Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 142

Tuesday, April 8 2003

• Re: Re: Atifas HaRosh( Talis )
• Re: [Areivim] Re: Atifas HaRosh( Talis )
• Gilgul
• Rav Chaim Volozhin'er on 'hevei misabeik ba'afar ragleihem
• Re: Mixed seating
• Re: Mixed seating
• Re: RYBS view - Ben Franklin Redux
• Re: Mendelsohn Redux
• Re: oats
• Re: TSBP
• Re: Oral and written traditions
• Re: Rambam: Hakdama
• Re: oral and written traditions
• Re: Sof Zman Chometz
• RE: oral and written traditions

In a message dated 4/7/2003 3:11:37 PM EST, cmsherer@fandz.com writes:
> See MB 8:4 who brings in the name of the Bach to have the tallis over 
> your head the entire davening

I have seen that MB. Does the MB understand the MB to be from Brachos,
Barchu or the beginning of SE?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

On 7 Apr 2003 at 17:04, Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
>> See MB 8:4 who brings in the name of the Bach to have the tallis over 
>> your head the entire davening

> I have seen that MB. Does the MB understand the MB to be from Brachos,
> Barchu or the beginning of SE?

The Bach (8:5) refers to going without a talis over your head as 
Giluy HaRosh!

-- Carl

[I'm also wondering: what's so interesting about the fact that a number
of the chevrah (who happen to be misnagdim) took a position against that
of the Gra. -mi]

From: Moshe Shulman <mshulman@ix.netcom.com>
> I find this interesting, considering that the Vilna Goan wrote
> commentaries on the Zohar, and so I assume he believed it to be true,
> including it's discussions of gilgul.

The Vilna Gaon and Rav Saadia Gaon were not the same, despite sharing
the same last name ;-)

Mordechai

From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net> (on Areivim)
> ..."It is worthwhile to recall here Reb Chaim Volozhiner's[21] explanation
> of "Hevei mis'avek b'afar ragleihem" (literally translated as: "Sit in
> the dust at the feet [of the Sages]"). He explains misavek, based on
> Yaakov Avinu's encounter with Eisav's malach, as connoting wrestling: You
> must wrestle (intellectually) with your Rebbe (with respect, of course -
> "at his feet") - ask questions, demand answers - not to test the Rebbe,
> Rav,, or teacher, but to get your own mind in gear"

This is an important piece from Rav Chaim Volozhin'er, but it needs some
further clarification / elaboration. IIRC, Rav Chaim Volozhin'er states on
the maamar (in Ruach Chaim on Ovos 1:4) that 'lipeomim hoemes im hatalmid'
- so the talmid should question and fight with his Rebbe (when he has good
reason to do so) because maybe the Rebbe is wrong - not just (if at all)
to 'get your mind in gear'. Since the main goal of limud Torah is finding
the emes - not getting one's mind in shape or any other mistaken notion)
we don't withold questions, etc. out of a misplaced and mistaken notion of
'respect' for a Rebbe - rather they are encouraged (with respect ;-).

Mordechai

In a message dated 4/6/2003 2:29:02 PM EDT, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> >The only think the hat does is indicate that the sheitel underneath is
> >not hair. (BTW hirhur of what?)

> But even that is sufficient to reduce hirhur that this woman might be 
> available....

IOW Hirhur for a pnuyah is OK but not for an ieshes ish?

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

On 8 Apr 2003 at 9:51, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> IOW Hirhur for a pnuyah is OK but not for an ieshes ish?

Not necessarily okay, but at least less harmful. You can always marry
a pnuya.

-- 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 3/24/2003 10:51:34 AM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> You reminded me of logotheraphy, and Victor Frankl's observations about
> man's search for meaning.
> 
...
> Since I'm off on this tangent, I noticed something about the "three
> Austrian schools" of psychology. Freud thought that man's decisions
> centered on the gashmi'us, the pleasure principle. Adler, on the human
> ego. Frankl, on a higher purpose. Kind of nara"n-esque..

I've been meaning to post this for weeks:
One of the great non-Jewish works of Mussar - IMHO -is Stephen Covery's
the 7 Habits of Effective People. He is clearly grounded in the kind of
Mussar of the Ben Franklin school, and even warns against the superficial
self-help of the last 50-75 years in the USA as betraying the tradition of
Character prefection by using quick-fix shortcuts that are chitzinoyos...

Stephen Covey is very much a Talmid of the Viktor Frankl school of
Logotherapy and therefore should surprise no one that he is a frum Mormon.

