Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 021

Monday, October 7 2002

• Re: RYBS, RYGB, and Mussar
• Avoiding mitzvos
• Rashi's Father
• Violating the will of the majority
• Re: Hoshanos
• Re: Hoshanos
• Re: Birchat kohanim/hoshanot/ naanuim
• air conitioning, kvius, and tzaar
• Re: travelling on Sukkot
• Re: Violating the will of the majority
• Re: Violating the will of the majority
• Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane
• Interesting vort
• kiddush on leyl Simchas Torah
• Re: Violating the will of the majority

At 12:07 AM 10/2/02 -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
>With due respect to RYGB, who is truly an expert on the subject, I
>wouldn't call RYBS as an "arch anti-Mussarist." An arch anti-Chassid,
>maybe -- and maybe that's the point RYGB was really making. To
>RYBS, mussar detached from logic couldn't exist within halacha. To
>semi-chassidishe mussarists like RYGB, mussar that is bound by pure
>logic cannot exist within the heart.

Aderaba, RYBS found his non-halachic identity in Chassidus, and was not an 
archi anti-Chasid. Chassidus does not *require* the refinement of Mussar.

[Email #2. -mi]

At 12:10 AM 10/3/02 -0400, Steve Brizel <Zeliglaw@aol.com> wrote:
>> These are great examples of why it is odious to define Mussar on the
>> basis of RYBS. His attitude towards Mussar is utterly patronizing,

>Patronizing, unfortunate, narrowminded?! WADR, it is the view of the
>halachist who sees all values as eminating from Halacha, as opposed to
>other value structures such as Chasidus or Mussar. WADR, a questionnable
>set of adjectives.

Exactly! The definition you gave is correct. And it is patronizing and 
narrowminded. If you do not like those terms, call it peering down from 
one's lofty perch in the ivory tower without understanding if what would be 
helpful for those further below attempting to make the climb to their own 
towers. (Oh, I forgot, it is also unfortunate.)

See, BTW, <http://www.aishdas.org/raek/2derachim.pdf>.

[Email #3. -mi]

At 09:30 PM 10/3/02 +0200, david brofsky wrote:
>true. maybe the rav's writings are antithetical to the classical
>style of mussar. yet, let us not forget that many, if not most, of
>the deepest, most personally revealing, and inspiring (in my opinion)
>portrayals of avodas Hashem written in the last century, are to be found
>in the writings of the rav and rav kook. there is no parallel among the
>writings of the other gedolim and roshe yeshiva. their rare religious
>honesty and intensity continue to inspire many, including myself, and
>whether they are technically considered "baale mussar" or not is somewhat
>academic. their profound spiritual reflections should be required reading
>for all aspiring ovde Hashem.

It is not academic at all. (But, since you sound like an academically 
minded person to me I would think that academic differences should matter 
to you.)

There were great tzaddikim and ovdim who were not Ba'alei Mussar. In order 
for us more plebeian types to achieve gadlus, mussar would be the most 
useful too. 'Tis tragic that the Briskers killed it.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:52:20PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: In http://www.vbm-torah.org/sukkot/suk-ral.htm R' Lichtenstein quotes
: several ancient authorities who write about the importance of wearing
: tzitzis, even though the chiyuv applies only when wearing a 4-cornered
: beged. But even those authorities do not denigrate a person who simply
: does not exert himself to get such a beged....

Interesting parallel.

It presumes these mitzvos being in the same class as shechitah, mitzvos
that are mandatory matiros some act. Would we have a problem with
someone who avoids meat (say only on yemei chol, to avoid side-issues)
and thereby avoids shechitah?

Another interesting case is where the person invests effort to avoid
the mitzvah. Such as rounding the corner of a beged, or making a point
to select a grain-less menu for a sukkos or pesach meal (or should that
read: "non-meal"?).

