Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 113

Fri, 05 Oct 2018

• 1. Re: Longevity of Minhag haMakom (Micha Berger)
• 2. Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Longevity of Minhag haMakom (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Longevity of Minhag haMakom (Ben Bradley)
• 6. Re: Longevity of Minhag haMakom (Micha Berger)
• 7. Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem (Akiva Miller)
• 8. Re: birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz (Akiva Miller)
• 9. Re: Longevity of Minhag haMakom (Zev Sero)
• 10. Geshem or Gashem?! (Professor L. Levine)

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:19:57PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a
: preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard
: for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care
: what we do?

BM 83b is talking about norms for business, which is
likely an entirely different use of the word "minhag" than in issur
veheter. For example, when we say "minhag mevatel halakhah" in CM
discussions, we are relying on the presumption that both parties would
take compliance to local business norms for granted, and a deal can have
any conditional both parties agree on.

In this CM sense of minhag, there is no reason to assume that halakhah
would have problems with other norms emerging, since they are based on
the agreement of all parties.

But that's a whole different topic than Ashk vs Seph differences in the other
3 Turim, which is where we started. That's minhag in the sense of:
1- Rgional pesaq when other regions hold differently (eg bet yosef meat); or
2- Extra-halachic accepted prohibitions or obligations (eg avoiding qitniyos).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Education is not the filling of a bucket,
mi...@aishdas.org        but the lighting of a fire.
http://www.aishdas.org                - W.B. Yeats
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Moving this from Areivim.

On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 4:28pm -0700, Rabbi Meir Rabi wrote on Areivim:
: The Beis Hamikdash wasn't inclusive. More than that, (according to some
: opinions) there were professions which weren't obligated to do Aliyah
: LeRegel because they smelled bad and couldn't be Oleh Regel with everyone.

The beraisa (Chullin 4a) says that dog fertilizer gatherers, tanners and
copper smiths are "peturin min hare'iyah". The Rambam tells them get
get cleaned up and go (Hil' Chagiga 2:2), the Mechaber (Kesef Mishnah
ad loc) explaining that we hold like the Rabanan, not that beraisa. But
even if we held like that beraisa that's whether they have a petur for
not coming, not an issur to come.

In fact, inclusivity might be the whole reason /why/ the Rabanan don't
hold like the beraisa.

But lo ra'isi eino ra'ayah, so to speak, so naniach someone else does
take a harder line, what would that mean?

Kehunah is not inclusive of all baalei mum. But attending...

The BHMQ is inclusive on the basis of things not dependent on the
person's own decisions. No one, not even a nakhri child of an eishes ish,
is excluded by virtue of who he is. (In the nakhri's case, up to the
soreg, but still, that's true of all nakhriim.)

You're talking about someone excluded because of what they chose to do.
(Again, given said "some opinions".) Admittedly, too many people lack
options. But someone who really wants to be oleh regel who is still
forced by circumstance to an unpleasant job would choose a different one.
Or beg, if they value aliyah laregel more than the protection from sin
offered by "yafeh salmud Torah im derekh eretz".

My point is, it's a choice, and not the same kind of exclusion.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call
mi...@aishdas.org        life which is required to be exchanged for it,
http://www.aishdas.org   immediately or in the long run.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Henry David Thoreau

On 03/10/18 21:16, Rabbi via Avodah wrote:
> Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the 
> Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel.

No, there was not.  The First and Second Crusades utterly destroyed the
communities that had survived the Roman and Arab occupations, and the
communities that started resettling EY in the Ramban's day were all
immigrants who brought their chu"l minhagim with them, including the
minhagim of paskening like the Bavli, keeping two days of Rosh Hashana, 
and not benching lulav when the first day of Succos falls on Shabbos.

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

On 03/10/18 18:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY?
> : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading
> : the Torah?
> 
> While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY
> community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does
> make a similar point.
> 
> ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to
> switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY.
> He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old
> minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi
> Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so.

But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole 
Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other 
countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing 
communities with contrary minhagim?  What argument works for them and 
not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants?


-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

Rabbi wrote:
'When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression
that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there
was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim,
Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways.'

Agreed. Yerushalayim didn't have continuity as we know via the Ramban
finding less than a minyan there when he arrived, but Chevron AFAIK had
continuity from Chazal to 1929. I think Teverya  did too.  The museum of
the old yishuv in the Old City refers to the 'mustarvim' as one of the
communities in 19th century Jlem, those who were culturally pretty Arab and
claimed descent from the pre-crusades community.
For more info this wikipaedia page: History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel  is well footnoted.
So if there's well documented continuous Jewish presence and even
communities in EY throughout, how did the SA set minhagim in EY such that 
ROY held they were obligatory on new arrivals? What happened to
pre-existing customs?
Or is it that the disruption and wax and wane of communities over EY with continuous small scale aliya meant there was no such such thing as minhag hamakom?

Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not
countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume
such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed?

Ben




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20181004/cf7ee612/attachment-0001.html>

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:10:49PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote:
: Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not
: countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume
: such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed?

I think it has more to do with communication and transportation changes
than a change in principle. The new metzi'us is that we're much more
aware of what people five towns over are doing.

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 02:51:23PM -0400, Zev Sero replied to my post:
: >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to
: >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY.
: >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old
: >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi
: >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so.

: But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his
: whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all
: the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there
: were existing communities with contrary minhagim?  What argument
: works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants?

Well, you might have a question about Edot haMizrach, but EY? Didn't
you just write about how the Jewish settlement of EY in the 15th cent
wasn't all that dense?

But I don't think this is relevent, anyway. Let's say they were wrong to
take their minhagim with them. Even if the change in minhag was wrong,
the normal practice in EY did indeed change.

Unlike the situation once that norm was lost and no new consistent minhag
emerged (on all but a few issues).

So, I could see ROY saying that right or wrong about its establishment,
the SA's minhag still stands as the minhag hamaqom.

OTOH, invoking the SA means that he is bringing a textual component to
the establishment of minhag. IIRC, ROY frames it in terms of the fact
that the SA was written in EY, not that the Mechaber got there due to
one of the first large yishuv in centuries, nor the yishuv itself.

So perhaps we need to know more about ROY's model of minhag before
spending so much time on guesses like the one above.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On Areivim (subject line same as here), several people have bemoaned how
difficult it is to use a wheelchair (and many other assistive devices) in
the Old City in general, and the Kotel area in particular. In terms of
absolute, quantifiable, objective fact, I can't imagine how anyone could
dispute that. I am bringing the topic to Avodah in order to discuss what
our feelings and attitudes should be towards this situation.

Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else
being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town.
I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a
location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and
elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities
of young folks.

At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility
needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the
edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be?

I often remark that we are fortunate to live in a time when the technology
has allowed us such efficient wheelchairs. Our economy has allowed us to
make building codes that require ramps and such, which would have been
laughably expensive just a few decades back. Ditto for "kneeling buses" and
the like. But it seems to me that you don't need technology or wealth to
realize that if the shul is built at a median altitude, it will be easier
for *everyone*. And yet Chazal thought it is a better idea to make the shul
look impressive.

Surely I'm missing something here. Can someone please set me straight?

Thanks
Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20181004/0e365a37/attachment-0001.html>

> R' Mordechai Cohen asked:

> Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim
> on chol hamoed in chutz la?aretz? (not sepharadim)
> I was surprised to see it done.
> Sources?

I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a
reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with
Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other
times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of
Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can
see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally
strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20181004/2e1ec7cd/attachment-0001.html>

On 04/10/18 15:10, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote:
> 
> Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not 
> countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to 
> assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed?

Perhaps the first post-Talmudic book on halacha was a booklet on the 
differences between minhag EY and minhag Bavel.   So the concept of 
minhag EY goes back to at least the time of the geonim.

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

From  https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903


On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna?s instruction[1]<https://ohr.edu/4903#_edn1> and
codified by the Shulchan Aruch,[2]<https://ohr.edu/4903#_edn2> world
Jewry started reciting ?Gevuros Geshamim B?Tchiyas HaMeisim?, better known
as the formulaic insert ?Mashiv HaRuach U?Morid HaGashem?, in the second
bracha of Shemoneh Esrei. This addition, showcasing the Might of G-d by
mentioning the fact that He is the only One who has the power and ability
to make rain, is considered so imperative that one who forgets to insert it
must repeat the whole Shemoneh Esrei.[3]<https://ohr.edu/4903#_edn3>

As there are no vowels in the Gemara or Shulchan Aruch, an interesting
question arises: what is the proper way to pronounce the Hebrew word for
rain (???) in this sentence? Is it Ge shem (with a segol under the letter
Gimmel; eh sound) or is it Ga shem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel;
uh sound)? Although the word for rain is pronounced Ge shem when saying the
word by itself, still, its proper pronunciation might be changed when part
of a sentence.

Contemporary halachic authorities used various rules of Hebrew Grammar (dikduk) to come up with the proper solution.


Please see the above URL for more.


YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20181005/a41030ca/attachment.html>

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



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


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


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

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

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)