Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 197

Tue, 27 May 2008

• 1. Re: Dancing on Shabbos - Redux (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Ga'on vs. Rishon was Simchas Shabbos , Hot Cheese for Shabbat Lunch (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: Chazan pacing the tzibur (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Re: Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. rihal - sefirat haOmer (Eli Turkel)

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Richard Wolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> My understanding is that the concern is you'll build a new musical
>> instrument from scratch l'gamre, on the spot, as people apparently
>> were capable of back in the day.
>>
>> Mikha'el Makovi
>
>
>
Contrast the concern for musical tapping with Tosafos on Mayyim Acharonim.
There the logic makes sense if the ONLY dynamic is melach s'domis - then
there simply is NO MORE CONCERN.  Here Tosafos does stand on firm ground

NB: OTOH mayyim ahcaronim MIGHT be also done because of  "v'hiskadishtem
vihyissem kedoshim... " which might mean there are multiple dynamics on
certain gz'eros and Takkanos.    E.g. See Gra on mayyim acharonim and AhS on
Haleiv Akkum re: Multiple dynamics.

FWIW I am not 100% makpid on mayyim acharonim, but I try to rinse my hands
somehow before bircas hamazon when I can. at one family in Wash. Heights who
did not wash I would excuse myself and  use the  "washroom" right before
benching.

===================================================================

Re: dancing The main point is not that Tosafos offers this Kula. It's that
for the most part the poskim rejected the kula and people rely upon it.

===============================================================

Re: Minhagim in general, I guess it is hard to explain how yekkes would see
"Minhag Ashkneaz" in a light different than stam "minhaggim"  I have labored
at making the distinctions clear and I fear many peopel lack the exposure to
Yekke communities an therefore cannot see how Minhag Ahskenaz in general can
be treasured while certain other minhaggim would still be seen as
circumventing Halachah.   The best I can say is to look at Rema who does a
very good job in distinguishing between the former and the latter [even
though he is already SOMEWHAT Minhag Poland].  Personally, it's the Rema's
ability to reject certain Minhaggim that leads me to respect his defenses of
Minhag even more. IOW he is in no way "knee jerk" reacting; rather he
considers them virtually [if not literally] on a case by case basis.

=====================================================================

FWIW, the Zrizal makes a distinction between piyyutim of "rishonim" meaning
Kallier etc. and later Piyyutim. He feels that the former understood
"soddos" and the latter did not.

I kinda make a similar distinction in the realm of minhaggim.   AISI Some
have stood the test of time and others are less solid.





-
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080526/9d8ef14c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Daniel Israel <dmi1@hushmail.com> wrote:

> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> > 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?
>
> AIUI, within an "era" we go by the later authorities.  Do we consider
> the ga'onim distinct from the Rishonim in this sense?  It would seem
> not.  (IOW, is "Gaonic" a halachic concept?)
>
> --
> Daniel M. Israel
> dmi1@cornell.edu
>
> _


See Taz orach Chaim 46 and a wholeslew of literature re: litrugy
Most litrugy was actually codified inthe Ga'onic era, especially Seder Rav
Amram Gaon and Seder Ram Sa'adyah Ga'on

Rabbeinu Tam leans heavily upon Seder Rav Amram [See I. Ta Sham's quote in
hakdamah to Minhag Asshkenaz Hakadmon
Most/all of those non-Talmudic Brachos are Ga'onic NOT Rishonic [except
perahp like al nekkiyus Yadayyim - Rosh]

Examples:

   1. Baruch Hshem L'olam
   2. Neros Shabbos
   3. Mekadesh es shimcha barabbim
   4. Hanosein layaeif Ko'ach

 ==================================================================

As far as Halachic rules on HOW to pasken from Bavli, virtually all are
Ga'onic [some are Sabora'ic but why quibble  [--smile--]

=====================================================================
Rambam at times treats Ga'onic rulings as Talmudic
Rosh does this at others

Poskim give mixed reviews on meat that has not been salted for 3 days [after
al lit's ONLY Ga'onic]

Similarly Ta'anis Esther and Aveilus in Sefira is ONLY Ga'onic but is often
treated as Talmudic.  RYBS even imposes Talmudic stictures on Aveilus of
Sefira which is a late Ga'onic minhag


-- 
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080526/dc2c0c4b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolberg@cox.net>
wrote:

> The umpires have the authority to call it and thier p'sak STANDS. it
> does NOT mean they are infallible...
> So, I have an interesting questioning regarding the above mashul.
> With modern technology being what it is (as well as what it potentially can
> be),
> if there was invented a type of machine that could infallibly call a ball
> or a strike
> and obviate the need for an umpire, would anyone be against that?
>
> I anticipate the argument against doing away with human intervention, but
> isn't the ultimate goal
> for "truth." This machine would not be like a *baas kol*;  it would be to
> baseball what forensic science
> has been to uncovering crimes that could never be solved prior to modern
> miraculous technology.
>
> Would anyone be against a GPS because triple A doesn't have to be contacted
> to make a travel map?
>
> K.T.
> ri
>


