Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 009

Wednesday, October 8 2003

• Re: tefillin knots
• Re: tefillin knots
• Re: newly found manuscripts of rishonim
• Benching children on Erev YK
• Rashi on Yonah's 'whale of a time'
• Re: Not Blowing the Shofar
• Animal right to life
• Can women be domeh l'malachim?
• Enforcing Halachah
• Re: Hashgocha Pratis etc.,
• Oseh haShalom
• Re: Suffering: Individual vs Community
• Re: rambam in Israel revisited
• Re: Akeidat Yitz'hak
• Re: Enforcing Halachah
• RE: Enforcing Halachah
• Re: duchenening during Ne'ila
• Re: duchenening during Ne'ila
• Re: duchenening during Ne'ila
• Re: duchenening during Ne'ila
• Re: duchenening during Ne'ila

R Herschel A Ainspan wrote:
> Any websites where I can find a k'sav ivri alphabet? Is this the
> same as the "Phoenician" alphabet?

I don't think we're sure which script is kesav ivri. We can conlude
from the Y-mi Megillah's statement that "ayin vetes shebiluchos beneis
hayu omedim" that these two letters were closed figures in kesav ivri.
It would be a reasonable guess that only those two were, however, I've
never seen a script that would match that description.

For a general feel of the terrain, see the alphabets at
<http://www.ancientscripts.com/alphabet.html>, a tree of ancient
alphabets including Proto-Canaanite, Phoenician, and Old Hebrew. Ivri
is somewhere in that part of the ancestry.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> I don't think we're sure which script is kesav ivri. We can conlude
> from the Y-mi Megillah's statement that "ayin vetes shebiluchos beneis
> hayu omedim" that these two letters were closed figures in kesav ivri.
> It would be a reasonable guess that only those two were, however, I've
> never seen a script that would match that description.

> For a general feel of the terrain, see the alphabets at
> <http://www.ancientscripts.com/alphabet.html>, a tree of ancient
> alphabets including Proto-Canaanite, Phoenician, and Old Hebrew. Ivri
> is somewhere in that part of the ancestry.

The script that is called " Phoenician" on the web page you gave reference
to matches this description exactly: only the 'ayin and tes were circles.
So I am not sure what the problem is; the old Hebrew scripts, such as
the Shiloah inscription from the time of King Hizqiyyahu, all have this
feature, although the shapes of many letters have changed. (In the
Shiloah inscription there is no tes, but from the shapes of the other
letters it is most probable that the tes was still round.) Seth Mandel

On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 09:29:32PM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
:> IIRC the reason being that HKBH would not have allowed Klall Yisroel
:> to be nichshol all these years - and had it been relevant or indeed the
:> halocho so - it would have been in our hands centuries ago.

: And the reason HKB"H allowed it to  become available now is??? (a test ?)

Talmud Torah.

H' allowed the mesorah to evolve one way, and then, just for informational
purposes, let us know the other divrei E-lokim Chaim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Dale Carnegie

A few comments re the Brocho for children on Erev YK - the one that
starts with
'YHR sheyihyu bonay hachavivim..' [which the Machzor says is from the
baal Chayei Odom and Shaar Hamelech].

1) It is 'beloshon rabbim' ''bonay hachavivim".
Presumably every father benches each child individually -
so why this style?

2) It mentions 'ulehovilchem lechupah' - which is NOT something you
wish to say to your married children.

3) Some of  the nusach is not a direct brocho for the children -
but rather for the 'mevoreich' -! eg 'veyitein >>li<< Elokim parnoso
bereivach'

Now [after YK] I see that the Satmar [Divrei Yoel] machzor  - after bringing
this nusach,
quotes another from the Chayei Odom [and IIRC is also quoted in the KSA]
which seems more appropriate.

The DY machzor adds - 'ukenireh d'im benoy nosui, omar zeh'

....

And, only partly in jest.

The way many of us say the 'al cheit's - wouldn't it be more appropriate
if we said 'AC shechotonu lefonecho bevidui peh' - last?

This way, by being mechaven, maybe we make up for all the others that
we didn't?

