Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 195

Sun, 25 May 2008

• 1. Re: ta'am of eating matza (Russell Levy)
• 2. Male and Female Gemstones !? (L Reich)
• 3. Re: nusach in shul (Ben Waxman)
• 4. omer - Rihal (Eli Turkel)
• 5. How Judges Think. (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: Dancing on Shabbos - Redux (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. Re: omer - Rihal (Michael Makovi)
• 8. Kashrut of treif venue's coffee (Michael Makovi)
• 9. Bamidbar "We're Still In The Wilderness" (Cantor Wolberg)
• 10. Re: Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone (Richard Wolpoe)

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:44 PM, saul mashbaum
<smash52@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> Not fully on topic, but related to the subject of chametz and matza:
>
> I find it surprising and counterintuitive that the Lechem Hapanim  in the
> mikdash (always referred to by the Torah, chzal,and the rishomim as
> "lechem") is matza.

See Rambam, Maaseh Korbanot 12, starting at Halacha 14. As well, see
the beginning of
5th perek of menachos in the mishna/gemara. It looks pretty clear to
me that it's matzah.

Male and Female Gemstones !?

If this thread is still alive I would like to point out that the notion of 
gemstones breeding is found in the Sefer "Shiltay Geborim" by Rabbi Doctor 
Avrohom ben Dovid Shaar Aryeh, published in Mantua, Italy in 1612.

This interesting pioneer work is, as far as I know, the first attempt to 
cover all the physical requirements of the Beis Hamikdosh in "modern" terms- 
vessels, music etc.



Elozor Reich, Manchester

This is exactly what we do at our shul, whoever gets up to daven is given 
the keys to the car. When the shul was founded, there was a vote taken as to 
what nusakh should be used. Askenaz won, 60:40. None the less the shul rav, 
based on advice given to him from Rav Lichtenstein, decided against having 
any set nusakh, as he felt that it would drive people away.

A friend told me that when he was learning at Netiv Meir, Rav Ovadia told 
the students there is no problem not having a set nusak; splitting the 
nusakh is a problem. However that is what we do and so do many other shuls.

Maybe a split nusakh is our nusakh.

Ben

>> <<I have been in many shuls in EY where there is no set nusach. Instead,
>> the nusach goes by whomever is shaliach tzibbur.
>>
>> Eli Turkel
>>
>
> From Richard Wolpoe
> I 've seen this at office Mincha Minyanim wehre [within some limits]
> thenusach is that of the Shatz. I had always imageind that this was a
> fucntion of "ad hoc" types of minyanim only.
> -- 
> 

It may be old news to many but I just learned about the opinion of
R.Yehuda Halevi on the date pf shavuot.
He holds that from the Torah there is no fixed date for bringing the
Omer it depends on the harvest season. Shavuot starts on the 50th
day afterwards (ie count 49 days).
It was onlt chazal that set it to be brought on the 16th of Nissan and
so Shavuot is on the 5/6/7 of Sivan and with the calendar on the 6th.

This answers many questions
1. Why doesnt the Torah give a date for shavuot?
Because there is no fixed date it varies from year to year

2. Why doesnt the Torah connect shavuot with Matan Torah?
Because there is no connection. It was only later that shavuot
came out close to the date of Matan Torah

3. Why does the Torah make a big deal of counting 49 days which
doesnt appear anywhere else
Because this is the only way of knowing when shavuot begins. It has
no intrinsic connection to Pesach

Also explains why counting the Omer is rabbibic today.
Because counting the Omer intrinsically connects the 2 karbanot.
It has no connection to the second of Pesach (again from the Torah) and so
has no application today

-- 
Eli Turkel

> From Judge Posner's new book - How Judges Think.
> Sound familiar?
> KT
> Joel Rich
> I am struck by how unrealistic are the conceptions of the judge held
> by most people, including practicing lawyers and eminent law
> professors, who have never been judges3 - and even by some judges.
> This unrealism is due to a variety of things, including the different
> perspectives of the different branches of the legal profession -
> including also a certain want of imagination.  It is also due to the
> fact that most judges are cagey, even coy, in discussing what they do.
> They tend to parrot an official line about the judicial process (how
> rule-bound it is), and often to believe it, though it does not
> describe their actual practices.4  There is also the sense that
> judging really is a different profession from practicing or teaching
> law, and if you're not in it you can't understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080523/5b6cdf1c/attachment-0001.htm>

