Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 135

Friday, March 28 2003

• Bimqom haOlah
• Re: Standing for Parshas Zakhor
• RE: CY/ChC
• Re: Rambam: Hakdama
• Re: RYBS view
• Re: NOT BEING A NUDNIK BEFORE G-D
• Re: Toras Purim -11,12,13,14,15
• Galileo on da'at yahid
• Re: Disclosure of sources mandated?
• Re: Humility
• Re: Toras Purim -11,12,13,14,15
• Re: Karaim
• TSBP
• Re: shitat Brisk
• Re: Humility
• Re: Beracha Acharona
• Re: Zecher and zeicher
• Re: Who is a posek?
• Re: Piskei Ramo

[Crossposted on Avodah and Mesorah.]

Thought I had on parashas Tzav.

In 6:18: ... bimqom asher tishacheit ha'olah tishacheit hachatas...
And 7:2: Bimqom asher yishachatu es ha'olah yishchatu es ha'asham...

Why is the location of shechitah for a chatas and asham defined in terms
of that of the olah?

(I know the common explanation, that the location was chosen to hide
the identity and therefore the bushah of the chotei by mixing in people
bringing olos. This is a different approach.)

In Vayiqra Rabba (7:3), R Shim'on bar Yochai says that olah is brought
for hirhur haleiv. In Y-mi Yoma 42a, R' Chanaiah berei dR Hillel describes
it as a kapparah for hirhurim. The Tanchuma (13:13) contrasts the olah to
the asham. The olah is more qadosh, because it was brought for thoughts,
not theft.

For that matter, the chazal (quoted by Ramban and IE) tell us the olah's
shechitah is batzafon because of it is a kapparah for hirhurim -- which
are tzafun.

Along these lines, I'd like to suggest our original pesuqim not only
mean "in the place of the olah" but also bimqom as instead. The olah was
directly for the tzafun, the hidden problem, but the asham and chatas
are brought after it came out min hako'ach el hapo'al. Instead of the
olah that could have been brought when one only had hirhurei aveirah,
the Torah is saying, now bring a chatas or an asham.



Q to Mesorah crowd: How relevent is the use of sheva rather than patach
under the beis? Is "bimqom" not "in the place", but "in place", the
notion I had when hearing it leined that lead to this thought? Or,
is this a semichut, where a lack of implied or actual hei hayedi'ah
doesn't seem to mean as much?

What do I mean by that last question? E.g. "Benei Yisrael" usually
requires the definite article in English translation. It means "*the*
Children of Israel" as a unit, not simply some of his children. Having
the pasuq translated as "Speak to children of Israel and say..." would
be misleading.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org            remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org       winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Peter Marshall

In Avodah V10 #134, MLevin wrote:
> I asked a friend from whom I first heard of this minhag about a source
> of the minhag to stand for a mitsva. He responded: "Ayin Misnha Bikurim
> 3:3".

I don't see any evidence of that concept in Maseches Bikurim (see
<http://chaver.com/Mishnah/Mesechet%20Becorim.htm>), although 3:1 may be
an asmachta to the relatively-recent Ashk'nazic practice of reciting
T'hilim 30 before "Baruch she'omar."

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In Avodah 10:134, R' Shlomo Abeles wrote: <<< afilu im tirtza loymar that
RMF was mattir ChC lekatchila ... that may be for milk which some may
say is an important nutritional food. But I doubt if any of his psokim
mentions ice cream, chocolate and other foods ... >>>

I think I have to agree with R' SBA on this one. I clearly remember
where Rav Moshe advises that the milk one buys should be Cholov Yisroel,
but I do not recall him ever suggesting that one's ice cream, chocolate,
or other foods should be such.

Akiva Miller

Note RYZ's email was from over a year ago. My comment "sitting around for
months" was an understatement! I may have asked this then, but if I did,
I can't find it in the archive.

On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 01:01:23PM -0500, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
:> How does a "Minhag" differ from a Takana?

: As RYGB already pointed out:
: Minhagos are subject to Lo Sasur (Mamrim 1:2), but we do not make
: berachos on them nevertheless, as that is part of their "etzem cheftza":
: "D'lav toras mitzvos be'hu l'vareich aleihen, d'rak al mitzvos mevorchin,
: v'lo al minhagos." He proves this from the Rambam Megilah v'Chanukah 3:7.

