Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 220

Tue, 09 Oct 2007

• 1. A Little More Mysticism (R Wolberg)
• 2. Re: mechitza (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: mechitza (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: How much Conformity to local Nusach/Mihag is required for Shatz and for the (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: How much Conformity to local Nusach/Mihag is required for Shatz and for the Private Worshiper? (Arie Folger)
• 6. Why do Yekkes wait 3 hours? (Dov Kay)
• 7. mechitza (Dov Kay)
• 8. Re: mechitza (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 9. Re: Why do Yekkes wait 3 hours? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Halacha - Stability and Revision Pt. 1 Parallels from American Law (Richard Wolpoe)

The gematria of lulav is 68 and is equivalent to the gematria of chayim
(life).  One symbol of the lulav (and esrog) 

is: "Etz chayim" -  the  "tree of life" (referring to Torah).  And though
the physical life is drawn from nature, the 

spiritual life is ultimately from Torah which is the "Eternal Life that He
has planted within us."  

 

The fruit of this (detached) lulav tree is the esrog which according to some
scholars was the original fruit of the 

"tree of knowledge" of good and evil (not the apple) [Gen. Rabba 15].  Thus
the Torah offers what we lost at 

Eden: the potential for life and purpose. 

 

We hopefully have been purified through Yom Kippur and we pray that the
holiday of Sukkot infuse in us the 

elements to refine our lives with lasting values. And if for some reason we
haven't been purified through the 

holidays, then we have the "mei Noach" - "waters of Noah" (the largest
mikvah in history) to finish the job. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071009/c2280417/attachment.htm 

 


Can someone please help me understand how halacha can change so
radically?

I can understand how, over time, View A might shift from being held by
only 5% of Am Yisrael to 95%, while View B becomes less popular,
shifting from 95% popularity to 5%. This can happen when a person who
was a mere talmid of a View A community when he was young, became a
major teacher later on.

That's how I understand the shifts between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel,
or the shift from Shabbos starting when it gets dark to Shabbos starting
when the sun goes below the horizon. In these cases, the different views
were *both* pre-existing, only their popularity shifted.


Akiva Miller

================================================================
Please say more on this - how did it go from 95 to 5? Was it that poskim
were eventually won over by something that earlier poskim missed?  That
there were practical reasons (e.g. getting to the movies :-)) that
pressured poskim? That people just started doing it?.....  I've asked
this question of a number of individuals who imho are "bar hachis" but
never heard a real answer (other than each circumstance is likely
different) but I've always thought that they know the answer but it's
not for publication because it may be misused by those who are not bar
hachis (like me)
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:

> How did people of the Binyan Tziyon's time view this? I don't doubt the forceful and compelling nature of his halachic reasoning, but surely there must have been some people who said, "That can't be right, because if it is right, then our mothers and grandmothers, for millenia, were mevatel a Mitzvas Aseh D'Oraisa."

That is exactly what most people did say, and why it took so long for
this chiddush to become popular practise.  It took several generations
for the idea to take root, and it didn't really become a ubiquitous
practise until 20 or 30 years ago.

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

RTK wrote:
> > Litvaks posken that you can change from Nusach Sfard to Nusach
> > Ashkenaz ?(but not vice versa) because Nusach Ashkenaz was the
> > original, true nusach from which the chassidim deviated, so you would
> > just be going back to the nusach of your greatgrandfather, which is
> > always preferable.

RKBloom replied:
> Presumably, one cannot do this if they are actually sepharadi, davening
> in the nusach of the sepharadim.

Actually, that is only partially correct. At the core the question is how to 
relate towards innovations made in the name of RYLuria. Those who regard him 
as the sole kabbalistic authority, the be all end all, second but to Mosheh 
Rabbenu, will say that changes are only allowed in the direction of his 
presumed nussa'h. Others will argue that the original nussa'h was as good or 
better.

Now it just happens that there are more "original nuss'ah" types among 
Ashkenazim than Sefardim. However, the effect can (and probably does) exist 
among Sefardim, too.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RMP wrote:
> (Re this thread, I would like to explore ROY's apparent position [if I
> understood RKB correctly and he quoted ROY fully] that a "superior nusach"
> overrides the established nusach/minhag of a maqom. ?Was he assuming a shul
> which didn't have a minhag hamaqom; does he discount or not agree that "lo
> sisgod'du" mandates against creating agudos by publicly splitting from
> minhag hamaqom; or is something else going on? ?Thanks.)