I am not sure we need an absolutely infallible umpire or poseik.
But given  authority w/o infallibility then

   1. The authorities should be humble about what they do
   2. The austerities should be flexible when realising their error
   3. People should not DEIFY authorities
   4. Nor should people DEMONIZE those authorities either

I heard a "new age" interpretation of the "Gospels" go like this:
First we Defiy X
then we crucify X

This certainly has happened with:

   - Elliot Spitzer who was supposed to clean-up Albany.  First he was made
   into a hero [lionized aiu the expression] then vilified.
   - Many Jews first said kaddish at FDR's  death then they learned how
   impotent he was in prevent Jewish deaths in the camps etc.
   - How about Roger Clemens?
   -

You get the idea. If we stopped putting these people on pedestals then we
would not need to demonize them either. It's part of a human pathological
cycle.

Of course Talmdiei Chachamim are different, but attributing to them
infallibility is a sure way to EVENTUALLY cause them much criticism.


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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080526/c40e8cf3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:56 AM, kennethgmiller@juno.com <
kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:

>
>
> My question concerns the long (Mon & Thur) Tachanun, and the many pages at
> the end of Selichos. I have almost never found a Chazan who raises his voice
> anywhere during these portions. (Ditto for certain piyutim.)
>
> Why not?
>
> I
>
> Akiva Miller
>

While in Aveilus I used to pace the Tzibbur.  One fellow found my "pacing"
annoying and actually "shushed" me.

If you read historical lliterature on litrugy you will see that the techinos
following the Amidah were  essentially private. So the fellow who shushed me
had good historical data to back him even though I felt it was a case of "no
good deed goes unpunished"

AIUI, Sephardim pace everything but the few silent passages and Amidah.
Yeeks pace MORE because in many aspects they are closer to the ancient
Sephardic rite.
-- 
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080526/59113578/attachment-0001.htm>

Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> The umpires have the authority to call it and thier p'sak
> STANDS. it does NOT mean they are infallible...
> ... if there was invented a type of machine that could
> infallibly call a ball or a strike and obviate the need
> for an umpire, would anyone be against that?
> I anticipate the argument against doing away with human
> intervention, but isn't the ultimate goal for "truth."
> This machine would not be like a baas kol;  it would be
> to baseball what forensic science has been to uncovering
> crimes that could never be solved prior to modern
> miraculous technology.

I suspect that the answer will vary depending on the specific situation. We
are not necessarily opposed to "doing away with human intervention", but
rather that some situations have rules which must be followed. And in some
situaitons, those rules are more flexible than in other situations.

To put it another way: No, our ultimate goal is emphatically NOT to uncover the "truth". Rather our goal is to follow the rules, wherever they may take us.

My evidence of this is that there are many situations where the Beis Din is
obligated to ignore certain testimony, even though that testimony could be
critical in determining the truth. There are many people, for example, who
are disqualified from being witnesses, even though their words might
contain the information needed to rescue the falsley accused, or to punish
the not-yet-caught. Some might say that the Beis Din does have the
authority to listen to such testimony for the purpose of exonarating an
innocent person (or maybe they do not have such authority, I really don't
know) -- but I doubt very much that under normal circumstances Beis Din
would be allowed to punish someone based on the testimony of someone whose
edus is passul.

On the other hand, we do find that in many cases, DNA testing is being used
today, precisely in the sort of way which R' Wolberg described. That's why
I wrote that it depends on the situation. In some cases it would be
acceptable, but not in others.

Imagine, for example, a sort of combination time machine and television
set, which would not allow us to actually visit the past, but which would
allow us to see it first-hand. Would such visions be considered valid
witnessing? Or would it be a mere artificial hearsay? (Actually, I think
there's an article in the RJJ Journal about gittin and video
teleconferencing which might be very relevant to this.)

Anyway, my conclusion is that while R' Wolberg's question is quite
interesting, it is too vague to get much of an answer at this point. A lot
would depend on the specific technology used, and the specific situations
it is called upon to judge.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Hotel pics, info and virtual tours.  Click here to book a hotel online.
http://thirdpartyoffers.ju
no.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3nLmLfoVgcBQUAu8anxLAqwpnwVdyfkqo5TF5xOITndAm166/?c
ount=1234567890

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 9:46 PM, kennethgmiller@juno.com <
kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:

