Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 222

Thu, 05 Nov 2009

• 1. Re: daas torah and voting (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: hilchos eretz yisrael/ kids at second weddings (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: [Areivim] short marriage (Zev Sero)
• 4. daas torah and voting (Eli Turkel)
• 5. RSRH on Education and Complete Isolation (Yitzchok Levine)
• 6. What is a minhag? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Re: dinosaurs (Zev Sero)
• 8. Short Marriage (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 9. Re: Short Marriage (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: daas torah and voting (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: What is a minhag? (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Seclusion is not the Jewish Way (Yitzchok Levine)
• 13. Re: daas torah and voting (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: dinosaurs (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: What is a minhag? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 16. Re: What is a minhag? (Micha Berger)

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 03:03:42PM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
> : Rather that the authority of the melekh fell to the Sanhedrin when
> the melukhah ended, and from the Sanhedrin to the Rabbanim.

: What an interesting formulation. What is the source that gives this
: "fall" halachic force?

See http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/observ-on-daat.html by R'
Yitzchak Kasdan. It is in reply to a discussion started in
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/cohen_DaatTorah.pdf by R' Alfred Cohen,
and I presume the latter it from the RJJ Journal since RAC is its editor.

RDC's sources are given in fn 11. The Maharil (shu"t #161), Maharal
and Rivash write that a visiting rav may not assume the mantle of
leadership. What does that say about the local rav? See Rema YD 245:22.

According to fn 15, RDC is in "Maaseh Avos Siman Labanim" I, and
translated in "Templated for Ages" pg 33 (pub ArtScrioll) under the
title "The Crown of Torah and the Crown of Kingship; the Hasmoneans and
the Concept of Daas Torah".

This is also the position (or at least too similar for me to notice the
difference) that RYBS had in his hesped for R' Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky
("HaTzitz vehaChoshen", Divrei Hagut VeHaaracha pp 191-192). Of course,
that predates RYBS's split from Agudah. WWII changed his opinion on
daat Torah sharply, so I don't know if this point remained or not. The
one who bears the words "Qodesh laH'" on the tzitz is the one who bears
the names of the shevatim on the choshen. Spiritual leadership means
temporal leadership. And both were present in RCOG....

In searching for that last reference, I found
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/10/daas-torah-kingship-review-
article.html
on RDE's blog. Judging from the comments seems I'm not the only one who
feels they're the same shitah. I also found there a link to excerpts
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=12557&;pgnum=7

Mind you this formulation arguably only applies to communal decisions,
not extrahalachic personal decisions. Or maybe I should say personal
decisions that revolve around metzi'us questions rather than AYH, since
I think that few of us would question the role of asking a rav about
which course of action is better al pi haTorah even without a question
of issur.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

bass...@queensu.ca wrote:
> RE hilchot eretz yisrael-- it has long been known that the hilchot A"Y
> is really Amar Yeshoshua for this is how eldad hadani introduces his
> laws as if he had a masora from yehoshua. See
> http://parsha.blogspot.com/2007/07/daf-yomi-yevamot-1
> 02a-if-eliyahu-should.html

This is the theory I alluded to when I said the title "Hilchot Eretz
Yisrael" may be an invention of the Bochur Hazetzer.  But AFAIK it is
just a theory, and for all that it sounds nice it may be completely
mistaken.  Perhaps there really was a sefer with that title, which
the rishonim quote and reject.

> [quoting from the blog] 
> "Meanwhile, Tosafot quotes Hilchot Eretz Yisrael that women should
> not shecht because "da'atan kalot" -- however you want to interpret
> it.

The blogger should have noted that Tosfos quotes this *and rejects it*.
As far as I know, there is no rishon who approved of this sefer,
whatever its title.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 12:40:15AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> : According to R Broyde's article, this is not the case.  Rather, the
> : Rackman "beis din" relies on "mekach ta'us", but makes no attempt to
> : ascertain the facts, and will always "find" grounds for annulment,
> : whether they exist or not.
> 
> RERackman undid tav lemeisiv, saying it doesn't apply in the modern world,
> and therefore opened the door for far more marriages to be declared ta'us
> -- the minimum required for "had I known I never would have married him"
> was lowered.

