is
usually at a slower pace.....

Mordechai

Gershon replied:
> Please elaborate; I don't know how you're answering the question.

I didn't intend to answer it so much as to note a link between the
Shmuel/Shaul/Agag episode and the D'vorah/Barak/Sisera episode, starting
with begging your question to why D'vora mentioned Sisera's mother in
her shira. Connections include:
-1- the Kaini (or a representative thereof) are 3rd parties who, both
times, choose "the right side" (and how much do we otherwise read
about the Kaini in TaNaCH?); and
-2- Barak doesn't fulfill the Divine word as expressed by His n'viah,
and Shaul doesn't fulfill the Divine word as expressed by His navi.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager

I think somewhere in discussing the Ramban's shita that krh"t is a chovas
hatzibbur we mentioned the R' Chaim that the beracha on keriyas hatorah
is on the cheftza shel torah, not the chovas hagavra. Therefore no
problem with a women being oleh l'minyan 7 m'ikkar hadin, because even
if she has no chiyuv in leining, the bracha is not on the chiyuv but on
the cheftza she torah.

Halacha l'ma'aseh, after davening this shabbos they held the tzibbur
in shul to do a 2nd leining of zachor for the women who had come late,
and no bracha was said. My question: why no bracha? Even if there was
not a single bar chiyuva present, acc to R' Chaim the bracha is on the
cheftza, not the chovas hagavra.  
(If it makes you feel better, you can be mitztaref the shitos that
obligate women in hearing p' zachor to the mix as well, though w/o the r'
chaim I wouldn't rely on that alone.)

The Rav of the minyan told me tzarich iyun, and that was always their
minhag. Is this the popular minhag (no bracha), and can anyone be
meysashev it with the r' chaim?

-Chaim

R' Chaim Brown had raised a few questions on teh Shoshanas Ya'akov.

Specifically why does the paytan use the term "Shoshans Ya'akov" and
what is the pshat in Techeiles Mordechai.

I have come up with a hesber to answer these questions.

I plan on writing it up more formally but here are my ha'aros b'kitzur.

1) Rabbeinuy Bachyah says begadim HKBH made Adam was the begdei kehunah.

2) Rav Goldvicht zt"l on Parsha Vayigash traces the begadim given to
Mordechai back to Adam HaRishon. Basically he says that the begadim of
Mordechai came from Binyamin. Binyamin and other shevatim received begadim
from Yosef. These begadim represent the kesones pasim Yosef had. Binyamin
got 5 sets to pass on to Mordechai. The kesones pasim came from Ya'akov
who took it from Eisav (when he "stole": the becho. Eisav stole it from
Nimrod who got it from Adam HaRishon. These were the original begadim
HKBH made for Adam when he was sent into golus out of Gan Eiden.

Using 1&2 we can say that Mordechai's begadim had the bechinah of the
bigdei kehunah

3) Rav Tzaddok says that Moshe was bechina of torah sh'bichsav and Aharon
Torah Sh'baal peh and in the Sefer M'Makim (based on torah from Rav Moshe
Shapiro) he explains at length how the yesod of bigdei kehunah was the
bechinah of torah sh'baal peh. His rayah is from Shimon HaTzaddik who is
the start of tekufa of chachamim w/out nevuah which is tekufah of torah
sh'bal peh. Shimon HaTzaddik appears to Alexander in dream wearing bigdei
kehunah signifying Yavan is the zeh lumas zeh of torah sh'baal peh

4) Although the tekufah of Torah Sh'baal peh didn't start till Shimon
HaTzaddik we can say that the kabbals hatorah took place during Purim.
(Kedushas Levi says Bayis Rishon-Torah Sh'bichsav Bayis Sheini is B'aal
peh) It was this kabbalas hatorah that led to the geulah and the tekufah
of bayis sheini

5) Rabbeinu Bachyah says that the Mi'il (one of begadim of Aharon)
which is totally techeiles is michaper on speech.=20

6) Torah sh'baal peh is represented by amirah/speech

7) The "Birosam Yachad TECHEILES Mordechai" represents the kabbalas
hatorah of torah sheb'al peh. Techeiles is the Mi'il which is one of the
bigdei kehuna which represents torah sh'bal peh. Furthermore the Mi'il
is mechapeir on speech the yesod of Torah Sh'Bal Peh.