This tells us how they behave differently. Which is only useful once you
establish which something is. The other question would be how to define
the two so that you know when asking the question about the berakhah
of some unknown which answer appliess.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org            remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org       winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Peter Marshall

On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:15:16AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
:> This is also the way R. Rakeffet quotes it in "The Rav", as I recall.

:> The practical import of this is that one need not feel frustrated and
:> betrayed when one cannot find an immediate answer in the Torah for
:> whatever question.

: If religion does not smooth out difficulties or bring inner peace than why
: shouldn't it be frustrating when one cannot find an immediate answer? If
: it gives you the tools to face challenges so that you aren't frustrated
: that sounds line inner peace and smoothing out difficulties?!

I believe RYBS's approach to religion is that it often gives you the
means to live with the question rather than giving you an answer.

That's certainly true WRT his approach to theodicy. RYBS finds answers
to the question of tzadiq vera lo either intellectually simplistic or
emotionally barren (by denying the very real experience of ra). Instead,
one turns to halachah to see how to respond.

Unfortunately, all too many mechanchim and qiruv workers try to give
answers to the unanswerable, thinking that religion "failed" if it
can't supply one. Then, when the student actually faces a problem, he
can ch"v end up thinking the Torah is intellectually simplistic or
emotionally barren.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org            remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org       winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Peter Marshall

On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:59:01AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: There is a related theme - Not bothering G-d with our personal requests.
: This seems to have been a major theme of the Magid of Mezerich but
: Rav Chaim Voloshner Ruach Chaim 3:2 has a similar point of view. We
: are only to be concerned with the suffering of the Shechina - not our
: petty complaints.

I don't know how RCV's madreiga of tefillah is usable by the hamon am.
It's hard enough having kavanah for my own needs. To get to the point
of being emotionally into galus haShechinah so that one can feel the
Shechinah's pain from cholei amo Yisrael???

-mi

Following the debate between the brothers-in-law, I realized there is
something I missed... So I'm simply asking for clarification.

RCB:
:>The point is Rashi is meduyak that a binding kabbalah had to be done
:>specifically through ahavah.  If I was you I would be concerned with the
:>fact that Rashi uses the word ahavah at all; why didn't Rashi say "mitoch
:>yiras haromimus"?
...

RYGB:
: The earliest protagonist of the Ahavas Hashem basis of Purim that I
: found in a quick search is the Yaaros Dvash 2:2.

: Of course ahavah is essential to a true kabboloh, that is not an issue.

: However, the state of ahavah is, to my mind, not associated with simchah,
: but with oneg "menuchas ahavah u'nedavah."

: Yomim Tovim - which are intimately associated with Morah Mikdash -
: are times of simchah.

IIUC, RYGB is arguing that yir'as haromemus is inseperable from ahavah --
gilu bir'adah. Therefore if Purim is about one, it's about both.

But even if the two must co-exist, that doesn't mean that the ge'ulah
was caused by both rather than one or the other.

I'm not sure where simchah made its way into the picture.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org            remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org       winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Peter Marshall

I recently finished reading a wonderful book (on so many different
levels), Galileo's Daughter by Dava Sobel. I was particularly struck
by the following excerpt from one of Galileo's works, The Assayer.

"But even in conclusions which can be known only by reasoning, I say that
the testimony of many has little more value than that of a few, since the
number of people who reason well in complicated matters is much smaller
than that of those who reason badly. If reasoning were like hauling I
should agree that several reasoners would be worth more than one, just as
several horses can haul more sacks of grain than one can. But reasoning
is like racing and not like hauling, and a single Barbary steed can
outrun a hundred dray horses."
			Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo.
			New York: Anchor, 1957, p. 271.

This post really belongs on Areivim, not here. But since the possible
misimpression was created here...

> The gemara (IIRC) says that if someone is being given kovod as if he was
> boki in two mesechtos, but, in reality, was only boki in one, he should
> correct the people's misimpression and tell them that he is only boki
> in one.

> I see some people at times make postings containing many mareh mekomos. I
> have (on at least one occasion) seen someone else comment on what a
> great talmid chochom a certain such a person is (I don't know if his
> bekius is computer based).

I know first-hand that a number of Avodah's regulars are capable of
citing mar'eh meqomos like this while sitting at a table at a melaveh
malkah without access to a library or CD.

It amazes me, and has me somewhat jealous, but it's true.

