Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 101

Thu, 20 Mar 2008

• 1. Re: time of Purim Seudah (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 3. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 4. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 5. Re: schechtworthy (Micha Berger)
• 6. Half-Shekel found from the time of Bayis Sheni (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 8. Re: hirhurim ra'im (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 9. Re: Half-Shekel found from the time of Bayis Sheni (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: time of Purim Seudah (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 11. Simchas Shabbos : was Hot Cheese for Shabbat Lunch (Richard Wolpoe)
• 12. Re: The influence of Nusach Sefard on Nusach Ashkenaz (Richard Wolpoe)

REMT wrote:

However, there are drawbacks. One is the risk that being involved in a
meal, a family may lose track of the time, and neglect to light the
candles on time -- a problem which will be exacerbated if the family
is mehader in ad d'lo yada.  Another is that it requires going to shul
immediately after the s'udah for ma'ariv (assuming that there _is_ a
late minyan available), which many will probably not do, but will opt
for davening biychidus at home, since being full (and perhaps a bit in
one's cups) is not conducive to dressing for shul and taking the walk,
especially for those who find the singing of Shir Hama'alos on Friday
night the most effective sleeping pill.  A more mundane problem is
that it renders it difficult to invite guests for the s'udah who must
travel to get home.  Indeed, I suspect that these drawbacks are
largely responsible for the poreis mappah approach falling into disuse
by Ashk'nazim in the first place.>>

The shul I attended in madrid will get around the drawbacks by having
a public seudah in the shul building
Thus the rabbi will remind people to light candles. Kabbalat shabat is
part of the official program and they go straight to
davening section for Maariv. Furthermore the members get to eat together.

kol tuv


-- 
Eli Turkel

R' Michael Makovi wrote:
> Not so explicitly, no, but I've always seen R and C characterized as
> tinokim she'nishbu, and never did I see the rabbis distinguished from
> the lay. Now, b'vadai, sometimes you have to take practical measures
> against the rabbis themselves because of the harm they'll do. But it's
> never against them for their own sake - if an R/C rabbi sat and did
> nothing, we'd do nothing to him, and if he does "kiruv", we'll stop
> his efforts but only because of the efforts, not because of him
> himself. This is all AFAIK.
>
>   
The following is an excerpt from an article written by a Conservative 
Rabbi available at 
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_2_51/ai_89233415

*Amen and amen: blessings of a heretic - like me*

Jeremy Kalmanofsky

R. Feinstein's 1960 responsum (Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayim, vol. 2, #50) 
concerns an Orthodox rabbi who was "compelled" to organize a fundraising 
banquet for Israel and invite Reform and Conservative rabbis, and even 
to honor them by asking them to say the opening or closing blessings at 
the meal. Is it permissible to honor them in this way? If they bless the 
food, does this fulfill the guests' obligation to recite the proper berakha?

Absolutely not, R. Moshe ruled. Non-Orthodox rabbis cannot participate 
in religious life, he holds, because they do not acknowledge God. Even 
if they recite the prayers correctly, even if their mouths pronounce the 
name Ad- nay, they mean nothing sacred by it. They might as well say 
bowling balls or lollypop for all the religious content they bring to 
their blessings:

/"In my humble opinion, it seems clear that even if he [the non-Orthodox 
rabbi] were to say the blessing properly and without interruption 
between blessing and eating, since he denies God and His Torah, like 
most of their "rabbis," (16) the mention of God's name to him is like an 
ordinary word. [This name] does not refer to God, may He be blessed! ... 
Rather, it is as if it never mentioned God's name. And it is as if he 
never mentioned God's dominion, for he does not consider God to be the 
King of the Universe. (17) [This person's blessing] is mere 
chattering.... Thus there is a prohibition to honor these heretical 
"rabbis" (18) who recite the motzi, even if they bless in accordance 
with the law. For their blessing is not considered a blessing, and they 
do not discharge the obligations for those who hear them recite. And 
there is no need to respond amen to his blessing."/