8) To add one more step. Rav Tzaddok explains that Shoshanas Yaakov
represents Shushan which is the chachamim who lived in Shushan (Yodei
Itim) and we can say that the Birosam Yachad represents the achdus
necessary for a kabbalas hatorah (ish echad bilev achad)

9) Finally one last point. gemara says Bnei Yisroel were learning
kemitzah. Rashi says it was inyanei d'yoma of Omer on 16 Nissan. Guffa
in the Omer is a machlokes bet Tzidukkim and Chachamim when it should
be-Mimacharas Hashabbos. Torah Sh'Bal Peh tells us when it is -on
16 Nissan.

In a message dated 3/17/2003 8:44:06 AM EST, charlesf.brown@gs.com writes:
> I think somewhere in discussing the Ramban's shita that krh"t is a chovas
> hatzibbur we mentioned the R' Chaim that the beracha on keriyas hatorah
> is on the cheftza shel torah, not the chovas hagavra...

> Halacha l'ma'aseh, after davening this shabbos they held the tzibbur
> in shul to do a 2nd leining of zachor for the women who had come late,
> and no bracha was said. My question: why no bracha? Even if there was
> not a single bar chiyuva present, acc to R' Chaim the bracha is on the
> cheftza, not the chovas hagavra.  
...
> The Rav of the minyan told me tzarich iyun, and that was always their
> minhag. Is this the popular minhag (no bracha), and can anyone be
> meysashev it with the r' chaim?

Is there a flip side to this question; that is in the traditional
understanding(I'm not sure what it is and any elucidation would be
appreciated) of why we require a kriah btzibbur for the mitzvah of zachor
here(vs other 5 zchirot)does there need to be a tzibbur/bar chiyuva
(male(s)) for women to be yotzeh

KT
Joel Rich

RGD:
>Why did Shemuel tell Agag "ka'asher shikla nashim charbecha..."? Why
>did he need to give a reason and not just kill him because of the mitzva
>of mechiyas Amalek? And particularly to explain it to Agag?

I heard something that can be applied here.See Smag quoted in Haghos
Maimonios Perek 5 in Hilchos Mlachim: the mitzva to kill Amalek is only
applicable in ymos hamoshiach, when goyim aren't attacking. Even more
mfurash is the Rambam in hakdama to Zeraim that Shmuel was NOT saying
a din Torah. This can explain a stira in Rashi. Rashi al haTorah says
(Parshas Zachor) the mitzva is to kill even the animals of Amalek since
this is called zecher Amalek. Yet by Shmuel Rashi says that the din to
kill the animals is because Amaleki are using kishuf to appear as animals.
Why did Rashi change the reason to kill the animals? Maybe because he
agrees with the Smag and Rambam concerning Shmuel not being d'oraissa.

Happy Purim,
Shlomo Goldstein

 From star-K pesach guide
> MATZOH, OAT Kosher for Passover hand and machine shmura are available
> under the supervision of the Manchester Beis Din. Contact Mrs. Karen
> Beleck at 410-358-9580. Whether the obligation of eating matzoh on
> the first night of Pesach can be fulfilled with these oat matzohs is
> questionable. A Rav should be consulted.

what's the problem?

the problem is that oats may not be one of the chamash minim.
Prof. Felixs had alot to say on the matter.

R' Saul Newman quoted the Star-K pesach guide as saying <<< Whether the
obligation of eating matzoh on the first night of Pesach can be fulfilled
with these oat matzohs is questionable. A Rav should be consulted. >>>
and asked <<< what's the problem? >>>

Some question whether or not what we call "oats" is really the same thing
as the "shiboles shual" of the 5 minei dagan. Or perhaps, the safek is
big enough to be problematic for a d'Oraisa like matza, but not for a
d'Rabanan like mezonos and al hamichya. (And oat bread is so rare that
very few would bench on it anyway, perhaps.)