While we're on the subject: Note that this means that techeiles einah
me'aqeves es halavah means that either alone is sufficient to matir in
addition to being sufficient to give one sechar for the asei. Unlike
tefillin (that each tefillah isn't me'aqeves the other), where that half
of the mishnah is speaking of a reshus, not a matir.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Not long ago we discussed the misconception that the R' Yitzchak whom Rashi
quotes at the beginning of the Torah is his father.  I came across the
following on Bar Ilan's parsha page
<http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Eparasha/bereshit/spg2.html> based on a footnote by
Chavel in his edition of the Taz's Divrei David:

"According to Rabbi H.D. Chavel, however, the ancient manuscript referred to
by the Turei Hazahav does have a kernel of truth, because, to a certain
extent, there is some connection between the opening question and Rashi's
father[6]. As Rabbi Chavel points out, anyone who is familiar with Rashi's
commentary on the Torah knows that Rashi rarely identifies the authors of
the quotations he cites from early rabbinical sources. It is quite possible,
Rabbi Chavel explains, that, in the case of the commentary on the first
verse of Genesis, Rashi wanted to identify the individual he was quoting and
decided to use the opening words, "Rabbi Yitzhak says": in this way, Rashi
was honoring his father, because the name of the rabbinical scholar being
cited was the same as that of Rashi's father - Rabbi Yitzhak."

Gil Student

> A Tshuvah went out in the 1950's allowing Microphones on Shabbos.
>Many shuls relied upon this Tshuvah. R. Moshe F. rejected the Tshuvah AND
>furthermore claimed that anyone relying upon said Tshuvah was a mumar...

> WADR to RMF who was the poseik hador, I must disagree. You cannot claim
>a khal or tzibbur is a Mumar when they sincerely relied upon a psak even
>though the psak might have been legitimately flawed. All you can do is
>exhort them not to rely upon the Psak.

The Igros Moshe presents a signifcantly different view of the situation.

Igros MosheYD II #4 page 5
"Concerning a shochet who davens Shabbos and Yom Tov with a microphone
which is b'farhesia but he has the claim that the previous rav as well
as the present one of the shul permitted it. This claim is nothing
i.e., to consider this as shogeg since the Agudas HaRabonim who are
gedolei Torah and they constitute the majority publicized that it is
prohibited to utilize a microphone. How is it possible therefore to
err and to listen to a particular rav who is lenient even if he has
his reasons? This rav's words are null and void in the face of the
view of the gedolim who constitute the majority. Therefore the shochet
should have the status of mechalel shabbos b'meizid. Nevertheless he
has only the status of one who transgresses in private ....but this is
only before he was warned not to do it...but after he has been warned
it is considered public transgression...Therefore if he stops from now
on from using the microphone his shechita is good if he is supervised
but if he refuses to stop he is open transgressor and his shechita is
posul even if he is supervised."

                                Daniel Eidensohn

> <It's also not limited to nusachei Sepharad and "Sfard". It's also
> minhag haGra, which is why RCS noted it's the norm in Israel. And rapidly
> becoming the norm on this side of the puddle as well.>

What is the source that this was the minhag haGra?  Siddur Eizor Eliyahu
(page 359 in newer edition) seems to suggest that when the "Perushim"
(talmidei haGra) got to Eretz Yisrael, they adopted this practice from
the Sefaradim, who did it that was per the teachings of the Ari.

IIRC, this is also the case with a few of the other of the customs of
the Perushim, which have become standard in all Ashkenazi shuls in Eretz
Yisrael (and many in chu"l as well) -- for example, not saying tachanun
during this past week.  This is not something that they neccesarily got
from the Gra, but rather "picked up from the locals" after their aliyah.

--D.C.

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 03:27:21PM -0400, David E Cohen wrote:
: > <It's also not limited to nusachei Sepharad and "Sfard". It's also
: > minhag haGra, which is why RCS noted it's the norm in Israel. And rapidly
: > becoming the norm on this side of the puddle as well.>
: 
: What is the source that this was the minhag haGra? ...

REMT and I discussed this in private email.

I mistakenly assumed that anything I saw practiced in the shul in
Machane Yehudah with the Gra's name on it was minhag haGra. REMT
found this was a minhag Y'laim that came from Sepharadi sources,
and in fact the TA Gra's shul does do Hoshanos later.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes exactly
micha@aishdas.org            the right measure of himself,  and holds a just
http://www.aishdas.org       balance between what he can acquire and what he
Fax: (413) 403-9905          can use."              - Peter Mere Latham

>>My pet peeve - people ignoring chazarat hashatz and unholstering all their
paraphanalia.>>>

Agreed. According to the MB, the shatz should not remove his tefilin
before hallel on chol hamoed Pesach (because of tircha d'tziburah) but
he should/can remove his tefilin before hallel on chol hamoed Sukkos.
Reason: because, on Sukkos, the shatz has plenty of time to remove his
tefillin without causing any tircha d'tziburah, since the tzibur is busy
readying their arba minim after chazaras hashatz.

