Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 12

Thu, 18 Oct 2007

• 1. Re: Minhag Yisroel Mor on Rav Shachter and Masorah (Micha Berger)
• 2. RSRH and tum'ah (Micha Berger)
• 3. tower of bavel (Ilana Sober)
• 4. tower of Bavel (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: tower of bavel (Lisa Liel)
• 6. Re: tower of bavel (Ilana Sober)
• 7. Re: tower of Bavel (Lisa Liel)
• 8. When was the Bris Bein Habesarim? (Marty Bluke)
• 9. Re: Hebrews/Israelites/Bnei Yisroel - Jews (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 10. Re: Religion and Falsifiability (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 11. Re: Mitsvat Sukkah is almost unique (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 12. Re: Mitsvat Sukkah is almost unique (David Riceman)
• 13. Re: Minhag Yisroel Mor on Rav Shachter and Masorah (Zev Sero)

On Wed, October 17, 2007 10:16 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: On 10/17/07, Richard Wolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com> wrote:
:> Rav Herschel Schachter states:
[<http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2003/rsch_masorah.html> -mi]
:> . 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:
:
:    1. Rif Rambam paskened 2 matzos at the Seder as per simple read of
: the    Talmud.

More than that... They held that 3 matzos was soseir the whole concept
of lekhem oni. How is it oni to have MORE than on other holidays?

And so yes -- the Gra concluded that that every one else was wrong.

This has huge implications WRT the Gra's beliefs in eilu va'eilu.
Every pesaq he overturned, the Gra implicitly said that the one that
drove the minhag wasn't even a "va'eilu".

On Wed, October 17, 2007 10:05 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: 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?

First, L isn't the first to do it.

Second, it's ridiculous to project such a blatantly Brisker model of
halakhah onto L. Of course it won't jibe. Why would you expect it to?

On Wed, October 17, 2007 11:18 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:> 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

When people do it.

:    2. is this conversion from optional to normative a Hiddush? A
: Shinuy?

Chiddush, as the reasons are internal to the halachic process.

: #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
...
: re: #3 - deapite it being a minhag in manycongregations, RYBS has
: insisted that it is a minhag ta'us and MSUT be changed....

And the Gra, keshitaso, insisted that #2 is also ta'us, and his
talmidmi brought that ruling to EY.

The question is whether "not like the gemara" is sufficient to declare
a minhag beta'us. The Gra was very textual. And contrary to RHS's
theory of chiddush and shinnui, was willing to do some Machasheves
Yisrael to make sure he had authoritative texts -- this was critical
since he relied on them so heavily! (As opposed to RYBS, who insisted
on using a "real Rambam" even when first given a Frankel one.)

Others have higher thresholds, acknowledging non-textual traditions
(or those of other, perhaps lost, texts) that date back to Chazal. Or,
requiring an actual prohibition being violated rather than simply
following something the gemara considered inferior.

The MB applies the Gra's reasoning, with the added feature of
including the rishonim and early acharonim as authoritative texts. The
AhS championed the higher threshold before ammending minhag (in their
case, minhag Litta).

Which means that in RHS-speak, the AhS would say that the MB made
shinuyim.

However, the more relevant point to our original discussion is that in
RHS's philsophy, which in Nefesh haRav he attributes to RYBS (see pg
52-54, or at least
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n073.shtml#12> where I relate
his notion in support of a post of RRW's), that science has NO role in
changing halakhah. A position I find myself unable to fully embrace.

On Wed, October 17, 2007 10:41 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: 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....

: You were showing how the advent Zohar overturned normative Talmudic
: Halachah...

Not at all. Halakhah isn't that someone MUST wait. The gemara has no
requirement, leaving the time between waking up and davening an open
period in which washing is required. The Zohar gives a reason why it
should be ASAP. Therefore, it's a hanhagah atop the gemara, not
overturning it.

Frankly, I don't get the gemara anyway. But this is tangential -- what
about zerizim maqdimin or being prepared for the unexpected? Wouldn't
they be enough to motivate washing as early as possible regardless of
the tum'ah issue?

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Wed, October 17, 2007 11:58 pm, Michael Poppers wrote:
: 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? ...

In my neglected manuscript, I have a bit about defining tum'ah based
heavily on RSRH. I therefore have quotes from his peirush on 11:47 on
line. See the first two pages of
<http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/tazria.pdf> and of
<http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/chukas.pdf>. (RGS apparantly
didn't notice I duplicated myself largely. I didn't either.)

In short, I argued that the Ramchal's definition of taharah in the
mussar sense -- freedom from ta'avah, and RSRH's freedom from thinking
we're merely extreme mammals, are really the same. And both
explainable in REED's model as mobility of bechirah point, as opposed
to being prejudiced that one is chomer, little more than basar vadam.