In case my earlier postings did not emphasize this:
Both from the wording of the Rema and from RMF in the aforementioned IM
[which no one has seemed to consult --smile--] It LOOKS like the heter here
is in the realm of: "Well frum people do it so it MSUT be ok."  To me that
is a flimsy post facto rationale that has a very slippery slope and is
easily exploited.

Now if a  person were to  say I ALWAYS follow Tosafos beshita, then I would
be more forgiving.  In fact, RMF is puzzled about how anyone can use this
heter!  I would hav asnwered him that  they are simply relying upon Tosafos
of course.  It would seem that RMF never heard of people who follow Tosafos
beshita, and so how can one follow a SHVER Tosafos.  I challenge all readers
to see RMF's own rationale.


Tangentially, there are  SHVER Rema's tha I do not follow [e.g bass shema
azlinan wrt min bemino]  In Choshen Mishpat 25 a specific P'sak froom a
Posiek CAN be rejected by world-famous [bavusta] kashas. Certainly the
Shach's kasha on the Rema here is a case on point.  And for the same reason
- I am not in favor of following SHVER Rambam's either, nevertheless some
consider RAMBAM somehow infallible.


-- 
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/20080523/2104225b/attachment-0001.htm>

> It may be old news to many but I just learned about the opinion of
> R.Yehuda Halevi on the date pf shavuot.
> He holds that from the Torah there is no fixed date for bringing the
> Omer it depends on the harvest season. Shavuot starts on the 50th
> day afterwards (ie count 49 days).
> It was onlt chazal that set it to be brought on the 16th of Nissan and
> so Shavuot is on the 5/6/7 of Sivan and with the calendar on the 6th.
>
> This answers many questions
> ...
> R Eli Turkel

The Kuzari says one other thing: Since the Torah set no exact date,
and it was only Chazal who hard-set it to count from the second day of
Pesach, the Kuzari says that the drash by the Tzadukim really has
nothing inherently wrong with it; in theory, the Tzadukim were as
correct as Chazal, and there was nothing wrong with the former. The
only thing the Tzadukim did wrong was go against a decision that had
already been codified by Chazal.

Even if the Kuzari's theory that the Omer has no d'oraita-date, is
incorrect, we can still drink to the hava amina:

If drashot used to be more flexible than we sometimes realize, i.e.
drashot could be at times creative and at times overturned in favor of
new drashot, then many times, the drashot of the Tzadukim wouldn't be
anything objectionable, except that they

a) went against a Chazalic decision that for one reason or another was
not disputable or overturnable (as with our present case of the Omer
aliba d'Kuzari)

b) were Tzadukim after all, so we didn't listen to them even when they
were correct. There is a midrash of one of the many Rabban Gamliels
being put to death, and he asked Rabbi Akiva why, and Rabbi Akiva
replied that maybe he once found a drasha of a min to be pleasing, and
indeed, Rabban Gamliel replied that a min gave a nice halachic drash,
and Rabban Gamliel liked it, and instead, he should have rejected
anything from an apikorus even if it was valid in theory.

c) (Of course, at times, the Tzadukim went against an explicit TSBP
kabbalah, that no drash could overturn. End of discussion.)

Mikha'el Makovi

From Areivim of the same title

> And speaking of keilim, the grownups (I wasn't one yet) would get
> coffee in porcelain mugs. Who knows what else the mugs were used for,
> never mind the dishwasher (given that they were Ashk). Is there a limud
> zechus for this?
>
> R' Micha

Transcript of a talk given by my rabbi at Machon Meir, and apparently,
at Nishmat too:
http://www.nishmat.net/article.php?id=4&;amp;heading=0

QUOTE
------------
Nonetheless, perhaps there is room to allow the drinking of tea and
coffee. The hot water is generally boiled in a special kettle, used
only for this purpose, which would preclude any possibility of
non-kosher food being absorbed into these vessels at all.