I mentioned to someone over yom tov that, obviously, the CC didn't daven
in a shul like ours, where, by the time shatz finishes chazaras hashatz,
everyone is all ready to begin hallel, and they don't like waiting for the
shatz to remove his tefilin and then begin to get his arba minim ready.

KT and Gut Shabbos
Aryeh 

one of the days of sukkos, when it was quite warm, I encouraged my
guests to bench so we could leave the sukka and return to air conditioned
splendor. This set me wondering whether it's possible to fulfill mitzvas
sukka bazman hazaeh, when housing is much more effective than it was
even a century ago.

On days when the weather is too hot or too cold I will happily eat in
the sukkah, but I will not happily spend all day hanging out there (as
I do when the weather is ideal) because it's uncomfortable. In other
words, I am not mitztaer only because I know that I need only remain in
the sukka for a short time. Is that considered mitztaer (even though
I enjoy being in the sukka)? It's certainly not teishvu k'ein taduru.
I don't tolerate my house only because I know I can leave in an hour
for somewhere more comfortable.

What about on days when the weather is ideal? I do happily spend all
day in the sukkah then, but if the sukkah were my house I would be
weatherstripping the floors, tar-papering the roof, insulating the
walls, and I would not tolerate the pleasant breeze that blows through
the sukkah. I suspect that until recently, however, when the weather was
pleasant, the typical sukkah was more comfortable than the typical house.
One could argue that yeshivath sukkah, even on the best of days, has an
odd form of tzaar. On the other hand, the Rama cites the din of shtayim
k'hilchasa v'shlishis afilu tefach as evidence that a sukka need not
duplicate the comforts of a house. So maybe when the weather's fine I
am yotzei.

But when the weather's not fine I don't know if I am fulfilling the
mitzva.

David Riceman

In a message dated 10/3/2002 1:48:58 PM EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> R' Carl Sherer answered <<< This is why I suggested that Rav Moshe may not
> have meant "assur" as in "it's assur to turn on lights on Shabbos." But
> he may have meant "assur" so as to avoid the slippery slope... >>>
> 
> That's the sort of thinking that got Adam and Chava into trouble. I wish
> the poskim would be more explicit and say exactly what they're trying
> to say.

Good point, and why I object to the mussarization of Halachah, too.

While kol hamarbeh might be mshubach in some cases, the extra length
one goes to make a cumra should be carefully labelele as such.

See Torah Temima on Breishis 3:3. His kushyos are answeree with a greater
simplicity than his erudite lamdus. I.e. Adam failed to label his chumra
or harchaka or syag as a chumra/harchak/syag and therefore Chava failed
to make a crucial distinction.

See Also Tshuvos M'harshal 72 re: kissuy Rosh when it is too "heavy".
Maharshal is very careful to distinction between Halachah and "middas
Chassidus" something being blurred by a combination of "frumkeit" and
a new form of Halachic-Correctness that is niether Halachah nor always
correct but which uses "mussar" etc. to set up new Halachic norms and
paradigms.

Now as a colleague of mine - Rabbi A.Y. {name furnished in private only}
would say, public policy matters should be separated from Halachic
decisions. While we argue quite a bit on many matters, on this point
we both concur.
 
Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 10/4/2002 2:34:34 PM EDT, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> Igros MosheYD II #4 page 5 ...

<<This claim is nothing i.e., to consider this as shogeg since the
Agudas HaRabonim who are gedolei Torah and they constitute the majority
publicized that it is prohibited to utilize a microphone. How is it
possible therefore to err and to listen to a particular rav who is
lenient even if he has his reasons? This rav's words are null and void
in the face of the view of the gedolim who constitute the majority. >>

Bepashtus one may dispute the authority and/or the majority status of
the Agudas Harabbonim...

So RMF can legitimately assert that the heter was a Taus gamur OTOH he
should not assert that relying on this heter is a tuas for those that
do. I can show you many cases where poskim accepted post facto relying
upon "shaky" heterim. And at least the conecpt of mutav sheyihyu shoggim
should make sense in this case. Using a Microphone that is already on
is not a d'oraysso AFAIK....