I have read Frankl, mostly for Hashkafah! I would also suggest reading
Covey for more hands-on Mussar. He has a very powerful way of presenting
things.

Now I can see some non-Traditional ideas therein. Most siffrei Mussar
tell us to feel guilty when we err. Covey recommends NOT feelign guilty
but rather analyzing our mistakes and doign a tikkun on them. The need
to feel bad has been replaced by a call to corrective actio and kabalh
al he'ossid. I ahppen to like that approahc but I can see where it would
{or might} clash with Rabbeinu Yonah and other's concept of Charatah.

Bottom line, Frankl has been a big influence on the psychology of the
devoted and pious of many fiaths, and Covey exapnds upon this in a
hands-on way
 
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 4/7/2003 11:40:09 AM EDT, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> I can't remember what was claimed about the Malbim z'l position in the
> recent pro and con Mendelsohn discussion...
> In a maamar at the end of the sefer he writes re those who translate
> it literally:
> "...nosach Hashem ruach tardemoh va'yaatzem es einei hamevaarim [obviously
> a referral to "Biur"] vehametargemim bechumoshei Ashkenaz, vayelchi
> biNesivos lo Sholom [referrring to M's Nesivos Sholom], bechallelom
> kedushas hashir hazeh...vayehi lohem keshiras hazonah..."

how does the Malbim understand
"ein Mikro yotzei miday Pehsuto? as applied to Shir Hashirim?

And presuming the above Malbim is correct -
Shouldn't somebody amongst our Rabbanim have been gozeir against reading
Shir Hashirim in public lest the simple minded take it literally?
I mean I cannot think of a bigger michshol to the rabbim to simply read
this story. Better to put it off limits - no?

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.comA>
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 3/25/2003 3:38:46 PM EDT, MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:
> Can anyone think of areas where a kabbalah has been discarded because
> of historical discoveries? We have talked about the issue of actual
> halacha psukah being set aside in the case of not allowing the killing
> of lice on shabbos; here, the gemara and possibly even rishonim don't
> give the identity of modern day oats.

I wonder if " Halachic brain death" might fit.

Certainly modern Psyhcology has been used to narrowly define - or even
to obviate completely - the case of me'abeid atzmo le'da'as saying that
a suicide is by defition not doing so mi'da'as.

My Yoreh Dei'ah rebbe - R. Yosef Weiss - holds that potassium chloride
-a salt sbustitute - is not salt l;echumra or lekullah. I'm not sure
everyong holds that way. If mliach is kerosei'ach, does that mean using
potassium cholride is not considered maliach? Probably fodder for an
interesting debate.

The use of horseradish for marror has been debated. Research has shown
that what WE call horseraddish probably did not exists in the Middle
East in the time of the Mishnah. The question of course is that list
exhaustive or just illustrative. There is a shita in the Tosefta,
with a macholkes on the girsa, that claims that ANY bitter herb is OK.
But that would be a stretch to say lechatchila we rely upon one tanna
in a Tsoefta whose girsa is not even clear. But be'diavad it sure can
allow for a defense of a minhag. Many say now that we have lettuce,
that Minhag should be abaondoned.

The issue of Shchikas sammemanim comes up, because we rarely, if ever,
still grind our own herbs.

A bigger issue is the watering down of wine. Although it is traditional
to tell us that wone in the old days need dilluting more than today,
I'm not sure how we can quantify that. Yiftach bedoro keyitzhar bedoro!
Anyway some Sephardim STILL do meziggas hakkos. I don't know we can ignore
the befirush words of the Talmud before the Chassima and rely upon a
nisthanu hetvi'im to avoid this! OK so we COULD say that we need water it
down less then they did, - perhaps. But how come we do not dillute at all?

BTW, a Rav gave a sheiur and said that we cannot undo any gzeiros of
the Talmud af al pi that the reason no loner applies. I asked him about
mayyim acharonim? he answered that is different because the medical
warnings of the Talmud are no longer applicable, and melach sdomis is a
sakkanah issue and that we are not chosheish for these realities anymore.
Well how about fish and meat? The gmara AFAIK ONLY prohibits the cooking
of the 2 together. Casual mixing does not seem to be asur midina degmara
at all. And I'm told, that the Rambam omnitted this completely. Funny
how a doctor such as Maimonides would overlook a health issue! --smile--
unless that the Rambam held that this was a case wher we are not chosheish
for the Gmara's warmings on health matters. Nevertheless, he requires
mayyim acharonim. Of course there are otehr issues besides health to
mayyim acharonim, including hikon likra Elokecha.