The tea-cups may present a problem, as they may have been used
withnon-Jewish milk, "chalav akum". For those who are lenient and
drink chalav akum in countries that have government supervision to
ensure that only cows' milk is sold as standard milk, based on the
opinion of Rav Feinstein, this difficulty would be eliminated. Even
those who are strict may perhaps rely on that ruling when it is only a
question of a doubt - "perhaps non-Jewish milk was used in the last
twenty-four hours in the cup".

In a glass or duralex cup, there is also room to be lenient, based on
the opinions that glass does not absorb.

It would therefore be preferable to use a disposable cup, or a glass.
But if these options are unavailable, one can drink kosher tea or
coffee from a regular cup (see Yechave Da'at, ibid., and also the
Nodah Bi'Yehudah, Yoreh De'ah, 36).
------------------
END QUOTE

Mikha'el Makovi

Bamidbar is also known as Chumash Hapekudim, the book of Censuses. A  
Census is, indeed, the opening subject of the Parsha. Three principles  
in conducting a Census are guidelines for dedication to Torah:
First, the Census teaches us that each individual must be counted  
since each individual counts and because each person is   
different 
.									   
									   
		     I 
  came across the following saying with a slightly different twist:   
"Everything that can be counted doesn't necessarily count; everything  
that counts can't necessarily be counted."  (Of course, "Everything"  
in this saying doesn't necessarily refer only to people, otherwise it  
would contradict the above concept in the Torah).

Second, each person was counted and identified with his or her family  
(LeMishpechotam). The Census teaches us the importance of family in  
Jewish identity.  The secret of our continuity is the family.

Third, the person counted in the Census was identified with his Degel,  
his flag, representing his Shevet, his tribe. To really know a person,  
you had to know him, his family and his Shevet. The Shevet was an  
important ingredient in the make-up of each Jew.  We've heard the  
expression of "waving the flag" which sometimes has negative  
connotations. However, for the Jew, there was great pride in "waving  
the flag."

Thus the Censuses of the Sidrah of Bamidbar teach us that the basic  
building blocks for a genuine Torah life and society are 1) the unique  
individual, 2) the family unit and 3) significant communal groups.   
Without these, it would be next to impossible to really accept the  
Torah.

We should also remember that it was in the wilderness we accepted the  
Torah and today we share that very theme with our ancestors, since we  
are still in the "wilderness."

ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080524/f793c48d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 09:24:29PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> : > And no one knows the technical limitations of derashos anymore -- one
> : > of the reasons (perhaps the lack of Sanhedrin is a 2nd) we don't in
> : > practice make new ones even lefi haRambam.
>
> : Except that
> :    1. The Taz created a new Halacha of davening Arbis after Tzeis becuase
> of
> :    Temimos
>
> Not a derashah. "Temimos" is being translated.


I  call this a distinction without a difference.
First any translation is an interpretation [source one of my Yekke
acquaintances who translated Hirsch et. al.]
Translating a PASSUK into NEW Halchah is a brand new drasha anyway.
If it walks like Drasha and talks like a drasha it cannot be duck. If you
can show me sources otheriwise you are welcome to show the nafka mina from
making new halacha based upon translation vs. Drasha



>
>
> :    2. The Maharil created the concept of sinlges not wearing Tzitzis due
> to
> :    semuchos of Gedillim and Ki Yikach ish isha...
>
> We're discussing the creation/discovery of new deOraisos (lefi
> haRambam). Does the Maharil claim this is deOraisa? I don't think wearing
> tallis is deOraisa altogether -- it just "looks bad" when saying parashas
> tzitzis not to have them.


Ataully the Same Zohar that says NOT to wear TEfilin on Hol HaMo;ed says it
is EIDUS SHEKER al atzmo NOT To wear Tzitzis whilst reicting Shema.  If the
Zohar is normative [I think not aiui but YOU do] then I ask mah nafsach!