Furthermore, are people to be condemned solely for relying upon a Psak
that is a minority? Many k'hillos rely upon the heterim of their minhag
- EG what about sukkah on Shmin Atzeres, etc. I do realize that Chilul
Shabbos is a biggie, but let's remember that AFAIK microphone is not
a d'oraisso.

In fact I asked the Late R. Shmuel Yaakov Weinberg Z"L re: Mirophone.
He told me that it was assure mishum hashmoas kol - a gzeira.

I do realize that RMF as a Gadol felt the need to make a Macho'ah.
But if one takes this line of reasoning literally, than we have a slippery
slope of people relying upon kulos as mechaleli Shabbos. I would guess
the Manhattan Eruv might be another case in point. I personally do not
rely on that Eruv - except for the fact that I would not label anyone
who DOES rely upon it as Mechallel Shabbos.

I would have been more comfortable had RMF declared something like this:
"No Yerei Shaomayim Nor any Shomer Mitzvos ought to rely upon the
microphone heter because it is an inherently flawed heter and we must
take steps to prevent this from becoming a popular practice"

Now you CAN argue that RMF - by declaring one a mechallel Shabbos -
succeede in effecting this result. It's just that if that is indeed
the case, somehow then the ends have now justified the means and we
now have to live with a form of "halachic hyperbole" as normative. That
means condemning people relying upon minority heterim can be labelled
and discarded. I don't like it.

Remember the Rambam who condemned the corporeality of HKBH and the
Raavad's response that while he agrees with the Rambam's POV he conedes
that SOME great people did not agree. OK we may not have GREAT people
issuing the heter for microphones but again the stakes are lower AISI.

[email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 10/4/2002 2:33:25 PM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>:> This is Solomon Schechter's Catholic Israel [CI] problem again. It's
>:> fully circular. You take one minor example, I took a big one.
> ...
>:> And, as I said the first time we raised the CI issue, the reasonable
>:> way out is to posit constitutional law that is NOT open to consensus.

Right os if Tanach is THE CONSTIUTION Karaites are correct
and if Talmud Bavli is THE CONSTITUTION then one MUST duchan on a daily
basis, etc. The forming of any text or set of texts as constitutional
is done via a circular basis. I even got a fanatic devote of Bavli to
concede this point in a heated debate.

...
>: By your reasoning any rabbi that devieates from a given "NORM"
>: Such as Bavli or Shulchan Aruch 
>: is by defintion non-Observant too

> Not at all! I'm kind of surprised you don't "get" my position after dozens
> of posts on this subject.

and I still don't. And apparently you don't get mine either.

> Textualism is also a process. Saying we rely on the sefarim to
> evaluate minhag, rather than making the mimetic the final arbiter,
> doesn't eliminate change -- it increases it! (Look at minhagei haGra,
> chassidus or even RSRH's Frankfurt!)

No one is eliminating text from the process. Just that texts are not
failsafe either. My point, find a new igrsa in an old text and you
can throw out Tradition.
EG, Anyone who has changed their nuscach from Oseh Hashalom to hamevariech
es amo Bashalom would need to change back since the most ancient text
support Oseh Hashalom

Do you see anyone changing back?

...
>: And many C rabbis will point out that O rabbis have stepped on many rules
>: and therefore they are not Observant etc., and therefore O's use circular 
>: reasoning too

> But they're wrong. O hasn't changed the rules of pesaq.

Prove it.  According to C's they are making the same kind of changes to text 
that Tossafos does to the Bavli.  And for that matter, that Rashi does to 
Chumash.  hence the process works as follows.

<<Torah becomes text.  Text becomes cannon.  Cannon is rock solid {i.e. 
Sinai} Sinai is inflexible.  In order to avoid sadduccean style fossilization 
the Text is now darshened instead of using Peshat.  And the process 
continues.  There is indeed no end ot this cycle>>

Now I am not buying this process as being accurate. But AISI you are.  

...
>: addenda
>: you can argue that any rabbi that does not sit in the Sukka on Shmini
>: Atzeres is ipso facto non-observant

> Why? Need I say that this change was done outside the system?