The following is based on a story I recall, while not recalling the source. As 
human memory is fallible, please consider the following with some skepticism.

ROY believes that the whole world should use nussa'h 'edot hamizra'h. There is 
a story about how he was visiting at Lincoln Square and wanted to be Shatz. 
The rabbi (I don't recall if it was RRiskin or RAMintz) pointed out that he 
should follow the local minhag. After not giving any indication to the 
contrary, he proceeded to do the entire service according to nuss'ah 'edot 
hamizra'h. When confronted after davening, eh, tefillah, he told the rabbi 
that he followed the local monhag that they should have been following all 
along.

Sorry, but I can't recall the source of the story.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

<<and no written codification of 3 (until very late? anywhere?)>>
 
I think that Rav B Forst's Artscroll Kashrus book cites Rabbeinu Yerucham as the earliest source for 3 hours.
 
In my parents-in-law's family (the Posens), the ladies wait 3 hours in accordance with the family custom, but the men are stringent and wait 6 hours.  My wife is quite grateful for the p'sak we received permitting her to keep up with the 3 hour custom, even though I, as a Litvak, wait 6 hours.
 
Interestingly, Rav Schach is quoted in the first volume of Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz as saying that a Yekke should not be "machmir" and wait 6 hours, while I have seen Rav Elyashiv quoted somewhere as disagreeing.  I suppose the question is whether minhag trumps strict halacha.  For instance, no gebrokts on Pesach was, presumably, originally adopted as a chumra, but is now exclusively a function of minhag (with the exception of one Rabbi I know of in Melbourne who has not a drop of chassidic blood in him but took on "no gebrokts" as a chumra).
 
Kol tuvDov Kay
_________________________________________________________________
Celeb spotting ? Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes
https://www.celebmashup.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071009/58a8dd5c/attachment.html 

I have just been learning OC, 315, where the MB and AhS both quote the Mordechai in Perek Kirah that one may erect a temporary partition between men and women when a drasha is given.  This is evidence that:
1  women attended droshos in the Mordechai's time and locality;
2  there was felt to be a need for a mechitza at such a gathering (contra the R.YYW's comment that this was not the case in early 20th century Lita); and
3  women perhaps did not attend shul or stood outside, or else why did he not refer to erection of a mechitza in a shul, espcially since shul services are more frequent than droshos.
 
Kol tuv
Dov Kay 
_________________________________________________________________
Get free emoticon packs and customisation from Windows Live. 
http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071009/8346423a/attachment.htm 

> R' Micha Berger wrote:
> > Until the 19th cent, it was assumed that since women aren't
> > mechuyavos in meshiyas Amaleiq, they weren't mechuyavos in
> > Parashas Zachor either. ... The earliest clear pesaq lemaaseh
> > requiring women to attend Zachor is shu"t Binyan Tziyon by ...
R' AM: 
> Can someone please help me understand how halacha can change so
> radically?

Not everyone agrees that the Halachah has changed - one Rav I know is of the
opinion that while meritorious, there is no Chiyuv for women to hear
Parashas Zachor, and he thus refuses to allow the Sefer Torah to be taken
out on Shabbos afternoon for a second, women's, reading.

KT,
MYG

On 10/9/07, Dov Kay <dov_kay@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>  <<and no written codification of 3 (until very late? anywhere?)>>
>
> I think that Rav B Forst's Artscroll Kashrus book cites Rabbeinu Yerucham
> as the earliest source for 3 hours.
>
> In my parents-in-law's family (the Posens), the ladies wait 3 hours in
> accordance with the family custom, but the men are stringent and wait 6
> hours.  My wife is quite grateful for the p'sak we received permitting her
> to keep up with the 3 hour custom, even though I, as a Litvak, wait 6 hours.
>
> Interestingly, Rav Schach is quoted in the first volume of Shorshei Minhag
> Ashkenaz as saying that a Yekke should not be "machmir" and wait 6 hours,
> while I have seen Rav Elyashiv quoted somewhere as disagreeing.  I suppose
> the question is whether minhag trumps strict halacha.  For instance, no
> gebrokts on Pesach was, presumably, originally adopted as a chumra, but is
> now exclusively a function of minhag (with the exception of one Rabbi I know
> of in Melbourne who has not a drop of chassidic blood in him but took on "no
> gebrokts" as a chumra).
>
> Kol tuv
> Dov Kay
>

This post opens a whole new realm of Halachic discussion i.e. the contrast
between MINHAG and HUMRA

As a TRADITIONALIST - in the sense of using precedent to decide Halachah, I
generally favor Minhag and object to humros - especially those w/o a solid
historical base.