I'm also unsure of the original question: Why does having access to
a CD warrant disclosure, but not to a library? Should we prepend "I
looked it up and..." before every such post? Or, is it simply that the
assumption is wrong -- if you see a post (and don't have a feel for the
author's yedi'os), you don't know if it's yedi'ah or research, so don't
assume either.

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

Let me also chime in on defining "anivus" -- after all, this is a list
run by (but not necessarily only for!) a bunch of aspiring musarnikim.

One of the few clear-cut dialectics defined before RYBS went around
pointing them out is "bishvili nivra ha'olam" vs "va'anochi afar
va'efer". The Alter of Slabodka suggested writing each on a peice of
paper, and keeping each slip in a different pocket.

Managing this dialectic is fully within anivus. It's not a dialectic
between anivus and ga'avah, as anivus is not subject to the shevil
hazahav (Hil Dei'os 2:3). The tension is fully within the extreme we
are to pursue!

R' Krohn's approach (and I heard something similar third hand besheim
RMMS) is to look at "anochi afar va'eifer" as a cure for feeling
entitlement, when one is looking at what one ought to receive. But in
terms of duty to give, "bishvili nivra ha'olam" -- any one person could
heal the world. (See also the Maharal on Avos 3:2 about Adam's unity
because the world only needs one melekh.)

The Alter's approach is harder to grasp. While it is true that all people
live together in an objective world, we each also live in a subjective
world of phenomena. The objective world is simply where those worlds
coincide. The world I live in and experience was created for me in
particular. Thus Mitzriyim lived in a world where the river was blood,
we in one where it was water.

Li nir'eh, anivus is about being full aware of one's actual vs one's
potential.

Pardon for repeating R' Chaim Brisker's vort on "afar va'eifer". Afar
is potentially glass or pottery, but that potential isn't used yet.
Eifer is something that once had use, but is now destroyed.

Anochi afar va'eifer is a statement that one realizes how much one
could and ought to be -- and yet isn't. One can't maintain a sense of
entitlement, one already recieved more than one is using.

Bishvili nivra ha'olam speaks about the magnitude of that potential.
Yes, one person /could/ cure the world -- if he were fully using his
abilities. One can't shirk the duty claiming the tools aren't there;
they're there, but neglected.

The Alter of Slabodka stresses something that can be seen as a different
aspect of the same underlying idea. Untapped potential never reaches the
world of shared experience. In that world, I'm measured by what I am,
not by what I could be. Within the experiences of my own mind, I know --
or ought to know -- I have the power to change the world. The world I
experience is therefore tailored *bishvili*, to bring that out.

Along similar lines is the dialectic between whether man was created
first or last. Reish Lakish explains "achor vaqedem tzartani"
(opening of Mesrash Rabba on Tazria') to refer to whether man
was created after the mosquito or whether "the ru'ach E-lokim
merachefes" is melech hamashi'ach. R' Mordecha Greenberg (RY KBY
<http://www.kby.org/torah/article.cfm?articleid=1186>) makes this about
guf (last) vs neshamah (first). But I'm not sure everyone would.

And further afield but along the same lines is the majesty of Adam I vs
the the dependence of Adam II.

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

At 09:48 PM 3/27/03 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
>IIUC, RYGB is arguing that yir'as haromemus is inseperable from ahavah --
>gilu bir'adah. Therefore if Purim is about one, it's about both.

>But even if the two must co-exist, that doesn't mean that the ge'ulah
>was caused by both rather than one or the other.

>I'm not sure where simchah made its way into the picture.

That simcha is a derivative of yirah, not so much of ahavah.

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

> Gil Student wrote:
>> I've been considering the apparent stirah between what the Rambam
>> writes in hilchos mamrim 3:3 about the children of Karaites and what
>> he writes in Moreh Nevuchim at the end of 1:31 (I found the Friedlander
>> translation on the web so I copied the passage below). In hilchos mamrim
>> he writes that the children of Karaites were raised on their mistake
>> and therefore are "ke-anus" while in MN he seems to explicitly reject
>> that argument.

[RDR: -mi]
> I think this is a straightforward example of two dinim. In Hilchos
> Mamrim he's talking about our obligations to karaim (in particular,
> does moridim v'lo maalim apply), and in the MN he's discussing whether
> God will find them culpable in Olam HaEmes

I must disagree with this. In the Hakdomoh to Pirush Hamishnayos Sanhedrin
11, Rambam states clearly that being rodeh and persecuting apikorsim
depends specifically on their not acceptance of the Ikkarim. It is clear
and widely accepted that the 13 principles are to the Rambam a litmus
test for Jewishness. If you follow them, you are in; if not, you are
out.. ayein shom.