R. Moshe extended this responsum in 1965, forbidding calling 
Conservative or Reform rabbis to the Torah when they visit Orthodox 
synagogues. "/Their blessings are nothing, and one should not respond 
amen. ... Since they are deniers, mentioning the divine name is mere 
words to them." /Even honors like lifting and wrapping the Torah are 
forbidden, "/since one should not honor deniers with the very things 
they deny. That violates the prohibition against obsequiousness."/ ( 19. 
IM, OH, vol. 3, #21-22.19]

>  > Not so explicitly, no, but I've always seen R and C characterized as
>  > tinokim she'nishbu, and never did I see the rabbis distinguished from
>  > the lay. Now, b'vadai, sometimes you have to take practical measures
>  > against the rabbis themselves because of the harm they'll do. But it's
>  > never against them for their own sake - if an R/C rabbi sat and did
>  > nothing, we'd do nothing to him, and if he does "kiruv", we'll stop
>  > his efforts but only because of the efforts, not because of him
>  > himself. This is all AFAIK.
>  > Mikha'el Makovi

>  We obviously travel in different circles.
>
>  Regarding the issue of tinok shenishba - there is much material
>  available in the archives I wrote the following
>
>  The above concern seems reflected in the Igros Moshe. O.H V 28.22  page 103
>
>  Daniel Eidensohn

Gevalt! Apparently we do travel in different circles - such words I
have never seen in my life!

So Reb Moshe says they are kofrim, and one might say that they are
b'shogeg, but Reb Moshe would retort that since they know shomrei
Torah u'Mitzvot, they ought to know the Torah is true.

Such words I find absolutely astounding. With all respect to Reb
Moshe, I honestly cannot understand these words (if I didn't have
respect for Reb Moshe, believe you me, I'd use MUCH stronger terms).
Reb Moshe honestly expects these people to realize that Torah is true
just because there are are rational and intelligent benei Torah? And
there aren't rational and intelligent gentiles? If someone says there
is wisdom amongst the nations... If I have been raised in a non-Torah
environment, why should I have any greater predisposition to Torah
than the Christian Bible or the Koran or Kant or the Bhagavad Gita? Of
course they see rational and intelligent benei Torah! But they have no
reason to think more highly of them and their religion than they do of
all the rational and intelligent non-benei Torah!

Now, obviously, I'd say that since Torah is our "wisdom and
discernment in the eyes of the nations", it must be that anyone who
really delves into the Torah will realize its greatness - but this is
something that requires investigation and an open-mind, and we cannot
presume that it is so simple for one to be won over.

Moreover, given that the nations are to learn from us the 7 and not
the 613, it means that they are to inspired by our ethical business
practices, not our abstaining from lighting fires on Shabbat - and  I
see no reason why a Jew who has been raised irreligious should be
expected to have greater insight than a gentile.

To characterize these people as anything but shogeg astounds me from a
rational intellectual standpoint. I am also astounded because I have
never seen such words, and never did I know they existed - we do
indeed travel in different circles. I am currently in Rav Kook circles
(a friend of mine in yeshiva was greatly troubled by Rav Hirsch's
austritt, because he thought it meant that R/C Jews as *individuals*
were ostracized, rather than austritt being the
communal/organizational measure that it was), and even before that, I
was in MO circles, where evidently the attitude is very different -
every MO-type rabbi I have ever heard, AFAIK, holds the same view on
today's R/C as I do. I also recall a story of Nechama Leibowitz being
told by Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that she should definitely give
directions to drivers on Shabbats, so that they could get to their
destinations sooner, and minimize the chillul Shabbat - Reb Moshe
would apparently disagree with this, as far as I can tell. It is
interesting that apparently, Reb Shlomo Zalman had some sort of close
relationship with Rav Kook -
http://seforim.blogspot.com/2007/10/chaim-rapoport-from-maadanei
-eretz-to.html

Rabbi Yom Tov Schwarz in his Einaim Lirot (I later find out his
relationship with Reb Moshe) devotes a lengthy chapter to this topic,
declaring profusely that todays' Reform Jews are tinokim she'nishbu -
he brings Chazal that many Tzadukim were only following mesorah, and a
Shulchan Aruch that an eruv with a Karaite may be kosher because he
isn't a true kofer, and many others. In any case, when I read this, I
thought it was very interesting, but I wondered, "Where's the
chiddush? Who on earth would disagree with any of this?" Now I know...