Warning humor allert! If you need to stay very serious, please read
no further!

One last word on oats. If lambs and kids ate oats, wouldn't there be
a chashah of chametz when brinig the karaban pesach? T

as it is stated: 
"Mairzy dotes and dozy dotes, and litttle lamzy divy! a kiddly divy
too... so would you!

So we can see that the chsash of oats does not apply to lambs and kids
who eat ivy and not oats - Baruch Hashem!

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 4/6/2003 5:05:42 PM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> "Many cases"? While I can think of numerous cases where the generality
> of the gemara is limited to the particular matbei'ah specified by
> qabbalah (e.g. the pattern of washing for netilas yadayim), I can only
> think of one where the pesak is "over-ridden". Tefillin on cholo shel
> mo'eid.
> 
> And even there it's not muchrach. The Gra wore tefillin on cholo shel
> mo'eid, no?

Whoops! You are right. I should have avoided saying many cases.. it is
highly mis-leading. What I MEANT to say is that Asheknazim under the
influence of the Zohar have abandoned Asheazniz minhaggim in many cases
in favor of Sepharidc ones, af al pi that I hold it is not necessary to
change Minhag Ashkenaz ion order to be a good Kabbalist. Btu to tell
the truth, I'm not much of a Kabblist so this is jut my opioni based
upon my understanding of the flow of Tradition.

As far as the GRA goes, I understand he opposed wearing Tefilin on
chol Hamoed and therfore most Israeli ashkenazim do not wear Tefillin
on chol Hamoed as a result. the Source in favor of wearing Tefillin is
an impliccation found in the Yerushalmi that allows writing Tefillin on
Chol Hamoed and by implication it being a Tzorehc Hayyom.

The actual changes form Talmud to Zohar are very few, if any.

The difference is that most yekkes - RSR Hirsch, Chasam Soffer,
and Rav Schwab - who were into learning Zohar, kept it as a nistar
and AFAIK publically kept Minhag Ashkenaz with little or no changes.
Rav Nosson adler of Frankfurt - OTOH - DID deviate form the Minhag and
as I am told was kicked out of Frankfort for davka doing so. - I was
told the immediate issue was daily duchaning.

OTOH, many of my fellow Litvaks, E.G. Gra and Ba'al Hatanya routinely
changed Ashkeenazic nusach and minhg in order to better conform with the
Zohar. To this I object. I can defend the Gra by saying that his changes
were probably meant to be personal and private, and were not intended
for the masses. The Ba'al HaTanya OTOH clearly advocated changing nusach
and minhag in order to better conform with Sephardi Minhag.

Illustration: The Gra omitted saying Baruch Hashem L'olam but as I've read
his beis midrash DID say it. He just personally omitted it. The Ba'al
Hatanya recommended NOT saying it, although he did write that those who
DO say it yesh lahem al mi lismoch.

I am told that Hirsch used much Zoharic symbolism in his writings,
but he did not give Chassidic style Kaballah shmuessen. His studies
of the Zohar were private, they just influenced his hashkafah, not his
outward hanhaggah. R. Nosson Adler OTOH was not so private about it.

The Ben Ish Chai is resposnsible for over-turning many piskei Beis Yosef
{Maran} in favor of the Zohar and Ari. I'm not comfortable with the
idea that thoroughly established psak can get {easily?} overturned by
re-visting it via the Zohar/Ari. It is true that Maran usually followed
the straight Gmara, as did his mentor the Rambam.

It is one thing to show how a Minhag or psak was based upon a
mis-understanding
It is another thing to show that the psak is now obsolete because the
metizus has changed
It is even another thing to say the rules have changed and that we no
longer follow poskim but mekubbalim instead.

I don't know if the Halachic community can come up with ANY set of rules
that it adheres to objectively. But I am game to try.

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

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
>  certain traditions that are
> preserved in writing by students are then part of the corpus - but,
> interestingly, primarily validated by the standing of the student, not the
> master!

Like RMS I find this surprising. The validation by writing is b'dieved,
not l'chatchila. Did you, for example, fail to refer us to RSZA's psaq
that you should go to college on the grounds that it was unwritten? Or
does that psaq have only your authority (since you wrote it down),
and not RSZA's (which casts the whole discussion of "who is a gadol"
in a new light)?