M. Levin

A remarkable statement from our chaver Dr. Meir Shinnar which might not
get the prominence it deserves due to being muvlah in a longer post:

Areivim Digest V10 #597:
>heter (mostly privately, but much halacha is oral - the requirement for
>written psakim inverts the whole issue of the torah shebealpe on its head)

Hmm...

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

On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:30:00PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
: He considers original shitat Brisk was only concerned with answering 
: questions (stirot) or also with more fundamental questions.

I may be distinctly qualified or under-qualified to comment on this
subject. AFAIK, I'm the only one posting regularly here who does
/not/ habitually think of lomdus in the terms of a derekh other than
Brisk. (That seemed to be true from the VIDC discussions...)

People following this thread may be interested in
"Brisk vs R' Shimo Shkop Analysis" by R' Sam Juni
<http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v14/mj_v14i61.html#COY>.

AIUI, there are tzvei dinim <grin> in Brisker derekh: 1- what issues
are raised, 2- what tools are used to answer them.

I think that classic Brisk (RMS's family aside for the moment) only was
interested in a single kind of issue: How does the halachah work? What
are the more general priciples in halachah that lead to a given statement.
And, once they determine those principles, what does some exceptional
case tell us about those rules.

Mashal: Rather than learning why a particular rock fell, they would try
to deduce the klal of gravity from the instances of seeing rocks fall.
Then they'd look at a balloon full of helium, and make a chakirah, and
learn about boyancy...

Thus the comment about RCS being about "how", not "why".

But I do not agree with the assesment that that:
> In particular Krumbein discusses that in the original publication of
> Chiddushei R. Chaim there is little beyong a discussion of questions
> and relevant answers. Once having answered the question RCS is
> finished and never uses his principles to further explore the issue....

> Wachtfogel in his book on the Brisker Derech also only considers how
> to answer questions and never advances anything more fundamental...

After all, they're the ones who chose to look for these problems and
drawing attention to them. I think the driving need is to understand
the rules -- whether a contradiction can be found in which to phrase it
or not.

I'd agree that RCS "never uses his principles to further explore the
issue" or that he never advances anything more fundamental" if by that
you limit it to never going beyond the "what" to the "why".

For that matter, R' Chaim would consider the pursuit of halachic "why"
to be pointless. Halachah contains its own first princples. We all hold
this -- you don't change halachah because of some ta'am hamitzvah. (Even
if it's the pasuq's "ur'isem oso uzchartem.) However, in Brisk this is
extended to not using it to answer any question.

WRT the 2nd issue, I agree with RMW's observation (as RET writes it):
: He gives 3 fundamental steps
: 1. stripping the problem to its fundamentals
: 2. Set up a Chaikrah
: 3, Answer the contradiction

One should also note the propensity of using a difference in lashon
between Rambam and his sources as a "chakirah" to be pursued. I found
it interesting that we could analyze Brisker derekh and not yet mention
the amount of attention it brings to the Rambam.

Now, on to RMS's descendents...

A while back (1996) I suggested on mail-jewish that RYBS's derech is not
"real Brisk".

The reason I would say so is that while RYBS or RAL would use Brisker
tools, their concerns were not only the Brisker concerns.

Philosophically, RYBS didn't totally abandon RCS's idea that halachah
must be the first principle. He calls his detours from halachic questions
to aggadic "why" answers to be "halachic hermeneutics" -- lessons to be
taken away, regardless of whether they really are the "why" or not.

However, pragmatically, it makes his Torah quite different. It also
explains why RYBS found fertile territory for this methodology in
new sedarim of shas.

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

In Avodah 10:134, R'"n Toby Katz wrote that humility "doesn't mean
doubting your own competence in an area in which you know you are
competent."

Along these lines, Rabbi Yissachar Frand told the following story on
this week's parsha in 1993. (I can't find the entire article on the
www.torah.org site, but you can find it at http://tinyurl.com/8cq1)
The relevant part of the story is:

> Rav Lev Chossman explains that if a person denies who he is and what
> his talents are, is a "shoteh" [fool], and not an "anav" [modest person].