SBA

A thought that occurred to me yesterday after saying Maftir Yonah and
perusing the Rashi thereon.

Dag and dagah.
Rashi is obviously trying to explain why the 'whale' is first called  a
'dag' and in the next posuk a 'dagah' ?

So Rashi reveals to us what actually happened to Yonah.

He was first swallowed by a male fish with a big belly - and he felt
quite comfortable with his new surroundings, thus he didn't consider
davening to Hashem to release him.

So Hashem gave a sign to Mr Whale - who spat Yonah out - right into the
mouth of Mrs Whale - who then swallowed him.
To Yonah's shlemazel Mrs W. was pregnant - and had a whole bunch of
'not so cute' baby whales in her tummy...

Now, Yonah was VERY uncomfortable indeed and being squashed up like that,
davvened to Hashem to him out of there...

[V'efshar, that the lesson from all this to us is, that when we get into
'small' and bearable problems, we should should not accept them, but
rather davven immediately - and not wait until we are in such a tight
squeeze, that we can no longer move...]

--------------------
The DY Machzor brings an additional Rashi, which I didn't see in my
Nach edition.

On 'Vayman Hashem Dag Gadol' - Rashi says, that as the Yidden in the
Midbar were short 16 days of the 40 years - when they did not received
'mon', Hashem made up for it by feeding this 'mon' to the whale -
thus ensuring that he doesn't chew up Yonah.
And Yonah himself, whilst there, also nourished himself with this 'mon'.

Rashi adds: 'Vayman' is osiyos 'yud vov [16] - man'.

Also see Rashi there for some more interesting pshat re mon, vayman
kikoyon, and how in Loshon Yovon - 'man' is called 'kiko' - thus Kiko
- yovon [yon]..'s

SBA

RGS:
> Danny Schoemann wrote:
>> My host on 2nd night RH showed me a tshuva of Rav PZ Frank
>> zt"l. Apparently there was a certain Rav Shlezinger who held it
>> was muttar to blow shofar on shabbes in Yerusholayim, and he did.

> This isn't crazy at all. The sevara is that while gezeiros apply
> even when their reason do not, when the gezeirah is not to do a
> mitzvah we assume that Chazal included a provision that when the
> reason no longer applies neither does the gezeirah...

IIRC, R' Shlesinger's argument was because the gezeirah excluded
"bemiqdash". The Rambam always includes all of Y-m in "bemiqdash", so
it woud be okay to blow shofar in Y-m.

After the Sanhedrin's galus, the loophole was extended to any place
that has a beis din. This might mean a beis din hagadol. However, if
it doesn't, and if said beis din were in Y-m, there would be a very
strong argument to allow -- and therefore require -- teqi'as shofar
beShabbos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905

> Hashem tells Yonah that He is having mercy upon Ninveh which is a great
> city "with many animals" (Yonah 4:11). Some say that "many animals" refers
> to brutish people, but simply speaking it refers to actual animals. As
> Radak says, they are not deserving of retribution, and therefore Hashem
> would not wipe out the city since it would cause the animals to die.

> BUT in the generation of Noach, this reasoning didn't necessarily apply
> at all. True, one explanation is that the animals sinned and therefore
> deserved to die. But another explanation is as the Gemara quotes Hashem,
> "I only created the animals and beasts for man; now that man has sinned,
> why do I need the animals and beasts?" (Sanhedrin 108a).

A potential answer lies in the context. In Yona, one city sinned and both
men and animals did teshuva (Uri Simon;s commentary on Yonah form Mikra
L'Am, translated by JPS takes up the question of why animals fasted and
wore sack and meaning of teshuvah for animals; it has some comments about
parallels in Macedonia and Persia that you specifically may appreciate but
is lengthy) . Since all men sinned, animals had no purpose. In Neneveh
only that city sinnes; in addition, animals also did Teshuva. Thus,
they are saved because they also repented and because they could have
been spared for use of other cities that had not sinned.

