Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 11

Thu, 18 Oct 2007

• 1. Re: Mitsvat Sukkah is almost unique (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Hebrews/Israelites/Bnei Yisroel - Jews (Micha Berger)
• 3. May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a "box"? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Re: Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Mitsvat Sukkah is almost unique (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. Re: Mitsvat Sukkah is almost unique (Shlomo Argamon)
• 8. Minhag Yisroel Mor on Rav Shachter and Masorah (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Re: Mitsvat Sukkah is almost unique (Michael Poppers)

On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 09:42:41PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:> According to the gemara, you have to wash neigl vasser before tefilah.
:> According to the Zohar, and this made it into halakhah pesuqah (outside
:> of Teiman), one is supposed to wash as soon as possible. Tum'ah is
:> transformed from something that contradicts certain mitzvos to something
:> inherently wrong and to be minimized.

: Questions:
:    1. How did the Gra restore the use of 2 matzos at the Seder based upon
:    the peshat of  Gmara when the Halachic trend  as to use 3?  Certainly Rema
:    would follow Tosafos and Rosh but even  the Beis Yosef rejects Rambam and
:    Rif because the world Minhag in his day was to use 3 as per Tso. and Rosh

Mah inyan shemittah eitzel har Sinai? We're talking about whether tum'ah
is inherently bad, and you ask about the Gra's authority to pasqen
differently than accepted norm. But since you asked:

Nu, he dug up an old minhag that was more mistabeir.

:    2. Bottom line: Isn't the Gra positing that we may ALWAYS go back to
:    the Gmara and current Halchic norms even if based upon Tradition
:    or poskim?

Or, at least that his own opinion is equal in weight to that of any
rishon. That being mistabeir outweighs being nahug -- at least for the
individual who finds it more mistabeir. The Gra tried to keep his talmdim
from following suit on much of his distinct pesaqim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
micha@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 09:27:28PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
:                                ... Then R Yochanan says: "le'olam
: mibinyamin ka'ati", he came only from Binyamin and not from Yehuda.
: "So why was he called Yehudi?  Because he denied AZ, for anyone who
: denies AZ is called Yehudi, as it says 'There are Jewish men [...who
: don't serve your gods]' (Daniel 3:12)."

And how do you know this is intended as peshat rather than derashah?

The name Shneiur originated from Signor. However, Rav Aharon Kotler named
his son for the fact that he was born Friday evening, when "shenei or"
should be lit. So, while the names is from "Signor", my nephew in Lakewood
was still named for the derashah of "two lights".

Yarmulka is a Slavic word for cap, coming from the Turkish. Yiddish
speakers associated with with "yarei Malka". Did the name for the
traditional head covering win the "market share" it did because of the
Slavic origin, or because people were thinking about yir'as Shamayim?

The same might be what the gemara is trying to say. But personally, I
still think it's simply darshening the pasuq.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Rav * Herschel Schachter states:  *

Years ago, a prominent rabbi in *Eretz Yisrael* came up with an original
> idea as to how to permit *Kohanim* to go to medical school (i.e., to come
> in contact with *meisim* (corpses)).Rav Moshe Feinstein published a *
> teshuva* pointing out that this rabbi's suggestion could have been
> implemented centuries ago, but never was. Therefore we must assume that
> there must be some good explanation as to why the suggestion is not correct.
> (Indeed, in my sefer - *B'Ikvei HaTzon *- I have published what I consider
> quite a reasonable rebuttal.) And even if Eliyahu *Hanavi* were to appear
> and express his opinion in favor of this rabbi's notion, Rav Moshe thinks we
> would not even follow him on this matter (Igros Moshe, Y.D. 3:155). A
> matter of *halacha* which has been accepted for centuries can not be
> overturned, unless one can demonstrate that there simply was an error
> involved from the very outset.
>

*source:
*http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2003/rsch_masorah.html


And now by extension may kohanim use an innovation such as a box to visit
the Rebb's Ohel?

   1. Does that constitute a Shinuy of Halachah?
   2. Is it a valid Chiddush?
   3. Is this a Reform C"V
   4. iss it normative as per Talmud but not OK since it was never done
   before?***
   5. Is it an evolution of facts on the gorund?  IOW just as there USED
   to be a reshus harrabim in the Time of the Gmara but there aren't any more
   [as per many poskim]  therefore we have different norms re:  Hotza'ah?


***See YD 1:1 the machlokes betwen Beis Yosef and Shach re: lo ra'inu eino
raya
And I would posit that even for the Shach some lo ra'inu's are a bigger raya
than othe lo ra'inu's.