See Darchie Moshe ho'oruch.  It is in effect either

   1. Being mevateil a mitzvas Aseih by not permiting young men to wear them
   2. If in the case of young men wearing Tallis Kattan, then the problem is
   the Bracha.
   3. MB points ou it is BETTER NOT to say a brach on teh small arba kanfos,
   so by NOT wearing a Tallis Hagadol it is a HALCHIC problem
   4. Maharil is in concert with about 90% of Yekke minhaggim but they
   reject this one- why?
   5. Ba'eir Heitev  AND Mishnah Brura reject this drasha and  imply that
   young men SHOULD wear a Tallis. {it ws the minhag in most American shuls  of
   the 1950's to do so.
   6. If this is  NOT a drasha then what is it and why do people follow this
   minhag in face of Poskim [such as MB] who rule otherwise?


> I also am under the belief he was finding a heter for an existing
> anomolous minhag, not interoducing new, anyway.


that is true. Which is  part of my point.   The ONLY reason this drassha
exits is AFIK becausing Taleisim [or talittot] were not readily avilalble so
it was a limud z'chus. So now this limud z'chus [a hora'as hso'oh perhaps]
is bateil umevutal if you take the MB seriously. But people follow Minhag
Avos EVEN in the face of evidcne that they are doing so based upon a simple
mis-perception.

This actaulyl happend to me in West Hartford circa 1963.  on YK the LOR
asked boys not to wear a Tallis becuase they wer runnin short

so I followed his command and I was given a hard time in the obby by one of
the Synogogue elders for NOT wearing a Tallis when it wasthe minahg here to
DO SO [no good deed goes unpunished]  But I DID wear a Tallis except  that
the rabbi made an exemption based upon  an urgency



>
>
> We're also discussing whether they can be wrong, or if they define
> "right". This is a tangent; which is okay if it doesn't leave the first
> issue unresolved.


Of course Hazl CAN be wrong. But we may have to accept their p'sak anyway.
This si the yamin us'mol point.

UMpires blew  THREE hone-run calls in ONE WEEK last week

   1. Delgado agaisnt the Yankees
   2. Somebody in Houston
   3. A-Rod

Every decision STOOD as Halcha, but the umps admitted their errors on the
record in the newspapers at least for #1 & #3.  #2 wound up to be a n inside
the park HR so no nafka minah lehalachh/

POINT? The umpires have the authority to call it and thier p'sak STANDS. it
does NOT mean they are infallible. If a kohen says a Tzaru's is or is not it
does not mean infalliblity only authority to make the call

In YOUR universe, I would not only have to accept the p'sak of the umpires,
but I would have to believe that they ruled correctly!   I never heard of
such a hiyyuv to believe that since their authority  to make the law is not
challenged, that I cannot argue against their decisions or at least question
their logic.

If this IS the case pleas e state sources, that one must consider hazal as
not only having binding authority but infallbile lopivc



>
>
> : Most of the Bavli era lacked a Sanhedrin anyway yet drashos AFAIK still
> took
> : place..
>
> We have discussed this in the past. The gemara discusses the end of
> gezeirah shava (that has no mesorah), it was early tannaim. The Tosefta
> then takes out the possibility of anything but qal vachomer. The later
> tannaim themselves state that it ended before their day.
>
> Perhaps the same answer, asmachta, applies here.
>

>
I dunno. I have not studied this....

Rambam mamrim 1:1  states that Beis Din Haggadol  [BDhG] is IKKAR TSBP. AIUI
that is the end for all such drashos. You wanna call it "early Tann'im
fine."  Why early vs. late? I can answer- the hurban is the ONLY major
break. Everything Afterwords is a continuum [more or less]

If the Mesorah for Gzeira Shava works from BDhG insted of Misinai literally,
then you obviate the kasha on how can prazzi prazzi be a Gzeria Shava in
Megillah.  Is Esther miSinai?  yes according to Brachos but unlikely to make
a Gzeira Sahva misinai literally.

However, if you tak out Sinai nad go back to the last BDhG this all works.
ti also answers the Rash on HLMM etc.