M. Levin

3 halachos that should be parallel, but aren't:

1) MG"A (end of siman 610) writes that women should not wear white on
Y"K because they cannot be domeh to malachim. M"B paskens against him
(sha'ar hatziun 11)

2) M"B writes that the minhag in 619:5 of standing for tefillah at
day/night does not apply to women because since we stand to be domeh
to malachim, and women cannot be domeh to malachim, they are excluded.
He references (in sha'ar hatziun) you back to siman 610 - but this is
a stirah to his psak there?

3) 619:2 On Y"K we say out loud "baruch shem kvod...". Reason (based
on midrash in devarim) is because this is shiras hamalachim and on Y"K
we are dugmas malachim. My wife pointed out she has never heard (and I
see nothing in m"b on it; haven't checked MG"A yet) of women not doing
this despite the opinion that women cannot be domeh l'malachim?

-Chaim

I thought this was thought provoking. -mi

Shabbat-B'Shabbato
Machon Zomet
...

POINT OF VIEW
Park Patrols
Rabbi Yisrael Rosen

"The courts are required to appoint officers on the holidays who will
patrol the gardens and orchards and on the riverbanks, to prevent men and
women from gathering there to eat and drink, so that they will not come to
sin. They will also warn all the people about this, so that men and women
shall not gather in the houses in a joyous way and be drawn out by wine,
in order that they will not come to sin." [Rambam, Hilchot Yom Tov 6:19].

As far as I can tell, this halacha, which is related to the previous
halacha about "joy on the holiday," is very unique in that it is concerned
with the laws of public activity, and that it requires that the courts
should be involved in social and cultural life.

Obligation or Recommendation?

The commentators on the Rambam were not able to find an explicit source
for this ruling, and they brought two sources in the Talmud that seem
to be related. The first is Kidushin 81a, "The worst time is during the
holidays," and Rashi explains that "the weakest time of year for sin
is the time of the holidays, when groups of men and women come to hear
sermons and then have discussions with each other." In modern terms,
we might say with respect to relations between the sexes that a holiday
is the Achilles heel, the most dangerous time of the entire year. The
second possible source for the Rambam is directly related to Succot,
in a discussion of Simchat Beit Hasho'eiva, the water celebrations. "At
first, the women were inside and the men outside, and they would become
frivolous. They decided that the women would stay outside and the men
inside, but the people were still light-headed. So they decided that
the women would sit upstairs and the men downstairs." [Succah 51b].

Even though these two sources describe the events but do not explicitly
direct the Beit Din to "appoint officers on the holidays," the Rambam
in his wisdom made an innovative ruling in public law, calling for
supervision and good practices in a public place. (It is usually
assumed that the Rambam does not write a single word which is not
rooted in an earlier source, but in this case we simply have not
been able to identify the source.) And there is a difference between
public and private places. In public, "in gardens, orchards, and on the
riverbanks," the officers "patrol." In private, "in the houses," they
"warn all the people."

The morals squad does not break down doors and does not violate the
rules of privacy.

This is indeed a narrow opening dealing with the subject of laws
pertaining to society and the state. We can assume that even though we
have not found a collection of such laws, some lessons can be learned
from this law about the general rules for public behavior. One might even
wonder if the instructions were meant only for public morals or if there
would have been inspectors for other subjects, such as closing malls on
Shabbat or closing down stores that sell pork and other similar items. My
feeling is that these procedures were meant specifically for the subject
of morality, and this is most consistent with the sources quoted above.

There is one other law in the Rambam that also seems to imply the
existence of a "crime prevention squad," and the wording is similar to
what we have been discussing. "The courts are required to appoint officers
in every country and in every area to check the accuracy of weights and
measures" [Hilchot Geneiva 8:20]. Just as with the laws of the holiday,
this does not refer to policemen who are called in to investigate a
complaint but rather preemptive inspections, to prevent harm in advance.

"A Morals Squad" or Religious Coercion?

The halachic "Beit Din" served not only a judicial function but also
acted as an executive branch of government. Much has been written about
this "non-separation of powers" in halacha, and this is not the place to
expand on the subject. The novelty in the law we are discussing is the
preemptive action, an attempt to prevent evil, specifically in the area
of social activity and morals. Is this an example of a basic instruction
for a Jewish state? Greater men will have to decide!