But along the way I relate "bayom hazeh yakhapeir aleikhem" and
"letaheir eskhem" -- kaparah/kapores/covering the process that is the
product of our living in bodies and taharah/purity from the effects of
that taavah on our bekhirah chafshi.

But halakhic taharah is that which can create that mental state. Not
the mental state itself. It's possible to get mussar-tum'ah without
being halachically tamei, and it's possible to unknowingly touch a
meis and thereby be halakhah-tum'ah without any mussar-tum'ah. It
would seem that the halakhos of tum'ah either define a related
metaphysical state that isn't this cognitive one (mussar-tum'ah), or
are "merely" aimed at reducing the probability of the cognitive
acting-like-the-animal-I-am state by requiring and prohibiting certain
situations.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

RnLL: I don't get why you say that simple pshat says all of
mankind was resident in Mesopotamia.  Simple pshat always includes
context.  And it's clear from the context that there were people
living in Eretz Yisrael (the cities of the plain) and Egypt, at the
very least.  Simple pshat might be that Shinar was the world capitol,
but that's about all.

Simple pshat, i.e., the words of the chumash itself, doesn't say anything
about migdal bavel being 340 years after the flood. AFAIK, the source for
that is Seder Olam Rabbah. Simple pshat with context but without the midrash
is "Vayehi KOL HAARETZ safah achat..." One can very easily read the chumash
as implying that migdal bavel occurred within a few generations of the
flood. The survivors and their descendents remained together, travelled
together to Shinar, and built a tower. The post-mabul dispersion of humanity
to all over in the world originated with migdal bavel, which took place
several hundred years before Avraham Avinu.

So the difficulties raised (how could there be peoples, nations, kings, etc
well established in Ur Kasdim, Charan, Eretz Knaan, and Mitzrayim within a
few decades of the dispersion?) reflect an apparent contradiction between
the midrashic chronology and the pshat in chumash, not a contradiction
within the "simple pshat" of chumash.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071018/239cb520/attachment.html 

How so?  I don't get why you say that simple pshat says all of
mankind was resident in Mesopotamia.  Simple pshat always includes
context.  And it's clear from the context that there were people
living in Eretz Yisrael (the cities of the plain) and Egypt, at the
very least.  Simple pshat might be that Shinar was the world capitol,
but that's about all.

> In general were there any people in EY before the dispersion?

If Arei Hakikar were in Eretz Yisrael, then yes.  Presumably the
Philistines were in Philistia as well, and depending on where you
consider Seir to have been, there were probably Horites there.>>

If so what language did all these people outside of Shinar speak
before and after
the dispersion. Assuming that (for example) Eygptians always spoke Eygptian
then what really is the dispersion about?If not did those in Eygpt switch from
hebrew to hierogylphics overnight? Also why did no one understand Joseph
speaking in Hebrew only some 3 generations later.

It is also interesting that we know nothing about Noach after the
flood except for
the immediate actions of his vineyard and castration (or whatever).
Are there any
midrashim that describe his life as the ancestor of all mankind for the next
some 300 years. As Lisa mentions after 10 generations he and Shem seem
to be nobodies.

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:27:50 +0200, ilanasober@gmail.com wrote:
>>RnLL: I don't get why you say that simple pshat says all of
>>mankind was resident in Mesopotamia.  Simple pshat always includes
>>context.  And it's clear from the context that there were people
>>living in Eretz Yisrael (the cities of the plain) and Egypt, at the
>>very least.  Simple pshat might be that Shinar was the world
>>capitol, but that's about all.
>
>Simple pshat, i.e., the words of the chumash itself, doesn't say
>anything about migdal bavel being 340 years after the flood. AFAIK, 
>the source for that is Seder Olam Rabbah. Simple pshat with context 
>but without the midrash is "Vayehi KOL HAARETZ safah achat..." One 
>can very easily read the chumash as implying that migdal bavel 
>occurred within a few generations of the flood. The survivors and 
>their descendents remained together, travelled together to Shinar, 
>and built a tower. The post-mabul dispersion of humanity to all over 
>in the world originated with migdal bavel, which took place several 
>hundred years before Avraham Avinu.
>
>So the difficulties raised (how could there be peoples, nations,
>kings, etc well established in Ur Kasdim, Charan, Eretz Knaan, and 
>Mitzrayim within a few decades of the dispersion?) reflect an 
>apparent contradiction between the midrashic chronology and the 
>pshat in chumash, not a contradiction within the "simple pshat" of 
>chumash.

There were too many generations between the Mabul and Peleg.  I think
that pshat in "for in his days the earth was divided" is that it's
referring to Migdal Bavel.  Which places the event centuries after
the Mabul.