> A story that illustrates this point is told about Rav Chazkel Abramsky
> who was head of the London Bais Din. At one point, he was called to
> testify in a suit brought by a shochet (in secular court) against the
> London Bais Din.

> The lawyer asked him, "Is it true that you are the greatest living
> authority in Europe on halacha?"

> "Yes.", he answered.

> The judge turned to him and said "Isn't that a rather arrogant statement?
> Doesn't your religion teach modesty as a great principle?"

> "You are right," the Rav answered, "But what can I do? I am under oath."

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 3/19/2003 9:51:32 AM EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> 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?

FWIW, My prelimniary investigation on this matter seems to favor the
idea of a Tzibbur of women doing the bracha acharano, almost for sure.
The matter of a "mixed" Tzibbur is a bit more gray...

In a message dated 3/25/2003 10:30:00 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> In any case, these talmidim did NOT treat it as a pure lomdisher question.
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

> 
> (I realize this brings to question a deep-held belief of yours about
> the halachic chiddushim of the Gra and of Brisk in general.)

Agreed.
But just because the GRA personally did things one way does not mean he 
necessarily advocated that this be THE way to do things for the KLAL

Akiva:
<<That is exactly why in Elizabeth this year, that phrase was read THREE
times.

The lainer knew to start with "zecher" and correct it with "zeicher", but
he mistakenly said them in the other order ("zeicher" and then "zecher")
at which point Rav Elazar Teitz instructed him to correct this error by
finishing up with a final reading of "zeicher".>>

Beautifully done
Now how about laining it with a Torah in the ksav yad of the Bies Yosef
and again with a Torah of the Ksav Yad Ari

And how about laining it with Havarat Sefardit and also Aheknazic 
Prononciation, not to mention Teimani, Hungarian ,etc.

IIRC it was the GRA who said STOP. Just wear Tefillin ONE way and he
eshewed all the possible perumtations because he computed 64 (yeish
opmrim 32) versions of Tefillin!

If the GRA was convinced that Tefillin shold be reduced to ONE way, I am
convinced he would have also reduced the laining of Zachor/Zecher/Zeicher
to ONE way and one way only. Those who lain it more than one way have
in my opinion LOST their way because Halachah is about finding a way
not losing their way by throwing away what is definite and find a way
to increase sfeikos.

If this is NOT the case, then why not just conduct 2 seders each night
of Passover, one with 3 matzos and one with 2 matzos to be yostei the
GRA's way?

[Email #2 -mi]

In a message dated 3/26/2003 10:00:01 AM EST, afolger@aishdas.org writes:
> Arie Folger
> -- 
>If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
>applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
>was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
>generations, and to be stringent out of one's own accord, unless he shall 
>bring clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
>   paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabby Yoel
>   Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.
> 

How does this come into play re: starting a new Chumrah to lain twice?

And in neneral, if the GRA did things out of humility and behaved as an
ascetic, and then RCV recorded those acts of Hassidus, are we now bound
by them? Or are they more properly seen as being confined to yechidei
Sgulah types?

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 3/16/2003 12:29:38 PM EST, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:
>: To sum it up The MB is for the hamon am who hasno rebbe or minhagim
>: which now a days is basically everyone.

> If this were true, it would depress me. However, I think most people on
> this list have/had a rebbe who'd they follow any statement of, AND is
> aware of his family minhag on most inyanim.
...
> Ba'alei teshuvah, who don't know family minhag, are MORE likely to have
> that kind of rebbe.

Bederech Klal, I would say the MB is the first sefer a Yeshiva Student
or Grad should look at, but by no means the last

Consider the MB like Rashi on the Gmara. I.E. it is your likely starting
point, but hopefully not your ending point.

FWI It's probably high time for a new "Shulhcan Aruch" type
sefer. Halachah is just so complex nowadays...

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 3/19/2003 9:52:02 AM EST, Akiva B. ydamy@hotmail.com writes:
> 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

Maskim, too I'm just not sure that the word bias is meant hear as a
perjorative. It's just a fact of life that R. Ovdiah Yosef is biased
towards Sephardic methods over Ashkenazic, and it is also a fact that
Briskers are more fascinated with the Rambam's take on many sugyos over
that of Tosafos. Similarly, If you find yourself fasincated with the
Kabbalistic Teachings of the Arizal it is likely to lend a bias towards
certain hanhaggos that stem from a different source. E.G. Take the Ben
Ish Chai vs. The Beis Yosef

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

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


[ 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         ]