For example, Rabbi Michael Broyde posted the following to Mail-Jewish
(http://tinyurl.com/7qg2) in 1995:

<<< One of the writers raised an issue concerning oat matzoh for Pesach.
As is well known, there were many rishonim who thought that oats where
not one of the five grains that were prohibited on pesach; see Ency. Tal
"dagan". There are thus many halachic authorites who are flatly against
the use of oat matzah to fulfill the obligation of matzah, as oats might
be the same as corn and only kitniyot. I would stroungly advise such
a person to eat white matzah soaked in water, if needed. In my opinion
that is preferable to using oats as one of the five grains.

For more on the issue of oats, one can examine Feliks fine work on
agriculture in the mishna, which argues that oat could not possibly be
one of the five grains (and that this raises issues of how to properly
translate Rashi's use of the old french.) Consult your local orthodox
rabbi >>>

Akiva Miller

I heard yesterday for the first time of a minhag to have all people in
the tzibur say the beracha after the megila themselves instead of the
shatz being motzi them. Comments?

Also heard yesterday for the first time, the din of beracha acharona
betzibur might include women, or at least include a tzibur of only women.
(I went to the magid shiur afterward and commented "I hear you're in
favor of WTG"; not sure if he appreciated that.) Comments?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

I asked:
> BTW, RRW, do you know where the minhag comes from that the rav reads
> the entire last passuq of shm'a every sha'harit & ma'ariv, except Fri
> night when he recites from lema'an yirbu till the end, with trop?

RSBA replied:
> When Rav Betzalel Stern z'l (baal shu't Btzeil Hachochmo) was our rov, he
> usually began loudly from 'Vesamtem es Dvoray' - but usually only Shabbos
> and YT. Probably weekdays it would have been a tircheh detzibureh..

From: Arie Folger afolger@aishdas.org
> But we do it only Friday night. Why not Shabbat morning? BTW, why start
> at lema'an (as in Basel)? At vesamtem (as your rov did), I understand,
> because it is the commandment to internalize the public mitzvot inherent
> in Shma' (the 2nd parshah being a public commandment, while the first
> parshah private).

Maybe with Lemaan - the Rov is given the opportunity to bentch his flock..?

SBA

RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:28:12 EST wrote
>Well how do you explain Ashkenazim favouring Sephardic shittos,. EG
>RYBS and the Brisker fasination with the Rambam which is frequently
>diametrically opposed to the Tosafistic school

Firstly, it should be noted that we are talking with p'sak halocho. A
fascination with how the Rambam may have understood various sugyos
(or every sugya, for that matter) is besides the point. Everyone may
choose which ever hobby he wishes, and learning Rambam is no worse,
and even highly commendable.

With regards to paskening like the Rambam, with all due respect
to Briskers, being choshesh for every Rishon is simply not p'sak
halocho. That includes being choshesh for the Rambam where the halocho
is not like him. I don't believe even briskers do chalito on all meat
(correct me if I'm wrong) because of dam, and that is one example
for many.

<<But it is NOT the only factor. If RYBS explains the Gmara the way the
Rambam learned it is not because Ashkenazim bichlal did that, just the
Briskers etc.>>

see above

<<Furthermore, you can se the opposite trhead in Hassisidism which
davka rejected the minhaggim and traditions of Ashkenaz in favor of the
Arivzal's take on Daveving etc. How do you explain that?>>

Don't need to. Bigger and better people before me have fought it out. Ask
that question to a chassid (not me :-) )

<<Also I ask you, how many poskim in Tshuvos say the minhag is X and
despite my pshat in the Gmara which says Y - let's follow X anyway
because of Masorah? Aderabba, The Meharshal and others felt that they
could go back to the Gmara and come up with brand new pshat w/o any
particular Masorah.>>

Maskim. All I wish to point out is that mesorah in p'sak and minhagim play
a major role, which cannot be called 'bias' under the usual understanding
of that word. Every individual p'sak is dependant on that posek. There
are no clear rules how to balance these two factors

Kol Tuv
Akiva B.

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


[ 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         ]