"Tav lemeisav" isn't directly relevant to whether the mekach was a
ta'us in the first place.  A woman might prefer to put up with a
bad deal rather than be divorced, but she would much rather not have
married the man in the first place, and still be a single women with
all her prospects in front of her, able to find a husband without
the defects she has found in her current one.

Rather, "tav lemeisav" comes into play when we consider whether, once
she did marry him and discovered his secret, she might have accepted
it, "gamra daatah", and only later come to regret that decision.
"Tav lemeisav" is a reason why she might have done so.  Without this
principle there would be a strong presumption that any woman who found
out about her husband's defects *must* have rejected him and regretted
the marriage, and if she didn't leave him immediately it must be for
some side reason.  With "tav lemeisav" the presumption goes the other
way; *if* she finds out and doesn't leave him, then we have a strong
presumption that she accepted her lot, however reluctantly, because
it seemed better than living the rest of her life as a spinster.

But "tav lemeisav" is far from an absolute.  If it were a universal
truth then there would be no such thing as a woman demanding a get,
at least unless she had already picked out her next husband.  "Tav
lemeisav" is indeed a proverb among women, even today: one of my
friends was taught it by her (non-Jewish) mother as "don't throw out
dirty water until you've got some clean".  But if the water carries
cholera you're better off with none at all.  Halacha recognises a
whole list of conditions which a woman would rather be single than
put up with.  They are so bad that if they arise during a marriage
we compel the husband to give a get.  So if we were to have evidence
that one of these conditions existed before the marriage, and that
the wife didn't know about it, and that *as soon as she found out*
she wanted out of the marriage (whether or not she actually left),
why *wouldn't* we annul it?  And indeed R Broyde writes that he has
annulled such marriages, multiple times, and that it is (at least
figuratively) ma'asim bechol yom to do so.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

<<Rather that the authority of the melekh fell to the Sanhedrin when
the melukhah ended, and from the Sanhedrin to the Rabbanim.>>

<<What an interesting formulation. What is the source that gives this
"fall" halachic force?>>

I doubt if the Reish Galuta or even the Nasi in EY would have agreed.
Similarly in the vaad arba aratzot
the rabbis had limited authority.
Hence, in practice the authority of the king never went to the rabbis.
In fact some would say that today it goes to the Israeli knesset
(debatable and not the topic but just
that one can throw in anything)

-- 
Eli Turkel

The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis.  In the third 
paragraph Rav Hirsch talks about the dangers of complete isolation. I 
wonder what the implications of this are for people who are brought 
up in places like Skvere and Kiryas Yoel. YL

201 Avraham journeyed forth from there to the south country and 
settled between Kadesh and Shur, and he sojourned in Gerar.

Avraham settled (i.e., took up permanent residence) between Kadesh
and Shur, but he also sojourned (i.e., took up temporary residence) in
Gerar. What were the reasons for these two contrasting actions?
We have seen that, initially, Avraham sought to isolate himself and
his household from the atmosphere and society of the cities. For this
reason he first settled in the desolate south, and only gradually established
ties with the cities, finally settling among his allies, Aner, Eshkol,
and Mamre, who related to him with respect and esteem.

Now we see him, in his waning years, returning to the south. He
settles between Kadesh and Shur, in an isolated, uninhabited area near
the wilderness of Shur, which is known as a complete wasteland. At the
same time, however, he seeks contact with city life and occasionally
stays in Gerar, the capital of the Philistine kings.