So how many people in the field actually hold like Reb Moshe on this?

Mikha'el Makovi

>  Gevalt! Apparently we do travel in different circles - such words I
>  have never seen in my life!

A further remark: Reb Moshe seems to be operating up the assumption
that parents brought their children up with explicit mocking and
castigation of Judaism and Torah. Now, even if this were so, I'd say
as I say above, viz. that not everyone can be expected to be so
insightful so as to throw up when he has been taught and learn new
points of view.

But, the fact is, that most nonobservant Jewish children are not
raised as such. Rather, there is simply little or no mention of
Judaism in the home at all, and so the child does not think lowly of
Judaism, seeing it as old-fashioned or disgusting, but rather, it
seems arcane and irrelevant, just as Buddhism and basket-weaving do.
He sees no reason whatsoever to even consider Judaism and Torah, as
they are simply not on his radar b'klal. And what little he does know
of Judaism is extremely superficial - he probably simply thinks that
Jews wear all black and don't use electronics, like the Amish - he
knows so little, that it is almost impossible to disprove what he
holds, because it is all so vacuous! Moreover, whatever weltanschauung
he does have, is most likely not an explicit one, but rather a taught
via subtle day-to-day experience and intercourse with his parents and
society, and so it is much more subtle and insidious, and not so
explicit that he can readily identify it and critique it. Due to these
factors, Reb Moshe's analysis is all the more suspect, as far as I can
tell.

Mikha'el Makovi

On Mon, March 17, 2008 7:12 pm, Rn Chana Luntz wrote:
: Where is poretz geder discussed vis a vis a shochet?  I know that beis
: din is required to check that shochtim are mumchim, beki'im and
: kasherim because of the michshol that can arise from shechita (Yoreh
: Deah siman aleph si'if aleph in the Rema), but I confess that
: checking for chitzonius of this nature seems if anything to be the
: exact opposite of what one might want.

I am not sure how peritzas geder can be described as chitzoniyus. It's
saying that this person refuses to follow the pesaqim of his
community. And given that the issue of peritzus on TV can be a matter
of pesaq, I would think that defying the local norm is rather penimi.

As for the connection to shechitah, my understanding is that a poretz
geder has no chezqas kashrus. Now I admit that that's different than
his not being kasher, but it does make it incredibly hard for anyone
but the Bochein Kelayos vaLeiv to determine.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Mar 19, '08 at 5:27pm EDT, R Gershon Dubin wrote to Areivim:
: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125612

In that story, they say the sheqel weighed 13 gm. Given that it's missing
a bit from wear, it's fair to assume a full sheqel was a shade more.
Rashi holds a sheqel was only 11.76 gm, and the Rif, 14.16 gm. The
evidence seems to confirm the Rif.

The Rambam writes (Sheqalim 3:2) that a sheqel is 320 grains of barley.
R' Chaim Brown <http://tinyurl.com/yswno3> writes:
> Peter Bernstein writes in "The Power of Gold: The History of an
> Obsession" (p. 24), "Today the carat has been replaced by the grain as the
> conventional unit of weight [for gold and other precious metals]. Grains
> of barley or wheat in the middle of the ear have the same remarkable
> attributes as the carat -- a standard weight regardless of the size of
> the ear."

Similarly, a site dedicated to British Weights and Measures
<http://home.clara.net/brianp/weights.html> writes:
> The basic unit of weight in the British system is the grain - originally
> based on the weight of a grain of barley (but note that money was based
> on the grain of wheat - and that three grains of barley weigh the same as
> four of wheat). This grain is the troy grain - there is no other weight
> of the same name.

> The weight of one grain is constant throughout the many different
> systems of British weights. As you will see below, the ounce and pound
> are anything but contstant, but have altered to meet circumstances over
> a period of over a thousand years.