>
> I suspect that the answer will vary depending on the specific situation. We
> are not necessarily opposed to "doing away with human intervention", but
> rather that some situations have rules which must be followed. And in some
> situaitons, those rules are more flexible than in other situations.
>
> To put it another way: No, our ultimate goal is emphatically NOT to uncover
> the "truth". Rather our goal is to follow the rules, wherever they may take
> us.
>
> My evidence of this is that there are many situations where the Beis Din is
> obligated to ignore certain testimony, even though that testimony could be
> critical in determining the truth. There are many people, for example, who
> are disqualified from being witnesses, even though their words might contain
> the information needed to rescue the falsley accused, or to punish the
> not-yet-caught. Some might say that the Beis Din does have the authority to
> listen to such testimony for the purpose of exonarating an innocent person
> (or maybe they do not have such authority, I really don't know) -- but I
> doubt very much that under normal circumstances Beis Din would be allowed to
> punish someone based on the testimony of someone whose edus is passul.
>
>
> Akiva Miller


AIUI, we do not follow "TRUTH" when it would lead to harm.  Rav Chessed
v'emes implies that Chessed precedes [and perhaps supercedes] emes.  Thus we
do not always chekc for nega'im [e.g. on chulo Shel Mo'ed or for a  chassan]
as an act  of Chessed [at least that is how I see it]

That does not mean we deny truth, rather we intentionally IGNORE it at
times.

Lemashal:  Surry and Yitzi are sister and brother. Each accuse each other of
breaking Ima's favorite serving platter. Ima and Abba IGNORE the facts of
who started it in order to quell the fight and sibling rivalry. The truth is
not so much denied, but set aside for a higher purpsoe- in this case Shalom
Bayyis between the siblings

Thus Akiva is correct in that truth is not always the highest calling.  I
guess Din, Emes v'Shalom need to be balanced ina a kind of triangular or
pyramid way.

That said, I think it is wrong to make up stories or rationalizations to
explain away difficulties in understanding.  Sometimes it is important to
say:  "From a purely objective level it should be X but for practical or
spiritual reasons we have chosen Y instead.  "   I hate to see Torah and
Yiddishkeit reduced  to playing fast and loose with the facts.

-- 
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080527/67b35ebe/attachment-0001.htm>

What I brought from the Rihal is from a derasha of Rav Samet on the web pages
of Yeshivat Har Etzion (Gush). I bring here a portion of the shiur:

Unique among the post-Chazal approaches to this verse is that of Rav
Yehuda Halevi (Rihal) in his Sefer Ha-Kuzari (3:41). He concedes that
"Shabbat" means "Shabbat," and the day spoken of in the verse is thus
Sunday. However, the Torah merely presents this day as an example by
which to demonstrate how to calculate the fifty-day period between the
"omer" offering and the festival of Shavuot. Should the first day,
upon which the "omer" offering is brought, occur on Sunday, then the
fiftieth day, Shavuot ("the day following the seventh Shabbat"), will
also occur on Sunday. The Torah presents this example so as to clarify
how the counting must be conducted and the date of Shavuot determined,
in order to avoid possible confusion. However, the Torah does not
establish a specific date for the offering of the "omer." The only
requirement is that it coincide with the beginning of the barley
harvest. Then, seven weeks later, when the wheat harvest begins, we
observe Shavuot.

All this is according to the simple meaning of the verse. However, the
Halakha established a fixed day for the offering of the omer, namely,
the second day of Pesach. This does not contradict the peshat, but
neither is it necessitated by the peshat.

Rihal's thesis that the peshat of the Torah does not establish a fixed
date for the bringing of the omer, but merely requires its coinciding
with the beginning of the barley harvest, allows him to pose a
convincing challenge to the approach of the Boethusians. Given that
the fifty-day period comes to mark the passage of time from the
beginning of the barley harvest to the onset of the wheat harvest, why
would the day of the week bear any significance? Why would the Torah
link these commemorations to one day of the week over any other?
Rather, the Torah mandates the offering of the "omer" at the beginning
of the wheat harvest, a day determined by the people themselves, after
which point fifty days are counted, culminating with the celebration
of Shavuot.

Although Rihal's approach adequately explains the term "the day
following Shabbat" in the context of the counting of the omer, it does
not explain its usage in the earlier verse: "?you shall bring the
first sheaf of your harvest to the kohen. He shall elevate the sheaf
before God? the kohen shall elevate it on the day following Shabbat"
(23:10-11). Here, there exists no potential ambiguity that
necessitates an example; no confusion would have arisen if the Torah
had written, "on the sixteenth day of Nissan." Nor can we say that the
Torah utilizes this expression as a result of the forthcoming example,
since to the contrary, the later verse is predicated on the chance
instance of the sixteenth day falling on Sunday. Additionally, this
verse clearly states imperatively and unconditionally that the kohen
must conduct the "omer" ritual on "the day following Shabbat;" no
possible flexibility is implied.

-- 
Eli Turkel


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 197
***************************************

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..."