What changes are inside and what are outside are all debatable

>: The process of "dropping it" is itself quite controversial
>: Model 1) Circumstances changed and the underlying Halachah is no longer
>: applicable

> But that's legit. See our earlier discussions of the Rambam and the
> Tif'eres Yisrael on Edios 1:4-6.

And mayyim acharonim is now obsolete so what does GRA object?

> There are, for the Nth time, legitimate means of change.

>: Model 2) Some Communities were NEVER noheig like the Bavli due to other
>: sources, Masoros or subsequent psakkim/takkaons/Gazeiros.

> Again, that's legit.

> And would exclude JTSA's C-observant community.

please explain HOW?

>: Model 3) New Gzeiros overrode circumstances. EG too much chillul
>: YomtTov led to ignoring the original din of burying on Yom Tov

> New chumros? What's the question even! Qadeish es atzmekha bemah
> shemutar lakh.

Because chumra on YomTov become kulos on kavod hameis a kula that the Gmara 
itself makes that YT shein is considered "chol" legabei a meis.  Using such 
suprios chumros willy nilly is IMHO just as much an afront to the Halachic 
process as using Kullos willy nilly. Even MB would not endorse chumra for the 
sake of chumra.

Your own reasonging re: JTSA is circular. A priori JTSA is ont frum so 
therefore their Halachic assertions are incorrect.  But if you chose to see 
them as frum you would not be able to say that.

Similarly when a community is Observant and fails to Observe X you have to 
take your apriori

either they are indeed Observant and therefore X is not considred a fatal 
deviation
or
X is a fatal deviation and they are not observant

EG I heard besheim Rav Schwaw ZTL that people who cheat on their income taxes 
and still do Shabbos - ACT FRUM - but are not really frum because they lack 
basic Emunah in Hashem's hashhgacha.  

We could go on for any Halachah violated beztin'a as an act of lack of Yir'as 
Shamayyim and therefore the people are not sincerely Observant etc.

BTW as discussed on this list, the fact that CI is circular is not ipso facto 
a psul except in the rules of logic.  And that kind of rule of logic AFAIK 
outside the box not inside it.  There are cases where teh challos coincides 
to make 2 interdependent things work as one  iow at one time
Your turn

[Email #3. -mi]

2nd post

In a message dated 10/4/2002 2:34:34 PM EDT, writes:
> . This claim is nothing
> i.e., to consider this as shogeg since the Agudas HaRabonim who are
> gedolei Torah and they constitute the majority publicized that it is
> prohibited to utilize a microphone. How is it possible therefore to
> err and to listen to a particular rav who is lenient even if he has
> his reasons? 

constituting a majority could itself be circular

Example 800 rabbonim oppose microphones and 900 accept it.

But since the 900 accept microphones they are not "frum" enough to be 
numerated so now their vote is passul

BTW this is how Agudists could claim a majority about Zionism being "wrong"  
By far most Rabbonim in the USA before WWII were pro- Zionist - including 
many "yeshivihse types" from Chaim Berlin etc.  But the Agudah self-defined 
so as to discriminate any Zionistic Rabbi as not being a bar hachi.  Think 
about this process. 

Also the original Minhag America was Sephardic. At what time did immigrating 
Ashkenazim get the right to reset this foundation? 

Then again accodring to Ba'al Hamaor how did the Talmidei Harif overturn the 
Minhag EY as it used to be?

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

RDEidensohn wrote:
//The Igros Moshe presents a signifcantly different view of the situation.

Igros MosheYD II #4 page 5
"...since the Agudas HaRabonim who are gedolei Torah and they constitute the
majority publicized that it is prohibited to utilize a microphone.
//

I don't understand. The fact that they were a significant majority
does not mean that the minority view of a major posek is nullified.
We follow the majority only in the context of single beis din. The fact
that they were "gedolim" does not mean that a different posek--considered
a gadol in his community--cannot pasken differently. (I do agree that a
rav who is *not* hi'gi'a l'hora'a may not go against a unanimously held
psak of poskim.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)

In message <3D9C09E7.22438.5B800E@localhost>, Carl and Adina Sherer 
<sherer@actcom.co.il> writes
>> Choosing not to do so, or
>> choosing to do so on shehakol foods, is, it seems to me, an avoidance
>> of the d'orisa mitzvah in the same way as putting yourself in a place
>> where you are ptur from Sukkah on Sukkos is avoiding the mitzvah of
>> Sukkos.