So, given that a grain is a remarkably constant unit of measure, I figured
the Rambam's grains would be similar to the British unit "grain", also
based on barley -- 64.79891 mg. This would make a sheqel (320 barleys)
equal 20.74 gm. Too large for this coin, I think. It would mean that
more than a third of the coin is missing.


I'm not sure why the article makes the assumption that this particular
coin may have been involved in the mitzvah of machatzis hasheqel. But
if the probability is real, wouldn't it have to be treated as heqdeish?

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

>  The following is an excerpt from an article written by a Conservative
>  Rabbi available at
>  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_2_51/ai_89233415
>
> If they bless the
>  food, does this fulfill the guests' obligation to recite the proper berakha?
>
>  Absolutely not, R. Moshe ruled. Non-Orthodox rabbis cannot participate
>  in religious life, he holds, because they do not acknowledge God.
>
> R' Daniel Eidensohn

One could argue with Reb Moshe, saying that an R/C quite possibly DOES
believe in G-d and believe He created the food, etc. But OTOH, perhaps
they don't believe in G-d sufficiently to be relied on in religious
matters. Tzarich iyun - this is beside the issue at hand.

What I'm objecting to, is not whether or not we can trust R/C in
religious matters, but rather, Reb Moshe saying that making an eruv
for non-religious Jews, so that they don't do a melacha, is pointless
- we don't care whether he sins or not, because he's already lost to
us, and it's his own fault. How can he say this? Surely we want to do
whatever we can to minimize their transgression, even if they have no
appreciation for what we're doing!

I already said that with an R/C, b'vadai they can't be eidim, but we
still have ahavat yisrael for them! We cannot rely on them in
practical matters, but neither can we rely on a retarded man. But this
doesn't lessen our love for them!

Mikha'el Makovi

R' David Riceman wrote:

<<< I've been glancing through Rabbi Henkin's book "Understanding
Tzniut".  He spends quite a lot of time discussing men's prurient thoughts
and how the Rabbis tried to regulate them, but he doesn't mention women's
prurient thoughts and whether the Rabbis tried to regulate them.  Is that
simply not the subject of the book, or did the Rabbis in fact not try to
regulate women's prurient thoughts? >>>

Rav Moshe Feinstein goes into detail about the different halachos for men and women in Igros Moshe, Even HaEzer 1:69.

He explains that both men and women are forbidden to have thoughts which involve doing forbidden acts, from the pasuk in Shema "Acharei Aynaychem".

In addition, he writes, from the pasuk "VNishmartem Mikol Davar Ra", men
must avoid anything which might cause zera l'vatala. This can include
thoughts which don't involve forbidden acts in any way. But such thoughts
are allowed to women. He gives several examples, but I'd rather not quote
them here.

To get back to RDR's question, here are some of my thoughts: If you look at
the examples which Rav Moshe gives, it is easy to argue that many of them
are genuinely "innocent" thoughts. This may be why the rabbis saw a need to
regulate them: Without the regulations, it would be difficult to percieve
them as wrong. In contrast, a smaller range of thoughts are forbidden to
women, and they are more obviously wrong, so they was less of a need for
additional regulation.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click here to obtain free information on accredited degrees.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/REAK6aAWlpI5XyO4dOukMlQ7c3GoCrQm6gW8mKnvWEvuuN73139OI6/

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, '08 at 5:27pm EDT, R Gershon Dubin wrote to Areivim:
> : http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125612
> 
> In that story, they say the sheqel weighed 13 gm. Given that it's missing
> a bit from wear, it's fair to assume a full sheqel was a shade more.
> Rashi holds a sheqel was only 11.76 gm, and the Rif, 14.16 gm. The
> evidence seems to confirm the Rif.

AIUI, many shkalim have been found over the past 200 years or so, and
they tend to be in the 13-14 gram range.


> The Rambam writes (Sheqalim 3:2) that a sheqel is 320 grains of barley.

The shekel of Moshe's time was 320.  The Shekel Tzori of Chazal was 384.


> Similarly, a site dedicated to British Weights and Measures
> <http://home.clara.net/brianp/weights.html> writes:
>> The basic unit of weight in the British system is the grain - originally
>> based on the weight of a grain of barley (but note that money was based
>> on the grain of wheat - and that three grains of barley weigh the same as
>> four of wheat). This grain is the troy grain - there is no other weight
>> of the same name.