Lisa

--
The Book of Esther in the Light of History, now available at:
http://www.lulu.com/starways/

Images from a Twisted Mind at http://www.cafepress.com/starways/

> RnLL: There were too many generations between the Mabul and Peleg.  I think
> that pshat in "for in his days the earth was divided" is that it's
> referring to Migdal Bavel.  Which places the event centuries after
> the Mabul.
>
Arpachshad was born 2 years after the flood.
He was 35 when Shelach was born.
Shelach was 30 when Ever was born.
Ever was 34 when Peleg was born.
Peleg lived to be 239.

This means that Peleg lived from 101 years post flood until 340 years
post flood.

Therefore, the Midrash posits that Migdal Bavel occurred at the very
end of Peleg's life. One of these days I should look it up and figure
out why. But the pshat of chumash doesn't give any indication when in
his life it happened - it could have been a few hundred years earlier.

- Ilana

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:07:40 +0200, eliturkel@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>How so?  I don't get why you say that simple pshat says all of
>>mankind was resident in Mesopotamia.  Simple pshat always includes
>>context.  And it's clear from the context that there were people
>>living in Eretz Yisrael (the cities of the plain) and Egypt, at the
>>very least.  Simple pshat might be that Shinar was the world
>>capitol, but that's about all.
>>
>>> In general were there any people in EY before the dispersion?
>>
>>If Arei Hakikar were in Eretz Yisrael, then yes.  Presumably the
>>Philistines were in Philistia as well, and depending on where you
>>consider Seir to have been, there were probably Horites there.>>
>
>If so what language did all these people outside of Shinar speak
>before and after the dispersion.

Presumably Hebrew.  Or Aramaic.  Or some dialect thereof.

>Assuming that (for example) Eygptians always spoke Eygptian

Why assume that?  The earliest Egyptian inscriptions aren't in
Egyptian.  Very early ones are indecipherable (as of yet).

>then what really is the dispersion about?  If not did those in Eygpt
>switch from hebrew to hierogylphics overnight?

The earliest inscriptions in Egypt aren't in hieroglypics.  Not the
usual Egyptian ones, at any rate.

>Also why did no one understand Joseph speaking in Hebrew only some 
>3 generations later.

Because Hashem stopped them from being able to understand Hebrew? 
Wasn't that what happened at the dispersion?

>It is also interesting that we know nothing about Noach after the
>flood except for the immediate actions of his vineyard and 
>castration (or whatever).  Are there any midrashim that describe his 
>life as the ancestor of all mankind for the next some 300 years. As 
>Lisa mentions after 10 generations he and Shem seem to be nobodies.

Well, not Shem.  There was the Beit Midrash of Shem and Ever, and
midrashim say that Malkitzedek was Shem.  And Noach died 10 years
after the dispersion (if I'm remembering correctly), and we know very
little about what happened in the three and a half centuries between
the Mabul and the dispersion.

LIsa
--
The Book of Esther in the Light of History, now available at:
http://www.lulu.com/starways/

Images from a Twisted Mind at http://www.cafepress.com/starways/

If you just read parshas Lech Lecha you would think that first Hashem
told Avraham to go to Eretz Yisroel, then came the story with Lot etc,
and then came the Bris Bein Habesarim. However, the Rishonim point out
that if we take a closer look at the chronology we see that this is
not true.

Hashem tells Avraham by the Bris Bein Habesarim that his descendents
will be in golus 400 years. Rashi points out that we were only in
Egypt 210 years and therefore explains based on the medrashim that the
400 years started with the birth of Yitzchak. However, the Torah says
in Parshas Bo that we were in Egypt 430 years. Rashi there explains
(again based on medrashim) that the extra 30 years is from the Bris
Bein Habesarim, in other words the Bris Bein Habesarim was 30 years
before Yitzchak was born. We know that Yitzchak was born when Avraham
was 100 years old which means that Bris Bein Habesarim had to be 30
years earlier when Avraham was 70. However, at the beginning of
parshas Lech Lecha the Torah tells us that Avraham was 75 years old
when he left Charan. This means that Lech Lecha had to be 5 years
after the Bris Bein Habesarim. Tosafos in Shabbos 10b makes this
calculation and says this is what happened. Avraham came to EY when he
was 70 and went through the Bris Bein Habesarim, and then he returned
to Charan for 5 years until Hashem told him Lech Lecha.

The question we have now is why is the Torah written this way? What is
the lesson we are supposed to learn from the way the Torah ordered
things? Tosafos points out the discrepancy but doesn't explain why.

R' MB:
> 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".

Ayin Yam Shel Shlomo, Gittin, 4:26, and Ayin Sheim Hagedolim, Maareches
Gedolim, Shin, Kuntres Acharon.

KT,
MYG

R' Micha Berger publicized the question:
> What information would you need to be presented to take
> off your kipah? ... What evidence do you think would be
> impossible solely because of your religious beliefs? ...
> Are we irrationally, stubbornly, religious, or is there
> actually something that could falsify your religious
> stance?