> I do not think so - I imagine that Reb Nosson Adler, for example, would
> have published psakim, and only refrained from committing chiddushim to
> writing.

Recheck that reference to tshuvoth haRama: R. Shalom Shachna refused to
publish (or even to permit students to make private copies) of his psaqim.

>> On the contrary, the erosion of the halachic process is closely related to
>> modern communications methods and the change in methodology of advanced
>> education to accomodate the great unwashed. Certain novel halachic
>> opinions, like the opinion that psak without explanation has more force
>> than psak with explanation play a part as well.

> Modern communication methods, coupled with mass illiteracy, have done
> the Halachic process in.

I hope it's not that bad: the halachic process may be seriously ill but
it's not dead.

David Riceman

In a message dated 3/27/2003 5:19:01 PM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> 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.

There are several meanings of the word Minhag in a Halachic context ONE
is how we pasken.
Illustration: we are NOHEIG like Rashi/Rambam vs. Rabbeinu Tam legabbie
Tfillin

Becasue this Minhag is SO universal, we don't ask a shei'lah fro mour
poseik how do WE pasken, rather everyone wears Rashi Tefillin.

There is another kind of Minhag, to wear Rabbeinu Tam Tefililin in
addition to Rashi Tefilin. Thus, for exmaple, Chabad is noheig to wear
Tefillin deRabbinu Tam also. This is probably not quite a psak that they
hold you MUST wear 2 pairs, it is more a minhag based upon a chumra or
a cheshash, somewhat like the minhag of kitniyyos.

I would say the Minhag to use either 2 or 3 Matzos at the seder is the
minhag based upon a Psak.

There is more on this in the 4th perek of Psachim.

I wanted to write a short article on this, but I will say simply bekizur
the following:

There are universal halachos - such as not working on the afternoon of
erev pesach
there are LOCAL halachos such as not working on the morning of erev
pesach.

The first is a kind of Federal Law and applied everywhere
The 2nd is a kind of state law and woudl vary from state to state.
Yehudah does one way the Gallille another.

Finally To import an out-of-state rule could be a no-no. So to say
nekadish in a state that says nakdishach or vice versa is in violation
of local law. To substitue another passuk for Kaddosh is a violation
of a Federal law. Kein nir'eh li.

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 4/6/2003 5:05:57 PM EDT, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> >Also, RMF seems to reverse the Bavli re: burial on YT Shinei by invoking
> >chillul YT as a concern - af al pi that the Bavli asserts that legabei
> >Meisim YT sheini is considered kechol...
> 
> Do you really believe that RMF reversed a BAVLI?!

This is not a matter of emunah. I know that the Satmar and Brreuer
communities each do not buy into the idea of modern day refrigeration
as a reason NOT to bury on YT or YT Sheini.

The point is really very simple.

If Rabbi X says that the gmara re: burying on YT is not applicable due
to modern day refrigeration, the Torah world would be up in arms.

RMF says it and it gets a pass.

Tell me here and now Rabbi YGB, of all the Torah-based and Kabblistic
reasons for not delaying a levaya that have nothing to do with the
deterioration of the body! I'm sure you can come up with many more than
I can, and I can think of a few myself.

Furthermore, I am personally not aware of any wide-scale chillul YT that
has developed as a result of allowign levayos on YT, although I do not
doubt that RMF is in a beter position to make that call.

Point! We are not interested in the methodology of how a Halachah is
derived but WHO says it. This of course opbviates the need for a concept
of Toe'h bidvar Mishanh which becomes impossible in this system.

This reminds me of the apocryphal story told in Yeshivos about the Migdol
Oz and the Rambam - Q: What's the Rambam's source for this statement?
Migdal Oz: it's the Rambam silyl THAT's the source!

Point: I think the Gmara made this point about reducing 40 Malkos to 39
and the silliness of standing for a Torah and not standing for a Talmid
Chacham who can re-interpret said Torah!

It's really all a matter of shita here

The Rambam says the Ikkar TSBP is the Beis Din Hagadol. as Dr. shinnar
points out, and I echo, the chasima of THAT TSBP is the churban bayyis,
NOT the chasimas Shas

However we still see in Choshen Mishpat 25 that the idea of a T'eh dicvar
Mishnah is a constantly moving target and they do NOT stop at the Mishna
nor at the Gmara.

If Chassimas Hatalmud is the last word, then kfiyyas hamitta would
still be a chiyyuv for an an aveil, and kitniyuos and bigamy would be
still be optional for Ashkenazim!