Something I just read implies that wheat grains are slightly bigger
than barley, not smaller.  I'll have to follow that up.


> So, given that a grain is a remarkably constant unit of measure, I figured
> the Rambam's grains would be similar to the British unit "grain", also
> based on barley -- 64.79891 mg.

The Rambam's grains are 1/64 of a dirham, and his dirham was definitely
no bigger than the Ottoman dirham of 3.2 g (and there is some reason to
believe it was a bit smaller), which makes a grain no more than 50 mg.

Probably more later.

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

R' Eli Turkel quoted the halachah yomit:

> Bi'dieved one may begin the Seudah anytime before the
> 10th hour of the day. Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah
> 695:2, Yad Efraim citing the Maharil, Piskei Tshuvos 695:6

The way this is phrased, it sounds like if one has not started by the 10th
hour, he may not begin at all. That's not what I see in the MB nor in the
Yad Efraim. Can anyone check what the Maharil and Piskei Teshuvos actually
say?

Regarding a Seudas Mitzva on Erev Shabbos, the Shmiras Shabbas K'hilchasa
42:27 says that if the 10th hour has started, then one should only eat
"m'at lechem" - a little bread. He gets this from MB 529:8. (See Shaar
Hatziun 529:10 regarding how much the "m'at" is.)

Siman 529 is actually about eating Shalosh Seudos when Shabbos is Erev Yom
Tov. The SSK 42:(108) says that these halachos also apply to when Purim is
Erev Shabbos, and his sources are almost identical to those of the Halacha
Yomit.

But (WADR to the many acharonim cited) I wonder about that comparison. I
believe it is generally accepted that one can be yotzay Sholosh Seudos with
a single kezayis of bread, at least b'dieved. But I also believe it is
generally accepted that one CANNOT be yotzay a Seudas Purim with
unaccompanied bread, even b'dieved. I cannot cite sources who say that so
blatantly, but there are sources who give the shiur of Matanos L'Evyonim in
terms of a barely minimal Seudas Purim, and the dollar value there is
always closer to the price of a sandwich, not the price of a slice of
bread. Thus, it seems to me that there ought to be more leniency for a late
Purim Seudah than for a late Shalosh Seudos. But I have not seen such a
view inside.

Anyway, a few days ago, my son asked me about the halachos of timing the
Seudah this year, so that he could schedule it with his wife and guests. I
told him what I remembered, but I confess that I had forgotten that if it
gets that late, the MB says for it to be as small as a tiny Shalosh Seudos.
Knowing that he is interested in this topic, I sent him a copy of R' Eli
Turkel's and Rav Elazar Teitz's posts.

Here is what my son, Elly Miller, wrote back:

> We are planning on starting our seudah at 4:00pm. At 5:50pm
> (a few minutes before plag) we will stop eating, bentsch,
> and still have the option of drinking. The wives will go
> home, light candles, do whatever shabbos preparations still
> need to be done and come back to our place. The men will go
> to shul, daven minchah and maariv. Come back to my home
> where we will continue/have another seudah.
>
> I mentioned to my guests that they may be more comfortable
> eating some bread before chtzos, but that they should have
> in mind that they will be eating the seudah later.
>
> Abba, please post this in my name and let me know what
> people say

He also said that if anyone wants to write to him directly, his email address is ellym@mpkitchens.com

The way my Elly wrote "continue/have another seudah" makes it sound like he
is still undecided on whether to bench before shul and have a separate meal
after, or to have one long meal with shul in the middle. Or maybe he'll let
each guest decide on their own. Or maybe he plans to serve the appetizer
and soup as the Purim meal, and then have a separate Shabbos meal of the
main course and dessert.

Those varied possibilities caused me to wonder about some very very basic concepts regarding this whole topic.

For example: Why is it important to have an appetite for the Shabbos meal?
Why isn't it sufficient that he has eaten it and enjoyed it to some extent?
Now that may sound like a silly question. After all, the goal is Oneg
Shabbos, and Chazal want us to use food as a means of acheiving that Oneg,
and that can't happen without an appetite.