>One difference I can think of off the top of my head is that a Succah
>is time bound. Eating k'dei svia is not. If I don't eat k'dei svia
>today, I can do so tomorrow or next week or next month....
>                  Well, Chazal feared the mitzva of Hoshanos being
>forgotten so much that they rigged our calendar so that Hoshana Rabba
>can never come out on Shabbos. So there's definitely a concept there
>of trying to fulfill a timely mitzva at its proper time, whether it's
>a chiyuv or only a kiyum, even if you have to go out of your way to
>fulfill it.

I think the fundamental difference between Hoshana Rabba and Sukkos is 
that if Hoshana Rabba fell on Shabbas, that year nobody would fulfil the 
mitzvah, and there is a legitimate fear that, if years went past without 
people performing the mitzvah, they would forget how to (see for example 
what happened when years went past since the last erev pesach fell on 
Shabbas, people forgot what to do).  That is very different from this 
case where the mitzvah will definitely be performed at least once (well 
actually, surely it is more than once, because there has to be at least 
one shabbas in the week, and that means three seudos, and the means 
three times in the sukkah).  In the case of Rosh Hashana, the chachamim 
did not legislate so as to ensure that Rosh Hashana never fell on 
Shabbas, even though, on those years on which Rosh Hashana does fall on 
shabbas, the mitzvah of shofar is only performed once.

If anything, I would think that the opposite might well be the case. 
One philosophical explanation for the halacha of tadir v'ano tadir, 
tadir kodem, is that, we are always very excited and keen about the 
rarer mitzvos, with a tendency to overlook and ignore the commoner ones 
(for exactly the reason you mentioned - oh well, I can always do it 
tomorrow, next week, next month). We therefore are instructed not to do 
what we would instinctively do, which is prioritise the ano tadir (such 
as Sukkah), but to put the tadir (such as benching) kodem.

Shavuah tov
Chana Luntz

Rav Schwab says that the pasuk says, "vatipakachna einei sheneihem"
rather than "vatipakachna eineihem" to indicate that from that point on,
man and woman don't see, so to speak, eye to eye, i.e., that their eyes
were opened, but with different perspectives.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
> See SSKH vol 2 pp 178-9 (n. 72) who says that this works even Friday
> night and that one should not make another kiddush when one gets home
> to eat a bread meal.

I understood from him after looking up all the SSKH's  "ayin sham" that it
his chiddush that one should not be mekadaish again but there are others who
say one should be mekadaish again(including RMF). So it is probably best to
ask one's LOR.
reuven

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 02:53:34PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
:> Textualism is also a process. Saying we rely on the sefarim to
:> evaluate minhag, rather than making the mimetic the final arbiter,
:> doesn't eliminate change -- it increases it! (Look at minhagei haGra,
:> chassidus or even RSRH's Frankfurt!)

: No one is eliminating text from the process. Just that texts are not
: failsafe either. My point, find a new igrsa in an old text and you
: can throw out Tradition.

In the past you criticized what I'm describing as being overly fluid.
Now you're saying it's overly static.

There is a mechanism for throwing out traditions that are minhagei ta'us.
(Otherwise, the idiom "minhag ta'us" would never have been coined to begin
with!) In order for such a mechanism exist, there has to be some textual
process by which one judges the appropriateness of accepted practices.

You have yet to describe a system that has room for this idea.

For example, in this very case, why aren't you in favor of restoring the
older text? How is the switch from "oseh hashalom" to "hamvareich es amo
Yisrael bashalom" legitimate, but not any of the changes since Baer's
or Heidenheim's siddurim went to press? Wasn't the older switch also
someone doing what was textually right rather than what everyone else
did?

: >: And many C rabbis will point out that O rabbis have stepped on many rules
: >: and therefore they are not Observant etc., and therefore O's use circular 
: >: reasoning too

: > But they're wrong. O hasn't changed the rules of pesaq.

: Prove it.  According to C's they are making the same kind of changes to text 
: that Tossafos does to the Bavli.  And for that matter, that Rashi does to 
: Chumash.  hence the process works as follows.

Why should I need to prove it?