My short answer is that I agree with just about all that R' Micha wrote on this topic. Torah and science/archaeology are about entirely different things, and so a contradiction is not possible. If there *appears* to be a contradiction, then I've either misunderstood one, or misunderstood the other, or - most lkely - misunderstood both.

But this leaves the door open to contradictions within Torah. Those are the ones that scare me. Most can be explained away in some manner or other, but some are more difficult. I will not give any examples here, for fear of giving anyone any reasons to question.

When I began learning, I was blessed with teachers who were able to answer many of my questions. Some questions were harder, but I worked on them for a long time and usually came up with answers that satisfied me. Each time that I found an answer to a seemingly unanswerable problem, my emunah got strengthened.

Eventually, I came to the conclusion that if *these* impossibly difficult questions have answers, then it must be that ALL impossibly difficult questions have answers.

And so it has remained ever since. Some of those questions still remain, and occasionally I find a new one. But to answer the OP, not only can I *not* imagine any evidence which would falsify my beliefs, but I have defined my belief system to include a proviso which would possul any such evidence which might somehow arise.

A certain Rebbe (I forgot who) was asked how his emunah could be so strong. The man asked him, "Don't you ever have any questions?"

The rebbe answered, "Of course I have questions! Everyone has questions! But I never ask them. I'm afraid that if I ask the questions, they'll invite me Upstairs to tell me the answers. I'm not in such a rush. Someday they'll tell me the answers. I can wait, thank you."

Akiva Miller

R' Shlomo Argamon wrote:
> 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:

and here's the quote:
> "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."

then, R' Shlomo Argamon commented:
> I find this rather remarkable, and hope for comments from
> those qualified to do so.

Normally, I would not bring such an extensive quote from a previous Avodah post. But all who are interested, please note that virtually this exact same thing appears in Halichos Shlomo, Hilchos Tefilah, Perek 20, "Orchos Halacha" #49:

"Our Rabbi [Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach] said that he heard from the Ziknei Yerushalayim that it is a Kabala B'Yadayim, Ish Mipi Ish going back to Rav Chaim Volozhiner, that he heard from Rabenu HaGra z"l, that when the holy ger tzedek Avraham Ben Avraham was burned Al Kiddush HaShem, on the second day of Shavuos 5509, a flame of fire broke out from the Maaras Hamachpela, and the Sitra Achra lost some of its power, and at that time, Tumas Yadayim Shel Shacharis was weakened. Nevertheless, to those who asked how mekil one might be in relying on this, he paskened not to budge from what is explained in the poskim and Mishna Brurah and especially the Gemara.... but he was not so machmir against walking 4 amos without washing, as that does not appear in the gemara...."

The above is cited as the reference for the following, which appears in Halichos Shlomo, Hilchos Rosh Hashana 1:6:

"When reaching Alos Hashachar in the middle of Selichos, there's no need to interrupt and wash again immediately. Rather, finish Selichos and then wash hands. Likewise, it is mutar then to walk more than 4 amos, and you don't even have to be careful against touching eyes, clothing, etc."

(I presume that the word "again" in the above paragraph refers to the first washing which one did upon waking. I suppose that the safek [of whether the Ruach Ra comes upon waking or at Alos] contributes to these leniencies.)

Akiva Miller

Shlomo Argamon wrote:
> "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."
>   
Sefer Toldoth Adam (a biography of R. Zalman Volozhiner, who was a 
student of the Gra) says that R. Zalman used to wear mittens when he 
slept so that he could start learning when he woke up without having to 
wash his hands first.

David Riceman

Richard Wolpoe wrote:

> #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?

AIUI it has the status of a neder.  Parents have the right to take on
a neder which is binding on themselves and all their descendants, and
somewhere back there our ancestors are deemed to have done so with
ma'ariv.   But of course a neder can only impose obligations, not
remove them, and can only forbid the permitted, not permit the forbidden.


> #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

And AIUI it failed spectacularly, with a clear Sign from Heaven that
it should not be done.


> re: #3 - deapite it being a minhag in many congregations, 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.

Sounds like a fair question.  How many German communities changed their
practise because of this position of RYBS?

 
> 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 .

I heard a different reason: In Germany they used to duchen in special
slippers that they would bring from home, so on Shabbos they didn't
duchen because of gezerat Rabba.


> 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?

But not a change in halacha.  It's like adding or omitting a piyyut;
a very un-Yekke-like thing to do, but at some point such things must
change, or the piyyutim would never have been added in the first place.

  
 
> 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?

Well, not *everyone* else.  L does the same.  But it would seem once
again that this is not a halacha, but merely a recommended practise
 - if it were a halacha then we couldn't say it even for a seriously
ill person, unless we considered it pikuach nefesh mamash.  I think
RHS is talking about something that is accepted as actual halacha.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 12
**************************************

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..."