Unless we are totally mistaken, we would venture to say that what
prompted Avraham and Sarah to change their place of residence was
the expectation of the imminent birth of their son. A Yitzchak should
be educated in isolation, far removed from any negative influence.
On the other hand, complete isolation, which denies the student all
contact with people who think differently and whose aims and way of
life differ from his own, is a dangerous educational mistake. A young
person who has never seen a way of life other than that of his parents,
never had an opportunity to compare his parents' lifestyle with that of
others, and never learned to appreciate the moral contrast between the
two, will never learn to value, respect and hold fast to the ways his
parents have taught him. He will surely fall victim to outside influences
at his first encounter with them, just as one who fears the fresh air and
closets himself in his room can be sure of catching cold as soon as he
goes outdoors.

Avraham's son, the future bearer of Avraham's heritage, should, from
time to time, enter the world that is alien to the spirit of Avraham.
There he can evaluate opposing ideas and strengthen himself to keep
to the ways of Avraham in a world that is opposed to them. For this
purpose Avraham chooses the capital of a Philistine prince.
In the land of the Philistines the degeneracy had apparently not spread
to the extent that it had reached in Canaan; hence the Philistines were not
subject to the destruction decreed upon their Emorite neighbors. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091104/bade2502/attachment-0001.htm>

In the thread "Children at a Wedding", R"n Toby Katz wrote:

>... I would like to point out that I was  consistently careful
> to use the word "practice" and not "minhag" ...

to which R' Micha Berger wrote:

> Anyone have in mind a chiluq by which one could know which
> practices get labeled "minhag"? My intuitive feel is
> similar to RnTK's, but the contrarian in me is wondering...
> How do we know? Maybe they all are minhagim, albeit some
> are minhagei shetus or ta'os. So, a formal chiluq would be
> of help.

Oooh goodie, a discussion about the definition of terms! :-)

I believe that the confusion arises in this case because although the
technical halachic term "minhag" means "holy religious custom", there is
also a colloquial Hebrew term "minhag" which means "practice" or "habit".
There are many cases where it is very easy to confuse these terms, but I
believe that the qualifiers "shetus" and "ta'us" are added specifically to
clarify that they are *not* holy religious customs, but foolish practices
and mistaken practices.

But it is still important to have a "formal chiluq". I believe that a
"practice" is one where I can choose what I'll do, but a "minhag" is one
where I am obligated to follow my family or my community. It is easy to
find examples of the latter -- time between meat and dairy, which nusach of
davening -- but I'm never really sure of which practices I can choose, and
it often ends up going to the LOR on a case-by-case basis.

Just one simple illustration: In the summer, whether one says "Morid Hatal"
or omits it seems to be a minhag. But in the winter, whether one says
"Morid Hagashem" or "Morid Hageshem" -- I dunno, is that a minhag or a
practice? Lots of people seem to choose on their own, with little regard
for precedent.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Free Life Insurance Quote
Compare with top companies in 1-Min! Affordable rates.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=-Er7xFwAir46GUQZx_johgAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAAMCD0T4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABJRKAAAAAA=

Micha Berger wrote:
> At 4:42pm EST, Zev Sero replied to RnISE:
> : "Elu Va'elu Divrei Elokim Chayim" was a message from Above about BH and
> : BS, not about everybody. A similar message is recorded in Shu"T Min
> : Hashamayim about the tefilin of Rashi and Rabbenu Tam. Other than these
> : two examples I'm not aware of any guarantee that in any given machlokes
> : both are DECh...
> 
> Except that my post referred to the Ritva (Eiruvin 13b), the Ramban,
> Rashi (Kesuvos 57a, "QM"L"), the Maharshal, the Maharal and R' Tzadoq,
> all of which assume that the norm for a machloqes is that both sides are
> correct.