Chassimas Hatalmud might have been a fact, but not as the last word in
Halachah. I would be tempted to say the pshat is that it was the last
point that midrash Halachah could be used to derive Halachah from a
passuk. However we know the Maharil derived the idea of bachurim not
wearing a Tallis before marriage from a Passuk. So even there Halachic
Midrash survives Chasimas Hatalmud. Ironcially, this is one case where
Yekkes ignore the Maharil but Eastern European Jews still follow this,
DESPITE the Ba'eir Heiteive and the Mishnah Brurah's objections to same!

I know RYGB has respected Wissnshaft in the past, perhaps he can explain
his model of just what are the precise parameters of Chassimas Hatalmud,
how far does it go and where does it NOT go.

[Email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 4/6/2003 5:05:57 PM EDT, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
>>Also, RMF seems to reverse the Bavli re: burial on YT Shinei by invoking
>>chillul YT as a concern - af al pi that the Bavli asserts that legabei
>>Meisim YT sheini is considered kechol...
> 
> Do you really believe that RMF reversed a BAVLI?!

Pt. 2

The Mishnah allows Choltin {Scalding} of grains as NOT being Chametz.
AFAIK the Bavli does not object. It is apparently the Gaonim who forbid
this because somehow we are not beiki'im anymore. The Rambam cites
the Mishnah's heter first and THEN notes that we now - as a Minhag -
refrain from Choltin - and that this Minhag is quite widespread. The SA
does not even bother to note the original heter of the Mishanh and just
notes the issur.

Can we restore Choltin somehow? certainly it is POSSIBLE to bring
water close to 99 deg C 211 deg F and now for sure that the water is
as hot as possible! Why not re-introduce this! The Mishanh allows it!
The Gmara does not object! If our technology allows for greater precisoin
in knowing how hot is hot, then why not? RMF allows for the advent of
refrigeration to alter procedure for care of the niftar?

OK. I can see that there is a NEED for change according to RMF whereas
you can object and say the NEED to restore CHOLTIN is not there. Then,
if hypothetically somehow we DID have a need, then I would presume it
would be OK to restore Choltin?!

Then we need to re-visit Kitniyos. Just what is the issur? A minhag? A
gzeira? etc.
Lmai nafka minah? This comes up for mei kitniyyos. if the Minhag was
based upon the chumra of mixing up grains, then ein hachi nami, the
legumes are assur, but their derviaties should be muttar. And if so,
why not mattir corn oil, corn syrup, peanut oil (which USED to have
an OU-P) etc. And that begs the other question, who made corn into
kitniyyos? The corn and peanuts wher not around whe nthe original
"gzeira" was formulated.

As many on this list know, I am NOT oposed to the minhag of kitniyyos. I
merely object ot extending it beyong the basic necessity of the gzeira
which is to eliminate grains. I do not get the need for mei kitniyyos
and ESPECIALLY mei kittniyyos for corn and peanuts which did not exist
at all when the gzeira was promulgated. IOW it is a gzeria squared and
has no logic at this point. So if you want to assur lentil oil, fine.
But to make corn into full-fledged kitniyyos and then to assur it's oil
is a big stretch.

It also begs the question - "Why not potatoes". Corn after all is not
a legume!

It is all very confusing to me as to when we think we can
A) Ignore post-Talmudic tradition and go back to the din of the Talmud
B) Ignore Talmudic reulings and rely about Post-Talmudic Tradition
C) Rely upon Svara to trump Masorah
D) Rely upon Masorah to trump Svara!

After reading R. Schachter's post I find the problem even more baffling
and after reading RYGB's posts, I find it even further baffling!

There is a rabbicinal colleague of mine who holds that Chasimas
Hatalmud is THE last word in Halachah and everthying afterwards is
only interpretation. He ostensably wbasis this upon a Rambam that
you can argue on ANY post-Talmudic point and that ONLY the Talmud is
the last word. Is this RYGB's shita, too? If so what about Kfiyyas
hamittah for an avail and what about Choltin?

Is the matter to be reduced to
A) canonization of text?!
 or
B) Based upon Masorah, oral, written, and mimetic?!

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 4/7/2003 11:39:03 AM EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> As I understand it, the Chiyuv Kares for eating chometz applies only by
> night, and not on Erev Pesach; on Erev Pesach after Chatzos, all eating
> usage or ownership of chometz is "merely" a lav.