>
>
>
>
> In any case, Rebbe dies in 220 CE R' Hillel II died in 385, Ravina died
> in 399. (Rav Ashi lived until 427, but the gemara persumably had to be
> written when both were alive.) So, by the narrowest definition, there
> were 180 years of amora'im, of which only 14 didn't have a Sanhedrin.


But Amoraim in Bavel were w/o Semicha.  And there is LITTLE evidence that
Hillel II ruled on 99% of the drashos in Bavel.

There are only a handlful of pieces of leigslation fomr this late body

   1. YT sheini
   2. Acorrding to Rashi = Gentile oil
   3. Rashi is shver because R. Yehuda quotes Rav on this matter and it is
   unlikely that Rav FOLLOWED R. Yehudah nesi'ah [see kesubbos about
   Rabbonsseinu]




>
>
> However, aside from the mesorah about R' Hillel heading the last Sanhedrin
> which is why they had to make the calendar, historians generally believe
> his son R' Gamliel IV headed the last generation of the Sanhedrin until
> he was killed by Theodosius II (for building new shuls) in 425. After
> the writing of the gemara.


See Above

>
>
> The Rambam may be dating the end of the Sanhedrin similarly when he
> discusses the authority of sha"s and mentions it being endorsed by
> the Sanhedrin.


BDhG is in Yerushlayyim.  Post Hurban BD are not REAL Sanhedrin See R. Akiva
in Makkos Mishna 1:10 [ilu hayyinu beSanhedrin]

(However, he rests the authority on "nispasheit lekhol
> Yisrael", not this point, so one needn't accept it to accept the Rambam's
> model of halakhah. This is relevent when discussing the SA, which was
> nispasheit -- most of its pesaqim -- but no Sanhedrin. Then again, maybe
> the SA was directly related to the attempt to restore the semichah,
> and that really was what Maran Bet Yosef was trying to do???)


Tehre is no Sahnedrin.  But with SAan dother Halchos post Talmud the poskim
Say KAYMA LAN - what does THAT mean

See IM on Dancing on Shabbos and Taz in orach chaim 46 re: haNoseif
Laya'eif Ko'ach

even w/o Sanhedrin there is a concept of NIMNU v'GAMRU
see also Sefer Hanicnuch on Acharei Rabbmn leHattos and BY re: 2 vs. 3
matzos
That is the point of the TWO teaneck Rabbis I conculted, -following hee
consensus of Poskim . But that is ONLY when the amtter hads been decided. If
the matter is STILL in dispute, then  it is probably stil l open ofr debate
[ e.g. tefillin on ChhM]  According to Y - aisi - 3 matzos was a closed
p'sal [p'sak means to cut off the other opinion]   Tht is why I do not by
GRA's ability to reverse a nimnu v'gamru EVEN IF THEY WERE WRONG!. But of
course, he can question the validity of the p'sak !   Questionin [as I wrote
above] is  always OK

re: Ta'am k'ikar, whther this is d'orraisso or derabban is a machlokes
Rishonim but virtually ALL acharonim I have read say KAYMA LAN kerabbeinu
Tam.  HOW?


   1. Nispashiet?  maybe but this is not assur vs. muttar but d'orraiso vs.
   derabban. So this is hard to pinpoint on puk Hazei
   2. Sanhedrin?  - Where?
   3. SA/Rema?  Maybe
   4. Nimnu v'gamru - seems like consensus is the best model here







>
>
> 114 years of the gemara's era was post-Sanhderin. But since the technique
> was lost before the compilation of the Tosefta, it's not overly relevent
> to our discussion.

Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger
>

As above I do NOT buy that model at all
AISI all of Mishna Talmud was post Beis Din hagadol in Yerushalyyim
RYBZ's Yavneh was l'havdil like Cromwells' Rump Parliaent - a vestigal but
not totally authoritative. Certainly for Lu'ch purpsoes there is no doubt.
But they lakced ko'ach for a LOT of mattters. and if they wer REALYL a
Sanehdrin in the Amoraic era, their being bound by Tannaic literature makes
ZERO sense

It is obvious from the facts that even LATER amoraimwere boudn by earlier
ones. this  kind of generational precedent deos nto bind a bon fide
Sanhedrin

The modle I learned simply fits the facts better

   1. Sanhedrin before Hurban was legilsative as well as judicial
   2. RYBZ started a new paradigm - namely Rabbinic Judaism [successors to
   Pharisaism]
   3. Halchah began to be based upon binding precedent as oppose to new
   legislation
      1. Granted even BDhG had SOME limitations on legislation
      2. but withinbounds it had that authority
   4. Post-Hurban TSBP was about recollecting [in boht sense of the word]
   what was lost before the Hurban
   5. So any Law fro mthe old BDhG was MISINAI in the sense it was AXIOMATIC
   and not subject to change ]except hor'as sho'oh]
   6. Altera Tann'im and aAmoraim were boudn to follow precedent but had
   jdicial authroity to  "interpret" that was there
      1. There fore the Taz has apassuk but NO PRECEDENT AFAIK TO legislate
      anew
      2. he therefore over-stepped his bounds.
      3. I'm NOT Anti-Taz his explanation of hanoesin layo'eif ko'ach is
      instiructive for my entire system [Orach Chayyin 46]
      7. Evey generation can make g'zeiros [harchkos] to defend the Torah
   8. Both BY and Rem follow the precedent/consensus model for the most part
   9. Meharshal/Gra/Rambam and others more or less see the Bavli as a
   virtual Sanhedrin and appeal to it to trump Halachic precedent
      1. I disagree with the above.  TSBP as a WHOLE trumps all.
      2. Bayamim hoheim means we msut follow basra'im - at least to an
      extent
      3. ther is a possiblity for to'eh bidvar mishnah
      4. But the test of time helps sort this out.
      5. That is how "OLD" precedent [old minhag] is superior to new ones
      6. Long term slilence is construed as acquiesence - short term not
         1. Dancing on Shabbos has always had those who protested it.
         2. E.G. Kehillas Amsterdam stopped hakfaos on Simchas Torah because
         of this concern
      7. Even i you over-rule precdence based upon Bavli turmping majority
      you need some kind of ratification
      8. Therefore  see Kaf Hachayyim on 2 vs. 3 matzos - even though Gra
      protested, kol ho'acharonim did NOT concur!
      9. So Despite GRA trying trump precedent of BY/Rema later Acharonim
      did NOT buy into this

in an iealized Hurban
Had BDhG been able to rule on a CANONICAL legal docuemnt [such as a Mishnah,
a Mishenh Torah, A Talmud, a Shulchan Aruch] that docuemnt WOULD be
cannoical and subject to limitted interpretaion but never over-ridden. It
could NOT be trumped [but yest could be set side by hora'as sho'oh]

However, BDhG  died intestate. All we have is RYBZ and his Talmiddim trying
to reconstruct it. There are rules within that univser but AISI thsee rules
are NOT hard and fast but guideline. It was the Ga'onimtht TRIED to codify
hard and fast rules about the Bavli NOT any BD in EY. [In fact the triumph
of Bavli over Minhag EY seemst to show a tension between the 2 if anything.
FWIW "Porkoy ben Bavoy"  in a letter from the Genizz - decries those who in
EY DARE to follow the yerushlami etc. he was the ultimate "Bavli Biggot."
But, later Ga'onim and Rabbeinu Hanan'el and Rif  elevate the yerushalmi's
status as opposed to
the earlier Ga'onim.