As a side note, here is something written by Rabbi Meir Dan Palachki,
in his book "Kli Chemda" (an addendum to the portion of Lech-Lecha):
"I am very perplexed by the Rambam, who wrote that the courts must appoint
officers on the holidays to patrol the gardens... Why didn't he write that
the courts should appoint officers to prevent desecration of Shabbat?" He
notes the verse, "They found a man gathering wood on Shabbat" [Bamidbar
15:32], and the Midrash, "This shows that Moshe appointed guards." Rabbi
Palachki's answer is that "Bnei Yisrael were not suspected of violating
Shabbat," that is, it did not occur to the Rambam that Shabbat would
be violated in public. I would suggest another answer, that there is a
difference between a squad appointed to prevent a sin from taking place
and the guards appointed by Moshe, who were looking for people who had
already sinned, like the man who gathered wood.

What About a Modern Jewish State?

In any case, no matter how much we try to ignore this very unique law,
 we are still left with a taste of halacha specifically geared to
public activity. People interested in laws of a government authority -
and I am certainly such a person - are always on the lookout for such
laws, to serve as an inspiration for our day and age. Thus, we can ask
ourselves if the following laws might be related:

(1) A law prohibiting offensive sex in advertising. (2) Censorship of the
press and the media. (3) Prevention of "open" pornography on cable and
satellite channels ("in gardens and orchards and on the riverbanks"),
and warnings about pay-as-you-watch broadcasts ("in the houses"). (4)
An obligation to block sex-related sites on the internet in educational
and other public institutions.

----
From the same email, an interesting biographical note:

(Rabbi Yitzchak Yaacov Reines (1839-1915) was one of the greatest Torah
scholars in Latvia. He was the rabbi of the city of Lydda, in the area
of Vilna. He founded the Mizrahi movement and was its first president.
He studied in the Yeshiva of Volozhin, where he created a new style
of learning, leading to the establishment of the first "yeshiva high
schools," which he called yeshivot of Torah and science. Seven hours
a day were devoted to Torah, while three hours were devoted to secular
studies. He joined the "Chibat Tzion" movement, where he proposed a plan
for Torah study combined with settling Eretz Yisrael, and he supported
Theodore Herzl. Originality and innovation are characteristic of his
halachic works, which are based on logic similar to what was later to
be called "the logic of Brisk.")

I again want to voice my objection with calling the pre-Besh"t view a
"consensus". Various shitos existed. They had one consequence in
common, a lack of HP for animals if no person's life is impacted by
the event. The Besh"t brings a ra'ayah for a shitah that disagrees on
that point. But his shitah just another entry in the fray, not
upsetting a universally held theory about theodicy.

While on the subject of limited HP, recall that it's not only HP vs
teva or mazal, there is also the interaction of HP with bechirah
chofshis (BC). The Besh"t's shitah would be choleiq with the Ohr
haChaim's on that as well.

R Eli Turkel wrote:
> I thought someone said that Besht "invented" hasgacha on everything.
> Is Gra agreeing with a Besht invention?

RMMS attributed the idea as being a chidush of the Besh"t. Perhaps the
Gra came up with the same notion simultaneously. After all, the
meqoros were there, as was the change in philosophical mileau.

RGS wrote:
> The Sifsei Chaim, Pirkei Emunah ve-Hashgachah vol. 1 devotes ma'amar
> 4 to the issue of whether there is hashgachah peratis on non-humans.

Most who speak about HP don't do so in a context that would address
non-humans. When speaking prescriptively about what the reader may
live through, including speaking about HP in connection to bitachon,
the writer would only be addressing people.

Therefore, many of the sources that speak of universal HP for people
may also grant it for animals, but simply aren't discussing animals.

It is even theoretically possible that if the rishon refers to HP
being lost (as opposed to earned) he would hold that HP applies to
animals. After all, in ways a chotei sinks /lower/ than a chamor.

R Yosef Gavriel wrote:
> What about the Rambam's view that it applies to species, but not
> individual  animals? (Raises the question of whether spotted owls
> were a species bifnei  atzmam or part of the larger species of
> owls!)