> If that is true, then why were the Rabanan more concerned about someone
> who (on a cloudy day) would accidentally eat chometz after Chatzos
> (which is why they set the zman for two hours before chatzos), and only
> moderately concerned about one who would accidentally *use* his chometz
> after Chatzos (which is why they set the zman for only a single hour
> before chatzos)?

Good point

Try this one on

We are noheig like Rabbi Yehudah to assur the 5th hour from eating.
Reason: Gzeira leyom hem'unan
Well, guess what we don't use sundials anymore so how is this gzeira
relevant!
You will answer: AHA you cannot overturn an obsoslete gzeira, because
you do NOT know ALL the reasons!
MY answer: well that migth be true where the Gzeria is lekulei almo!
But here it is a Mchlokes and Rabbi Meir does NOT pasken this way.
Therefore we can be fairly certain 99.% that the ONLY reason for Rabbi
Yehudah is the stated reason because we have no evidence of a universal
Gzeriah with a hidden agenda attached.
Im kein this hour chumra should not apply anymore, and it would not
violate the gneral rule of not undoing a gzeira because the ta'am might
be hidden.

Ela mai? We don't change psak even if the underlying reason has changed?
So once like Rabbi Yehudah ALWAYS like Rabbi Yehudah?! That means the
yom hme'unnan is NO LONGER the reason we do it today, only the reason
we STARTED doing it. But NOW once we do it, we rely upon it af al pi
it has no legs of its own anymore...

Think about this one for a while...

Im kein, going back to the gmara and using ITS Ta'am is not a valid
method.

So let's say taht not giving women aliyos WAS an issue of kvod
Hatzibbur. Btu that no longer applies.

So how does the Mharam miRothenburg work? OK so he suspended the case
for a tzoerch - that is ir shekulo kohnanim

So let's say if there is a bris on Erev Pesach {a Tzorech!} then we can
go back to the stated reason fo the gmara - yom hm'unan - and suspend
it letzorech because it is after all an obsolete reason and we have no
evidence of any other reason!

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

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> At 10:54 AM 4/7/03 -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>> 1. Historical problems: R. Yaakov Pollack and R. Shalom Shachna,
>> the founders of Poilisher lomdus, refused to publish (see Tshuvos
>> haRama #25). There are other more recent examples of non-publishers
>> who have retained their status as essential links in psak and/or lomdus
>> (e.g. R. Chaim Soloveitchik).

> I covered this in my response to Dr. Shinnar - certain traditions that are 
> preserved in writing by students are then part of the corpus - but, 
> interestingly, primarily validated by the standing of the student, not the 
> master!

There is some validation in the standing of the student, in authenticating
the tradition as valid.  After all, the issue in all traditions, both
written and oral, is that they may be erroneous, either deliberately or
unintentionally.  However, the notion that the status of the tradition is
inherently dependent  on the transmitter, rather than on the originator, is
another tremendous hidush that RYGB brings, and I wonder the source for
this.  eg, RSBA - if the kesav sofer brings down an oral tradition from the
hatam sofer, would you view it as from the kesav sofer or the hatam sofer??
It would seem that they maintain the status of oral torah, as recorded by
the talmid.

RYGB
> I do not think so - I imagine that Reb Nosson Adler, for example, would 
> have published psakim, and only refrained from committing chiddushim to 
> writing.

What is the basis for this belief? Did he ever publish any psakim? Did the
Chatham Sofer refrain from bringing down any oral psakim or hiddushim?
Furhtermore, to the extent that you argue that the essence of the
written tradition is to preserve the shakla vetarya rather than the mere
conclusion, the difference between hiddushim and shakla vetarya of shu't
is quite small.


Again, what is suprising is that a position that not only I, but others
more notable than I, find strange and in direct opposition to the normal
understanding of the heter to write torah shebealpe, is argued forcefully
without a single source being cited as if it is pashut. Can you cite
anyone who argues explicitly as you do?

RYGB
>>> Oral traditions can play only secondary, perhaps only tertiary, roles
>>> in this process. The erosion of the halachic method in our day and age
>>> is in inverse proportion to the spread of oral psak.

RDR
>> On the contrary, the erosion of the halachic process is closely related to
>> modern communications methods and the change in methodology of advanced
>> education to accomodate the great unwashed. Certain novel halachic
>> opinions, like the opinion that psak without explanation has more force
>> than psak with explanation play a part as well.

RYGB
> Modern communication methods, coupled with mass illiteracy, have done
> the Halachic process in.

At least we agree that the modern halachic process has been done in...

Meir Shinnar 

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


[ 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         ]