But if so, why does everyone accept, unquestioningly, that the Pores Mappah
procedure is acceptable? From the perspective of Oneg Shabbos, why do we
care about benching in the middle?

Let me back up and explain myself. For the sake of simplicity, let's take a
person who has no minyan in town, so leaving the seudah to go to shul
doesn't complicate things. He has two procedures that he is considering:
His first idea is to daven mincha, have a Purim Seudah late Erev Shabbos
afternoon, say Birkas Hamazon, say Kabbalas Shabbos, have Kiddush, Hamotzi,
Seudas Shabbos, bench, and daven Maariv. The second idea is to daven
mincha, begin a meal late Erev Shabbos afternoon, pause dirung hte meal to
say Kabbalas Shabbos, make Kiddush, (I forgot how Lechem Mishneh is
handled,] and then continue his meal, bench, and daven Maariv.

I think most people will agree that the first idea is very b'dieved, while
the second one (despite the practical problems such as were mentioned in
Rav Teitz's post) is fully sanctioned, at least for Sefaradim.

Why such a disparity? Does Oneg Shabbos really suffer more in the first than in the second?

Many thanks to those who took the time to read such a long post!

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click for top financial advice. Reduce debt & save for retirement.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/REAK6aAXf6GzEsmFL0c7yvkyswGNH4oqcB9jLCcoGn4StqHi1ZNBpQ/

FWIW, The Behag counts SIMCHAS Shabas a seaparre Mitzvas ASeih from Oeneg
Shabbas

Tngentially I'm not sure how it came about that if Ga'onim are closer to the
Talmud how come Rishonim over-rule them anyway?

Is being close in time and place a factor or not?

Niskatnu?


Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080319/c8b88924/attachment.htm 

On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 02:24:28PM -0500, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> : Tanegntially since minhag avos was throwrn out with regard to Baruch
> Hashem
> : l'olam and Tefilln on Hulo shel Moed, why bother keeping it with
> Kitniyyos?
>
> I would argue that you're still conflating definitions of the word
> minhag. But either way...
>
> What outweighs minhag WRT qitniyos? Tefillin on chol hamo'ed violates
> an aggadic value,


and is omitting a mitzva d'orraiso!




> if you base your agadic values on the Zohar,


When did the Zohar become an authoritative text in Ashkenaz!





> and not
> saying Barukh H' leOlam is in contrast to the textual sources.


Aderabba!  going from Shomer amo yisorle lo'ad to Amidah inwith an
intervening Kaddish is hefsek betwen G'ula to Tefilah. But since Barcuh
Hashem is aquasi Tefillah there IS not kaddish that is mafsik  Sources
actually support either

Straight ot Amidah
OR
Saying Baruc hshem in lieu of Amidah

Textual sources are against wht SEpharad/Ari/Gra do as a hefsek beteen
g'ulah litfilahh

Rabbi Yohcan exmpts hashem Sefasai tiftach as an exception. The Gmeram makes
NOT exmption for kaddish which is JSUT as Ga'onic AS Baruch hashem l'olam
anyway

.






> Qitniyos
> violates what? Simchas Yom Tov?


Minhag Ta'us.. Vilates nothing buit if minahg avos is dsiposable why keep a
minhag Ta'us? se Beis Ysoef!

>
>
> ...
> : At least for the most part [excpet probably for the innovation of
>  dancing
> : on Simchas Torah] Yekkes are pretty consistent.
>
> Only because they share your weighting of minhag avos over nearly
> everything
> else. Although RSRH was known for establishing new minhagim.



Sources please?!Aside from madding Choir what minhag did he innovate?
Klugman said he REFUSED to tinker with piyytim and he DEFEINTELY said Baruch
Hshem L"olam etc.




> I think because
> of the aggadic value factor, that will be true for any founder of an Ism.


Aggadic values place a high priority on al tiosh Toras imecha [2 sugyas in
shas with Rabbi Yochanan that go undisputed!]


>
>
> --




-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080319/6e0a5721/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 101
***************************************

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..."