The question isn't proving C wrong, but my personally being able to
judge what is beyond the line and what isn't -- and therefore who I
personally would count for a minyan (assumign the existance of non-tinoqos
shenishbe'u). If I hold that change X is inside the process, but change
Y is not by the process, then any conclusions reached because of Y,
and conclusions reached because of those conclusions, and so on, are
outside the pale.

(BTW, C does NOT believe it's doing the same thing the amora'im or rishonim
did. They believe they're intentionally restoring fluidity that in the
past was provided by ignorance and accident. Breaking a process in
order to restore a feature that the process itself attenuates.)

: ...
: >: addenda
: >: you can argue that any rabbi that does not sit in the Sukka on Shmini
: >: Atzeres is ipso facto non-observant

: > Why? Need I say that this change was done outside the system?

: What changes are inside and what are outside are all debatable

Like many other pisqei halachah. As I said above, the pesaqim I hold by
about how halachah can be made will determine which other answers are
made within the system. Which in turn gives an answer I can follow WRT
who is a mumar -- NOT an absolute answer.

:> But that's legit. See our earlier discussions of the Rambam and the
:> Tif'eres Yisrael on Edios 1:4-6.

: And mayyim acharonim is now obsolete so what does GRA object?

Because he doesn't hold MA is obsolete. There are potential reasons
other than melach sedomis.

:> There are, for the Nth time, legitimate means of change.

:>: Model 2) Some Communities were NEVER noheig like the Bavli due to other
:>: sources, Masoros or subsequent psakkim/takkaons/Gazeiros.

: > Again, that's legit.

:> And would exclude JTSA's C-observant community.

: please explain HOW?

The C halachic process isn't O's. Nor is it the same as pre-C. The
historical school introduced the notion of going outside halachic process
-- in particular, hypothesis about what historical forces pushed for a
halachah -- to evaluate halachos.

They also broke the notion of precedent in a conscious attempt to regain
the fluidity of the days when we had less precedent.

Then there's the notion of "balancing halachah and societal need" in
their "Emunot veDei'ot" that outright states that halachah is evaluated
at least in part by something other than halachah.

: Your own reasonging re: JTSA is circular. A priori JTSA is ont frum so 
: therefore their Halachic assertions are incorrect.  But if you chose to see 
: them as frum you would not be able to say that.

NO! I have an objective definition, if not fully flushed out, as to
who is frum. The a priori isn't that JTSA is not frum, but that this
mechanics rather than that is valid!

That's why a constitutional law, a set of laws about how laws may be
made and which attempted laws would be minhagei ta'us, breaks out of
the CI circulatity.

: Similarly when a community is Observant and fails to Observe X you have to 
: take your apriori

Again NO! WHo is observant is defined in how they got to X or not-X more
than whether or not they observe some particular law.

: BTW as discussed on this list, the fact that CI is circular is not ipso facto 
: a psul except in the rules of logic...

It becomes ad absurdum. J4j could claim their observances are
"halachic" and as proof cite themselves as an observant community within
CI that follows it.

There is no definition -- anyone can claim anything and prove its veracity
by citing the claim itself.

: But since the 900 accept microphones they are not "frum" enough to be 
: numerated so now their vote is passul

If the 900 do so by means that require ignoring parts or all of the
rules for pasqening then they are not frum.

You've just proven why CI as Schechter framed it was absurd.

You need a notion of rules of pesaq, and therefore textual rules of how
to make and change particular pisqei halachah. Otherwise, as you just
showed by example, there is no definition left.

: Also the original Minhag America was Sephardic. At what time did immigrating 
: Ashkenazim get the right to reset this foundation? 

You're right -- which means that every American poseiq who didn't switch
clearly doesn't hold by your "minhag uber alles" definition of halachah!

Nor did the Gra, or the Briskers, or Hirsch when he rewrote minhag Frankfurt,
the Besht and various rabbeim rewrote minhagim and nusachos for their
communities, and you objected to RMF's stance in particular already...

Perhaps it's because your formulation of "what is halachah?" is simply
wrong. It doesn't fit the data.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes exactly
micha@aishdas.org            the right measure of himself,  and holds a just
http://www.aishdas.org       balance between what he can acquire and what he
Fax: (413) 403-9905          can use."              - Peter Mere Latham

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]