-- 

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071017/542d1cbc/attachment.html 

On 10/17/07, Richard Wolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rav * Herschel Schachter states:  *
>
> . A matter of *halacha* which has been accepted for centuries can not be
> > overturned, unless one can demonstrate that there simply was an error
> > involved from the very outset.
> >
>
> *source:
> *http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2003/rsch_masorah.html
>
>
Given:

   1. Rif Rambam paskened 2 matzos at the Seder as per simple read of the
   Talmud.
   2. Gaonim have a tradition for lechem Mishnah on Yom tov
   3. Rosh/Tosafos say 3 - that sugya is superceded by the requirement of
   Lechem Mishneh
   4. Rema says 3 ratifying Minhag Ashkenaz
   5. Bet Yosef says that minhag is like Tosafot and Rosh and paskens 3
   despite his stated rule re: Rif/Rambam - Minhag Yisrael prevails neverthless
   6. Shleah - as cited by kaf Hachayyim says the only way to be yotzei
   lechal hadei'os is to use 3.

Question: how did the GRA revert it back to 2?

   1. Were Rosh, Rema, Shulchan Aruch, Shleah all beta'us?
   2. If so does this impact their reliablility on other matters/
   3. Did the Gra feel bound by the norms Minhag Yisrael - or by his read
   of the Talmud?
   4. For those who switched to 2, should they switch back to 3 - since
   the shita of 2 goes against the norms o Halachic canons as posited by RHS?
   ""one can demonstrate that there simply was an error" . i.e the error
   here is going against Minhag Yisroel.
   5. Is there ever a time limit on overtuning Minhag based upon error?
   IOW how many centuries o fpractice makes perfect or is it ALWAYS subject to
   revision based upon a better read of Talmud.
   6. How dorecnetly discovered girsaos of old manuscripts play into
   this?  Are they demonstrative of earlier errors and therefore dispositive of
   minhaggim?

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071017/797da0f6/attachment.htm 

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>     Rav / Herschel Schachter states:  /
> 
>         . A matter of /halacha/ which has been accepted for centuries
>         can not be overturned, unless one can demonstrate that there
>         simply was an error involved from the very outset.

> Given:
> [...]
> Question: how did the GRA revert it back to 2?

Nu, so who says the GRA had to pasken like RHS?

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

On 10/17/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 09:42:41PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>
>
> Mah inyan shemittah eitzel har Sinai? We're talking about whether tum'ah
> is inherently bad, and you ask about the Gra's authority to pasqen
> differently than accepted norm. But since you asked:


You were showing how the advent Zohar overturned normative Talmudic Halachah


Nu, he dug up an old minhag that was more mistabeir.


Can we now blow Shofar on Shabbos as per the Rif -  Seeing how the Term
Yeshiva is used for every place where there is a Yeshiva?   The Hinuch makes
it optional to pick between the Rambam and the Rif on this matter. CAn we
NOW follow that Hinuch and pick and choose?

:    2. Bottom line: Isn't the Gra positing that we may ALWAYS go back to
> :    the Gmara and current Halchic norms even if based upon Tradition
> :    or poskim?
>
> Or, at least that his own opinion is equal in weight to that of any
> rishon. That being mistabeir outweighs being nahug -- at least for the
> individual who finds it more mistabeir. The Gra tried to keep his talmdim
> from following suit on much of his distinct pesaqim.


is this a form of "Do as I say but not as I do?" In klalei p'sak ma'aseh Rav
trumps a meimra - see Tosafos in Bameh Tomnin.

 Bottom line The Gra's META message is:

> Given a halachah or minahg you can overturn it if you can back it up with
> Talmudic sources.:


And since you equated the GRA with a Rishon why can't we follow HIS METHOD?
After all he rejte the idea that he was bound by Minhag Yisrael or  the
consensu of poskim - which had been the medhot of Both Bet Yosef and Rema!

And Given:

   1. The Rosh had a read of the Gmara
   2. The poskim made it normative
   3. The minhag was to follow the poskim
   4. The Gra rejected the read
   5. The Gra rejected the Minhag
   6. What did the GRA seee in the OLD minhag - that was now in disuse -
   that failed to convince Bet Yosef?
   7. So -do people follow the Gra because he was GREATER than the Bet
   Yosef? If that were the case why didn't Bet Yosef say follow the Rambam as
   greater than the Rosh? It is pretty obvious that the Bet Yosef felt that the
   Rambam to be a bigger poseik!
   8. Halachah kerabbi Akiva machaveio v'LO meichaveirov.  What about R.
   Eliezer and the Tanur? Doesn't consensus trump Gadlus?

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071017/df3fa4ab/attachment.html 

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:03:12 -0500, <avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org>  
wrote:

> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:41:31AM -0400, Elliott Shevin wrote:
> : ... As an aside, tumah is not intrinsically a bad thing....
> I think that's a difference between nigleh and nistar.
> According to the gemara, you have to wash neigl vasser before tefilah.
> According to the Zohar, and this made it into halakhah pesuqah (outside
> of Teiman), one is supposed to wash as soon as possible. Tum'ah is
> transformed from something that contradicts certain mitzvos to something
> inherently wrong and to be minimized.