Look you may have a different system .Certainly Rambam did and he held that
minhaggim by and large were of not much value in the Halchic universe.
Ashkenazim hold otherwise

If you read Ta Shma you will see that Rabbeinu Tam articulated a LOT of what
I wrote. In Seer hayashar he notes that all of the Minhaggim and Seder Rav
Aram Ga'on etc. Al s tem from TORAS EY. and he says that if  you don't
accept THEM then don't accept Bavli either
[to be intellectually honest, he NEVER suggests that these other minhaggim
TRUMP a Bavli, jsut that they are alos valid,]

However, THEN Ta Shma cites the Or Zaru'a who goes BEYOND Rabbeinu Tam and
states empatically that various other sources DO trum pBavli in Ashkeanz
[e.g .Pesikta etc.] Certainly masechess Sofrim

I am not sure where Rashi stands. he seems moe Bavli-Centric. But Tosfos is
far LESS bavlki centric and this is evident in MANY places and IMHO was
influenced by Rabbeinu Hananel who apparently gave Yersuhalmi equal status
to Bavli

Also Ashkenaz says BeHaG is Bar Samcha. Rach  uses this to refer to Rav
Yehudah the Amroa because  a queston is made on an Amorafrom a meimra of Rav
Yehdua and R. Hannn'el uses the term bar Samcha to imoply Rv Yehuda was
quoting Tannaitic material- hence the kasha.

See also Rabbi Yochan in Arvei Peshachim who he uses NAHGAU HO"OM in 2
places, one of them as EQAUL to a Tanna [while Rabbi Yochanan was not
himself a Tanna - though in Tosday's daf he is quoted ina Braissa BESHEIM
ben Azzai]

I have been toying with this model of Halahca since 1972 and I have seen
nothing that is as clear and in concert with the sources.   Many of the
other models are simply forced.   Rav Sherira Gaon tries to make Ravina
[via. I] and Rav Ashi not Rashi and Ravinu [viz. II].  Clearly he is dachuk
by the chronology.

Rambam's model is VERY shver. But like a lot of what Rambam writes, it is
VERY easy to comprehend but really hard to fit tht round peg into a number
of square wholes.  the Rambam rejets Ga'onic authority at times and accepts
it in others.   Go figure.

Bach shows Rambam follopwing the Bavli WITHIN limits [se EVen Ho'ezer 6]  in
Fact R. MS Feldblum  went on to show when the  STAM of the Bavli was
difficult he folowed he yerushalmi or something to that effect. {I have not
seen the article]

The fact that Tosafos says Minhag X is not to be surrendered in teh face of
a Bavli, is indicative of this kind of TSBP as a klal trumps any prat -even
the Bavli at times.  [see Tsoafos on Arachin 3 re: Behag and women reading
the megilah and his use of Tosefta]

I never heard of this late Sanehdrin stuff wrt Bavli etc. If this were so,it
implies that Mishna itself would  have been canonical and that would mean
the Bavli was rebelling when it uses Braissos to trump mishnayos.  The
BAvli does this  wilyl nilly. and Ashk.  Rishonim trump ONE amroa with
another Amora - even if the 2nd is not in the Bavli, which suggests a simlar
model to braysso turmping a mishna when an Amroa Says so.   And this is not
only Yerushlmi, but Pesikta, too [see sugya on women wearing tefilin -
Michal bas kushi]

So the bottom line aisi, is that not text is superior becuase after all TSBP
is non-textual.  owever, statements by Tann'aim, amora'im etc. have a
leigitmate hierarchy of autority based upon precedent. So it is the
STATEMENTS behind the text that coutn NOT THE  text.   The Bavli - to me -
is the first  Encycl. Talmudis, it is a  reource treasure of  statments NOT
a Law Book.

And AISI, acharei Rabbim lehattos is NOT limitted to jsu within a Sanhedrin,
but even in a post BDhG world there is such a thing as concensus and kayma
lan's which means we CAN establish one opinion as normative

That is why I am compelled to protest abuses of Halachah [right and left]
lest a bad precedent take effect.

Examples:

   1. Zli keidar [too machmir]
   2. Dancing on Shabbos [too meikil]
   3. Not wearing Tallis for unmarried  Boys
   4. Not wearing Tefilin on ChhM [for Ashkenazim]
   5. Daveing Adbis late on Sahu'os [unauthorized and too machmir and in
   dispute see MGA and AhS who demand ONLY saying Kiddush late]

Of course I am too late in many cases.  But hopefully things will right
themselves.  And maybe new  texts will show that some tings I consider in
error are quite defensible.


-- 
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/20080525/95732599/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 195
***************************************

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..."