Including hashgachah minis (HM) would be scope creap (as it's called in
my line of work). Gil listed shitos in HP, not HM.

However, this other usage of the same word does lead me to question
interpretation of the word "hashgachah" to only include a certain
level of directness in H' Yisarakh's interaction. (Thereby allowing the
non-universal HP rishonim to still speak of everything occuring to a
person because of an exact plan.)

In another email RYGB wrote:
> The hanahaga of Hashem alternates between din and rachamim, gilui
> and hester, and according to the mekkubalim, in almost infinite
> arrays of sefiros and partzufim...

Not to mention the huge qualitative change(s) with the end of nevu'ah
and nissim giluyim. (Was that one transition or two?)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

We discussed this in vol.s 4 and 10.

The alternative ending of birkhas Shalom used during the AYT is the
preservation of Eretz Yisra'el's nusach, which is no newer than the
Bavli one we usually use (R David Bannett). (This is similar to the
ending of "Hashkiveinu" for Shabbos and YT; two variants existed, and
we standardized each for a different occasion.) RRW wrote that the
"oseh hashalom" version is found in *older* manuscripts than the
earliest copy of our usual version. R' Herschel Ainspan found the
Otzar haTefillos calling it the older version.

We use "hashalom" instead of "shalom" in other contexts of AYT
davening (qaddish). So, whatever tipped the balance WRT birkhas Shalom
has more general impact.

Since then, I picked up the following: The reason for using "Hashalom"
is that it is bigematria "Samiel", the name of the mal'ach who brings
our tefillos to HQBH, according to Pirqei Heikhalos. Why we would have
a stronger desire to invoke the mal'akh at a time when the gemara
tells us "behimatz'o", and therefore have less need for such couriers,
is outside my ken.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905

R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Rav Soleveitchik said that normally when a clamity happens to an
> individual - he needs to accept as we see with Aaron and get on with
> his life. In contrast when it happens to a community - it is
> appropriate to ask questions. Iyov apparently is an exception to
> rule. I have the Akeidas Yitzchok on CD - but have no idea what word
> to look for. Any help would be appreciated

As usual, I'm no help with meqoros. However, I was wondering about
your comment about Iyov. Iyov concludes with HQBH chiding him for
seeking an answer. Why would you consider his case an exception to the
AY's rule?

-mi

R Elly Bachrach wrote:
> I noticed that my Artscroll machzor including Rabbeinu Yona's
> yesodei hateshuva, and explained in the comments how Rabbeinu Yona
> traveled to various communities on his way to Israel to the rambam's
> kever.

Rabbeinu Yonah had charatah for his role in the Maimonidian Controversy?
What caused his change of mind? (Didn't his petirah predate the burning
of shas?)

-mi

R Arie Folger wrote:
> I come no further than Rashi's suggestion that God couldn't have
> meant for Yitz'hak to be killed, since He promised Avraham ki
> beYitz'hak yiqare lekha zar'a.

Rashi learned "Raba shachat lei leR' Zeira", so he knew that shechting
someone need not cause a permanent death. Even if that aggadah isn't
bederekh peshat, neis was certainly a possibility. Was ein somechin al
haneis enough of a factor to tip the balance in favor of the mal'ach's
tzivui over HQBH's direct words?

A different question: Since when does anyone other than Mosheh
Rabbeinu recieve direct words from Hashem Yisbarakh? The Rambam
associates mal'achim with the apsaqlaria she'eino me'ira of most
nevi'im -- how would he even make the distinction being assumed in
Rashi's question?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905

> The halachic "Beit Din" served not only a judicial function but also
> acted as an executive branch of government.

Was this true when the malchut existed as well?

Gmar Tov,
Joel RIch

> I thought this was thought provoking. 
> 
>> Shabbat-B'Shabbato
>> Machon Zomet
>> ...
>> POINT OF VIEW
>> Park Patrols
>> Rabbi Yisrael Rosen

Yes, thought provoking it was. However, the second that I saw the first
paragraph, what immediately came to mind was -- the tznius patrols that
go around in chareidi neighborhoods and cities. No?