Interestingly, I just this evening saw the following comment by Rav  
Nebentzal, in Beyitshaq Yiqare, commenting on the idea (brought in M"B  
s'if qatan 2) of not walking more than 4 amot before neigl vasser, vezeh  
leshono: "ADMO"R ZLLH"H heard from HaRav David BHR"N ZT"L that the  
tradition (masoret) from the GR"A is that from the time that the true  
convert R. Avraham ben Avraham the Graf Potocki was burned to death `al  
qidush Hashem, the "ruahh ra`ah" no longer exists (batlah) on the hands.   
And ADMO"R ZLLH"H explained that this is just regarding matters whose  
source is the Zohar, and not regarding matters found in the Gemara.  For  
example, one need not be concerned about not walking 4 amot before the  
washing, as its source is in the Zohar and not from the law (midina) of  
the Gemara."

I find this rather remarkable, and hope for comments from those qualified  
to do so.

	-Shlomo-

>
> Nevertheless, we still assume that a centuries-old *halachic* position,
> accepted and observed universally by all of *Klal Yisroel*, does not lend
> itself to reversal. The tradition makes room for, and even encourages, *
> chiddush*, but not for *shinui* (see Nefesh Harav pg. 64). According to
> Rambam, the binding force of the Talmud is precisely due to the fact that it
> was universally accepted by all of *Klal Yisroel*.
>


#1  Arvis
OK one day Arivs is a reshus.  People do it.  Later it becomes a Minhag
Yisroel.

   1. At what time does it become normative
   2. is this conversion from optional to normative a Hiddush? A Shinuy?


#2 Birkas Kohanim
OK there are at least 3 positions on saying Birksa kohanim

   1. Every Day
   2. Every Yom Tov
   3. Every Yom Tov but NO on Shabbos

What is the Minhag Yisrael?  Well there is no such thing. There are at least
3 opinions of how to do it!
What is the Talmudic norm? It is a daily Mitzva!
Why don't we change this minhag to match the daily hiyyuv?  Apparently it
was tried and it failed.  hmmmm
re: #3 - deapite it being a minhag in manycongregations, RYBS has insisted
that it is a minhag ta'us and MSUT be changed. But Mah nafashach - HOW is it
that position #2 is any superior to position #3 anyway?  If Tradition trumps
text than #3 is as equally valid as #2. And if Text trumps tradition than #2
is just as flawed as #3.

FWIW, the reason given for no duchening on YT shechal beshabbos has to
with  mikvah and keri.  That is why this minhag of no duchening should not
apply to YK shechal beshabbos since tashmish hamitta is assur anyway .

Yizkor on Yom Tov
Bishlema Yizkor on YK has a validity - we NEED to daven for the neshamos of
the departed. But how come we degrade simchas YomTov by being mazkir
neshamos on YT?  The original Cause was nedavos called "matnas yad" While
Matnas Yad WAS done for the niftarim as well as for the Hayyim, there was no
concept of hazkaras Neshamos per se.  In fact Breuer's only added Yizkor
when it came to America.  Thus we see the OLD Tradition was NOT to say it.
Is this a Shinuy?


Bakashos on Shabbos and  Yom Tov
The Talmud teaches us NOT To have bakashos on Shabbos and Yom tov for
personal needs.  That is the reason for a shortened Amidah/  Yet the
prevalent minhag today is to say endless mishebeirachs for all kinds of
needs on Shabbos and Yom tov> Is this NOT a minhag Ta'us?  IN Yekke shuls a
choleh mishebeirach was ONLY said when a person was close to death's door.
Otherwise there was no exemption on Shabbos to say  choleh Mishebeirach.
How come Yekkes get this Halahc and Traditiona and most everyone else just
adds bakashos despite Talmudic prohibitions to do so?  is this not a shinuy?






-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071017/4284c9ae/attachment.htm 

In Avodah Digest V24#10, R'Micha replied to RES:
>> ... As an aside, tumah is not intrinsically a bad thing.... <<
> I think that's a difference between nigleh and nistar.
> According to the gemara, you have to wash neigl vasser before tefilah.
According to the Zohar, and this made it into halakhah pesuqah (outside of
Teiman), one is supposed to wash as soon as possible. Tum'ah is transformed
from something that contradicts certain mitzvos to something
inherently wrong and to be minimized. <
For RSRH on tum'ah, see his Torah commentary's essay in P'Vayiqra between
5:13 and 5:14 (re tum'as miqdash) and in P'Shmini at the end of 11.  I'm
reminded of "...uvacharta bachayyim!" and, after all, shouldn't we be
constantly "choosing" properly from the moment we wake up?  (BTW, the end
of that long Chapter-11 essay even refers to n'tilas yadayim, albeit the
pre-meal n'tilah rather than the post-waking n'tilah.)

A guten Shabbes and all the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071017/909ed937/attachment.html 

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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 11
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."