I'm sure it is the norm; but we have no way of knowing for sure to
which machloksin it applies and to which it doesn't, except for the
ones about which we've been told explicitly that it does apply.
AFAIK those are: the entire set of Beis Hillel/Beis Shammai disputes,
and the Rashi/Rabbenu Tam dispute about tefillin.  Other than those,
we may be able to say that both sides are *probably* DECh, but I
don't think we can say it with certainty.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

RMB explained RYBS's discussion of tav lemeisiv based on RAR and RAL's
understanding of that talk.  Here is a link to a transcript.  http://mail-jewish.org/r
av/talmud_torah.txt  It doesn't seem to me that this tarnscript
supports that explanation, but i could be missing something.  Perhaps
someone can point out where the "key line of the objection wasn't the
clever bit about
've'el isheikh teshuqaseikh' but 'Do you think you're brighter than
the Shagesaryei, Rabbi Aqiva Eiger, the Gra or Rav Chaim.'"

Joseph Kaplan 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091104/9b2e0efc/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 05:49:47PM -0500, Joseph C. Kaplan wrote:
: RMB explained RYBS's discussion of tav lemeisiv based on RAR and
: RAL's understanding of that talk. Here is a link to a transcript.
: http://mail-jewish.org/rav/talmud_torah.txt It doesn't seem to me
: that this tarnscript supports that explanation, but i could be missing
: something. Perhaps someone can point out where the "key line of the
: 've'el isheikh teshuqaseikh' but 'Do you think you're brighter than
: the Shagesaryei, Rabbi Aqiva Eiger, the Gra or Rav Chaim.'"

You understand that quote was a rough quote of RARR or RAL, not the
original. But I think this is the section he's talking about:

    ... No legislation can alleviate the pain of the single woman, and no
    legislation can change this role. She was burdened by the Almighty,
    after she violated the first [law]. Let me ask you a question --
    ribono shel olam, G-d Almighty, if you should start modifying and
    reassessing the chazakos upon which a multitude of halachos rest,
    you will destroy yehadus. So instead of philosophizing, let us
    rather light a match and set fire to the beis yisrael, and get rid
    of our problems.

    I also was told that it was recommended that the method afkinu rabanan
    l'kidushin minei [23] be reintroduced. If this recommendation is
    accepted, and I hope it will not be accepted, but if it is accepted,
    then there will be no need for a get. Ha-isha niknes b'shalosh
    d'rachim: b'kesef b'shtar ub'bia [24], the get of a gerushah (divorced
    woman) -- we will be able to cross out this mishna, this halachah;
    every rabbi will suspend the kidushin. Why should there be this
    halachah if such a privilege exists? Why should this privilege be
    monopolized by rabanus haroshis [25] in eretz yisrael? Why couldn't
    the Rabbinic Council do just as well as the rabanus haroshis, if the
    problem is afkinu rabbanan l'kidushin minei? [ribono shel olam],
    what are you, out to destroy all of it? I will be relieved of two
    masechtos; I will not have to say shiurim on Gitin and Kidushin,
    and then Yevamos as well.

    I want to be frank and open. Do you expect to survive as
    Orthodox rabbis? Do you expect to carry on the mesorah under such
    circumstances? ...

    I also was told that it was recommended that the method afkinu rabanan
    l'kidushin minei [23] be reintroduced. If this recommendation is
    accepted, and I hope it will not be accepted, but if it is accepted,
    then there will be no need for a get. Ha-isha niknes b'shalosh
    d'rachim: b'kesef b'shtar ub'bia [24], the get of a gerushah (divorced
    woman) -- we will be able to cross out this mishna, this halachah;
    every rabbi will suspend the kidushin. Why should there be this
    halachah if such a privilege exists? ... There is a certain system
    of postulates to which people are committed, and such a discussion,
    for instance at the National Convention of the Republican party,
    would be outside the system of postulates to which the American
    people are committed. And to speak about changing the halachos of
    chazal is, of course, at least as nonsensical as discussions about
    communism at the Republican National Convention. It is discussing
    self-destruction, a method of self-destruction and suicide. ...