Therefore as an Ashkenaz

   1. I am in favor of the MINHAG Of kitniyyos but opposed to Gebrukts
   because since it has no precedent for me, I would oppose it as new and
   unnecessary humra.
   2. I am in favor of keeping traditional piyutim in davening - and
   Bracuh Hashenm l'olam and oppose seeing them as a hefsek - becasue that is a
   new lehumra. [otoh I would not object to deleting them for reasons of tircha
   detzibura - which is a pragmatic consideration, not as a  humra]
   3. I am  NOT in favor of reading Zecher/Zeicher on parshas Zachor. It
   has little history and  imposes a new humra which imho is problematic.  But
   if on Ki Tetze you want to read it one way during Shevi'i and the other
   during Maftir I can understand it - although as a revision of our Masortetic
   text I would still oppose it.  [See R. Moordechai Breuer A"H's arctile on
   this matter
   1. OTOH, where  there is a long-stannding minhag to lein
      bifneihem/lifneihem I am OK with keeping that going.

Caveat: Certainly SOME humros arise anew due to new considerations and
circumstances,

Illustration I am opposed to forbidding burial on 2nd day of Yom Tov - iow I
am opopsed to making a new humra agasint our mesoarhr. BUT wheref there is a
real concern in OUR society todayfor hillul Yom Tov, then  it is OK to make
a gzeira against.  I favor doing this as a hor'as sho'oh and NOT as a
revision of  Halachic precedent.

I I would also oppose adding new kulos that lack a really good precedent,
too.  Thus I set in the sukkah on Shmini Atzeres, and I favor the position
of Derech Hachayyim and others who sit ONLY when a bracha would be triggered
during sukkos.  I  oppose being meikel on this matter UNLESS they have a
strong minhag Avos


Bottom line: Thsoe humros codified by Rema/Levush and the end of the
Rishonim era as Minhag Ashkenaz - I generally favor perpetuating.  Those
Humros introduced later on [e.g. davening late 1st night of Shavuos] I
generally oppose imposing them.

Halachic evolution - aiui - should follow the principles of Common Law.


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071009/f1313c8a/attachment.html 

Generally I see 3 schools of Judicial thought:

   1. Fundamentalism
   2. Traditionalism
   3. Activism

Fundamentalism:
The original intention of the earliest canonical sources RULES.  This
actually can provide a great deal of activism in the sense that
Fundamentalism can lead to a form of REVISIONISM.

Illustration:
In the USA this might read like this:  Since the First Amendment NEVER put
up a wall between Church and State, and only addressed Congress' ability to
establish religion, therefore any law that requires a GREATER separation is
either null and void, or at least VOIDABLE.

Goal:
To stick to canonical documents.  To highly restrict revisionism of original
intention, in favor of revising laws that fail to conform to
fundamentalistic reads of the tomes.

Traditionalism:
This is based upon the principles of Common Law.  The rulings of course are
all factored in to make the law. The higher the court the more influential
the precedent. Texts and tomes are secondary to how the courts rule in
practice.  New rulings can introduce new law, but ONLY if other courts
ratify this as precedent. Otherwise, Stare Decisis [let the decision stand]
is the underlying assumption.


Illustration:
In the USA this might read like this:  Since Roe vs. Wade is SETTLED LAW,
and has even been used as a basis to create other law, the decision stands
DESPITE the fact it might have been flawed or not in consonance with
fundamental texts.

Goal:
To create a stable -albeit evolving society.  Businesses need stability upon
which to project their decisions. Property needs to be protected in order to
encourage improvements. Protect values that  created the society and to
perpeutate these values across generational boudnaries

Activism:
Since the principles of Liberty and Justice for all are META-LAW, all texts
and Traditions may be disregarded in favor of a liberal agenda of maximizing
liberty

Illustration:
In the USA this might read like this: Since traditional marriage has been
restricted for generations to heterosexual couples, we may wish to
liberalize these laws and let Gays and polygamists have the SAME rights as
traditional hetero-marriages.  This is in order to spread the most rights to
the most people. Fundamental readings of text, as well as history and
tradition - take a back seat.  They may even have a voice, but not a veto.

Goal:
To pursue a liberal or a libertarian or a libertine] agenda.  To promote
progressivism.  Maximise rights for the people.

BEH I will follow up with Halachic parallels in the next post.


Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071009/027badff/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 220
***************************************

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..."