---Rena 

On 8 Oct 2003 at 19:29, simchag@att.net wrote:
> in an offlist discussion concerning the minhag of duchenen during
> Ne'ila on YK.

> Reb Gershon Dubin said:
> My son complained about the hurry up for duchenen followed by the very
> slow AM.  Neither he nor I understood why the "chiyuv" of birchas
> kohanim;  if it's too late, it's too late.  

The MB actually paskens that you should NOT duchen in N'eila. Interesting
that your son said that - both of my sons reported that their Yeshivos
did not make it and they didn't duchen. Maybe it's a Yerushalmi thing
(my sons are both in Yeshivos out of the city).

> Me:
> just a thought... 
> wouldn't Birchas Kohanim be a d'Oiraisoh whereas AM is not? 

I think it's a mitzva kiyumis. In any event, they had already heard it
at Shachris and Musaf (I don't know anyone here who duchens at Mincha).

> and since
> we in Chu"L don't have the opurtunity to hear Birchas Koihanim 

RGD's son is in Mir Yerushalayim (I assume that's the son you meant).

> BTW i daven by Reb Yechiel Babad (Tartikov) and they DON'T duchen by
> Ne'ila.. in Satmar they also don't duchen by Ne'ila..but in Spink OTOH
> they DO even if it is way past the shkia.

Someone (RSBA) noted earlier in the discussion that many chassidim duchen
in N'eila after shkiya.

In my shul, they skip most of the slichos in Chazoras HaShatz, duchen
before shkiya (which they made easily - although Mincha was too fast
for my tastes) and then went back to the Slichos.

One other oddity on YK in my shul. The Shaliach Tzibur for Mincha was
a Kohain and therefore when we didn't duchen he also skipped Elokeinu
v'Elokei Avosainu, which he said that a Kohain should not say. Caused
the same raised eyebrows it caused when he did it last year....

-- 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.

simchag@att.net wrote:
> wouldn't Birchas Kohanim be a d'Oiraisoh whereas AM is not? and since we
> in Chu"L don't have the opurtunity to hear Birchas Koihanim that often
> as per the Remah in hilchois nesias kapayim, we try to 'chap arein'
> as much as possible.....

Perhaps I was clearer offlist than it appeared on list: my son whereof I
spoke was in E"Y. I have never seen duchenen in chu"l even on Y"K except
in musaf.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

[RGDubin:]
> Perhaps I was clearer offlist than it appeared on list: my son whereof
> I spoke was in E"Y. I have never seen duchenen in chu"l even on Y"K
> except in musaf.

i DID see duchenen in chu"l in Ne'ilah when i davened for years on YK
by the Spinka Rebbe ZT"L in williamsburg...and as i mentioned...duchenen
was very close to Rabeinu Taam zman...tkias shofer used to be around RT
zman or within 10 minutes after...

Simcha G

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 20:59:42 +0000 simchag@att.net writes:
> i DID see duchenen in chu"l in Ne'ilah when i davened for years on YK
> by the Spinka Rebbe ZT"L in williamsburg>>

Interesting that it is not done in YRCB, at least on YK (if not during
the year as per the Gra's ma'aseh) since Rav Hutner adopted many minhagei
Yerushalayim for the yeshiva.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 20:59:42 +0000 simchag@att.net writes:
>> DID see duchenen in chu"l in Ne'ilah when i davened for years on YK
>> by the Spinka Rebbe ZT"L in williamsburg

> Interesting that it is not done in YRCB, at least on YK (if not during
> the year as per the Gra's ma'aseh) since Rav Hutner adopted many minhagei
> Yerushalayim for the yeshiva.

There is no reason to follow the Gra's opinion only for neila; YRCB would
have done it for shacharis for every yom tov to follow the Gra, which
was never put into practice in chu'l even by his staunchest talmidim.

The minhogim that R. Hutner instituted for YRCB were all practiced in
chu'l by the Gra's talmidim. Another thing that is done only in EY by his
talmidim is to say morid hatol in the summer; R. Hutner did not institute
that (although the Gra's descendents and talmidim in chu'l never had a
tradition that he said it, and it is not clear at all from his writings).

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


[ 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         ]