And this is what RYBS reiterates in the closing
    This is why the Rambam says that talmud torah is identical to
    kabalas ol malchus shamayim, and to speak about halachah as a fossil,
    rachmana latzlom, is ridiculous. Because we know, those who study
    halachah know, it is a living, dynamic discipline which was given
    to man in order to redeem him and to save him. We are opposed to
    sh'nuim (changes) of course, but chidush [34] is certainly the very
    essence of halachah. There are no sh'nuim in halachah, but there
    are great chidushim. But the chidushim are within the system,
    not from the outside. ...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 


RDC's sources are given in fn 11. The Maharil (shu"t #161), Maharal and
Rivash write that a visiting rav may not assume the mantle of leadership.
What does that say about the local rav? See Rema YD 245:22.


-Micha

====================================
Pretty late in history and in an offhand manner for what would have seemed
a very basic concept and it still doesn't address where the authority to
make such a change in power structure flows from.

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.

Yes but what defines a holy religious custom? When the Rema brings down 3 
opinions of the rishonim and says that the minhag is like X, is that a holy 
religious custom/minhag in the same way that say kitniyot are?

And more importantly, why can one choose a to follow or not follow a 
practice as opposed to a minhag? Could the difference simply be how 
widespread the minhag/practice is? If everyone (in your town/your group) 
does it, it is a minhag. If only certain individuals do it, then it is a 
practice and nothing more. Rav Moshe says repeatedly that a minhag which 
only a few know about is not a minhag. That kind of fits in with what I am 
saying.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- >

>
> I believe that the confusion arises in this case because although the 
> technical halachic term "minhag" means "holy religious custom", there is 
> also a colloquial Hebrew term "minhag" which means "practice" or "habit". 
> There are many cases where it is very easy to confuse these terms, but I 
> believe that the qualifiers "shetus" and "ta'us" are added specifically to 
> clarify that they are *not* holy religious customs, but foolish practices 
> and mistaken practices.
>
> But it is still important to have a "formal chiluq". I believe that a 
> "practice" is one where I can choose what I'll do, but a "minhag" is one 
> where I am obligated to follow my family or my community. It is easy to 
> find examples of the latter -- time between meat and dairy, which nusach 
> of davening -- but I'm never really sure of which practices I can choose, 
> and it often ends up going to the LOR on a case-by-case basis.
>
> Akiva Miller

RSRH in his commentary on Bereishis 5: 4-27 writes in part:

Hisbodidus, secluding oneself from others, is not the Jewish way. Our
Tzadikim and Chassidim lived among the masses, with the masses, and for the
masses; they considered it their mission to lift the masses up to them.
Abandonment of the masses ? mesushelach? is symptomatic of a generation?s
sickness; it is found in an age in which the concept of God is
reduced to a subject for theoretical speculation, and where the thought
of God makes men into fanatics, drives them to eschew and escape life
because they fear its temptations or ? in blind arrogance ? disdain
its problems. The Torah opposes ascetic seclusion, which is based on
the erroneous notion that godliness lies outside the sphere of ordinary
life.

In the case of Chanoch, however, this ?walking with
God? was the whole essence of his life. His walking with God did not
draw him near to life; it led him away from life. This is a misguided
aspiration, which at best does nothing to better the world, is quite useless
to the world.

I have posted the entire commentary on this topic at

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_isolation.pdf

It seems to me that what Rav Hirsch writes here 
fits well with what I sent out yesterday about education and isolation.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091105/0027606c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 06:34:28PM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> RDC's sources are given in fn 11. The Maharil (shu"t #161), Maharal
:> and Rivash write that a visiting rav may not assume the mantle of
:> leadership. What does that say about the local rav? See Rema YD 245:22.

: Pretty late in history and in an offhand manner for what would have
: seemed a very basic concept and it still doesn't address where the
: authority to make such a change in power structure flows from.

Without having access to RDC's work directly, I can not claim we have
entire argument. I therefore question your argument from silence.

Also, clearly the Rama thought the evidence was sufficient. You asked
where RDC would get such a thing from, that's different than questioning
where the Rama did.

And, if the proof is from the explicit exclusion of foreign rabbanim,
it would seem that the civil leadership of the local rav was taken for
granted beyond the need for discussion!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

It is true that we have no guarantee aside from the stated cases whether
it's a real machloqes or whether one side erred.

We also have no guarantee that we're following a real pesaq even where 
there is no alternative pesaq.

Doesn't "emunas chakhamim" mean that we're supposed to assume (perhaps a
formal chazaqah) that our chakhamim actually produce Torah? Otherwise,
there is no concept of mesorah left...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

Ben Waxman:
> Yes but what defines a holy religious custom? When the Rema brings down 3 
> opinions of the rishonim and says that the minhag is like X, is that a holy 
> religious custom/minhag in the same way that say kitniyot are?

No 
Minhag 1 is a p'saq choice

Source:
See TB pesachim 103A

Amar R Yochanan:
Nahagu ha'am k'divrei BH v'aliba R Yehuda

Note: AISI this minhag changes psaq FROM a stam mishnah TO a braisso in
a Tosefta

So a minhag could similarly change P'saq from a default sefer (EG Bavli)
to another sefer (EG Y-lmi or Tosefta)

Qitnoyyos is a minhag because it was an anonymous g'zeria that was
nispasheit

Source
TB Hullin 91a top
Rav Ashi amar lo nitzrecha ela lishmeino tetanya shemeinu muttar
[halachically] V'yisroel Q'doshim nahagu bo issur [anonymous Minhag
lehumra, out of syag or q'dusha]

Shma Mina T'las
1. An anonymous g'zeira can morph into Minhag Yisroel
2. Hazal could ratify a minhag they didn't initiate
3. That Minhag could become a "derabannan" 

How? THe Rambam treats this minhag as a full "divrei soferim" [iirc so
does the Stamma d'Gmara, but I can't locate it now]. Of course that might
be limited to minhaggim in the Talmud Bilvad and THAT could include the
"minhag" to say Hallel on Rosh Hodesh!

Summary
Minhag 1 selection of P'saq from amongst authorities (this is the most
frequent "type" in mechabeir and Rema)

Minhag 2
Anonymous "g'zeira" that is nispashet

For more details see
Menache allon (EG in Enc Judaica)

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 04:58:26PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Minhag 2
: Anonymous "g'zeira" that is nispashet

Actually, based on previous discussions of Hil' Mamrim 2:1-3, I
concluded that minhagim are nispashtim and then post-facto approved by
the rabbinate. Not according to all rishonim, but that is the commonly
given model. And it does neatly distinguish a taqanah from a minhag.

As some of you know, I have been blogging one din of QSA a day, sticking
to the simanim that cover business and ethics. My plan is 62-67 and
179-190. See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/business-qsa>

Nu, so here is tomorrow's <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/11/qsa-67-7.shtml>.
The link will have the original text for 67:7 after 5:22am tomorrow.
Here's my translation:
    Someone who practiced some stringency with things that are permitted
    by the law because of making a fence [about the law] or separation
    [from temptation], such as making fasts during the days in which we
    say Selichos, or not to eat meat nor drink wine from the 17th of
    Tammuz on [until 9 Av], and the like -- even if he only practiced it
    the first time but he had in mind to act this way forever, or if he
    did it three times and it wasn't in his mind to act this way for
    ever and he didn't [explicitly] make the condition that it should be
    without a neder, and now he wants to change because he isn't healthy
    -- he needs a removal [of the nefer]. He opens with [stating his]
    regret, that he regrets that he acted in a manner for the purpses of
    a nefer.

    Therefore, if someone wants to practice some stringency for the sake
    of a "fence" or separation, he should first say that he isn't
    accepting upon himself to do it as a neder, and he should also say
    that he doesn't have in mind to do so except this time or those
    times when he wants, and not forever.

Could it be that a minhag (of RRW's type 2) is any [mutar] practice
that is accepted by the community as a whole only if the purpose is
a seyag or perishus? And any other communal practices are just that,
communal practices -- with no bindingness?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 222
***************************************

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..."