Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 122

Friday, September 15 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 04:20:31 +1000
From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
Subject:
Re: Vidui Maaser (2)


"Carl M. Sherer" wrote:    Re: Vidui Maaser (2)

>> What are we confessing when saying al chayeinu hamsurim biyadecha?

> I would think that we are confessing that we have aveiros for which
> R"L we deserve to forfeit our lives, and nevertheless Hashem allows
> us to go on.

I doubt if that is correct pshat. First of all, we aren't usually so
shy in openly stating our aveiros during Tefilos (especially if it's
vidui) and secondly the Tefilla of Modim is actually "hodoeh" - thanks.
Looking through this tefilah - 'vidui' just doesn't seem to fit in at all.

>>> while thanking is "modeh li-" ...

>> Could you explain that?

> That's li - a lamed with a shva under it, not lee, a lamed with a
> chirik under it and a yud after it. At least I assume that's what RMB
> meant and what your question was asking, respectively.

Sorry, I still need further explanation.

>> A few psukim earlier regarding Bikkurim, on 'V'omarto Elov'(3),
>> Rashi says: She'enchoh Kofui Tova, - which fits in with the above,
>> but AFAIK the procedure when bringing Bikkurim is not referred to as Vidui.

> As it shouldn't be - it's hodaa, not vidui.

Correct, but according to RMB's explanation vidui can also mean hodaa.

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 06:15:49 EDT
From: YFel912928@aol.com
Subject:
"Shaarei Tshuvah" 3


The third instance in which we're likely to be moved to tshuvah:

When you're admonished by a talmid chacham.

Rabbeinu Yonah states that if you take it upon yourself right there and
then, while a talmid chacham is giving you tochacha, to fulfill all you're
taught from that day onward and to be cautious about the things he alerts
you about from then on, you'd thus transform yourself. And you'd instantly
accrue the merit associated with all the mitzvahs! -- as long as you go
back again and again to your reproacher to learn more from him (10).

But you'd grow guiltier yet if you aren't moved by his reproach and
harden your heart in the face of it instead. For while there's always
hope for one who falls sway to his impulses, there's none for those one
who can't take criticism (11).

Finally, Rabbeinu Yonah makes the point that hearing is an even more
valuable sense than seeing since it can affect you more deeply. He then
adds that, in fact, the ear is the most significant of all organs. Hence,
if we're commanded to serve G-d with every element of our being, Rabbeinu
Yonah finishes, aren't we all the more so expected to serve Him with
our ears, by hearing out reproach? (12).

    -- Yaakov Feldman


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:13:03 -0400
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Question from a Yid


In Areivim V5 #291, GStudent wrote:
> 2. ...in talmudic times there were many levels of Ger Toshav....
> This is also suggested in the great halachic work, Mishnah Berurah, 
> although the exact citation escapes me at this time.
     
Mishnah Berurah 304 Biur Halachah sv Eino Yehudi Gamur

It is an explanation of the Magen Avraham's opinion.

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:33:45 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject:
Pirkei Heichalos


Rabbeinu Bachya al haTorah, at the end of Parshas Mikeitz, quotes Pirkei
Heichalos.  (The Mossad HaRav Kook ed. refers to a hotza'as Worthheimer.)
Can anyone tell me about the Pirkei Heichalos (history, authorship, etc.)?

Thanks.
Moshe


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:49:49 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject:
Re: Following ROY's psak


From: Richard Wolpoe <PMSRXW@IBIVM.IBI.COM>
> If you discount the the Ashekanz Mesorah, then the Sefardic minhag
> triumphs on many grounds, not just because they dominated EY. 
> The facts are that the Bavli closer to Sefardic tradition. 

Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik pointed out that originally, Ashkenazic minhag and
psak was closer to Minhag EY and T. Yerushalmi.  R. Gershom did not
necessarily consider the Bavli to be binding, although he did study it
([MF-] probably more than the Yerushalmi) because the Yerushalmi was
finished in a rush (i.e., not redacted properly) while the Bavli was a more
complete work.  However, by Rashi's time, the Bavli ([MF-] perhaps because
of its usefulness) was considered authoritative.  (MF- compare to the
acceptance of the Shulchan Arukh, or even the Mishnah Brurah.  See article
I've cited before by Shlomo Havlin.)  DrCS pointed out that this is why we
sometimes find Rashi arguing with his rabbeim where the Bavli is clearly
against his rabbeim's psak.

So it's unfair to state that Sefardic minhag should trump because the Bavli
is closer to the Sephardic tradition.  Minhag EY/ Ashkenazi minhag is just
as old & illustrious, and one could make the argument that in Israel today
it would make sense l'hachzir atarah l'yoshna even for Sephardim!

Kol tuv,
Moshe


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:34:18 GMT
From: "" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
Subject:
[none]


On 13 Sep 2000 09:40:10 EDT, Richard Wolpoe PMSRXW@IBIVM.IBI.COM wrote:
> However if you go back to EY circa 500 you will see that Minhag Ashkenaz is
> MUCH closer to Minhag EY of that era and minhag Sefard resembles Minhag
> Bavli.

I won't cringe, but I will note that R. Binyomin Hamburger, who did (AFAIK)
the only real count of the issues where we know clearly there is a
difference between minhag EI and minhag Bavel (from the Sefer Hahillufim),
says that Ashkenaz was like Bavel in about 60% of the cases, so it is
clearly not just a continuation of minhag EY.

Anyway, it seems to me that the issue of whether Ashkenaz is as "ancient and
valid" as Sefarad, is not the real issue here. From my study of the primary
three minhagim, Ashkenaz, Sefarad, and Teiman, it is clear to me that all
are equally ancient and valid. And if we were going on what was the minhag
in EY, then we have to define the time: before the Crusades, it was real
minhag EY, which has disappeared from the face of the earth, and if it was
at the time of Gerush Sefarad, the Radvaz himself says that in EY and in
Egypt they follow the Rambam (and not minhag Sefarad, which differs in many
important respects, and certainly not the Mehabber), and later on the yishuv
hayoshon had two minhagim, Ashkenaz and Sefarad.

Rather, the operative issue is "moqom sheholakh mishhom" etc. That assumes
that BOTH minhagim are valid, and the issue is what to do in the case of a
conflict. And EY in this regard has been a place without a clear minhag
hammoqom from the time they stopped following the minhag of the Rambam
exclusively. There have been Ashkenazim there for virtually as long as
there have been Sefaradim, and certainly from the time of the growth of the
yishuv close to 200 years ago, there were both, and the Talmidim of the Gra'
and the BESHT who went there used that as there justification for forming
their own community with their own minhagim.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:52:57 GMT
From: "" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Thanks and acknowledgement


On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 18:25:24 +0200 "Carl M. Sherer" cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
wrote:
>>> while thanking is "modeh li-"...

>> Could you explain that?

>That's li -- a lamed with a shva under it, not lee, a lamed with a chirik
>under it and a yud after it. At least I assume that's what RMB meant and
>what your question was asking, respectively.

> [Note from MSB: I repeated something I heard R' Yudan say bisheim R' Hutner.
> Perhaps a talmid of R' Hutner is better suited to explain than I am.]

I am not a talmid of R. Hutner, but RYBS said the same thing on different
occasions, so he and R. Hutner may both have gotten it from the same source.
RYBS said many times that hoda'a can mean two things in Hebrew, depending on
the context and accompanying prespositions, and he pointing out that this is
clear in the Tnakh: "ve'ata...modim anahnu lakh" means "we thank you,"
whereas "modeh ve'ozev yeruham" means "he who acknowledges/admits his fault
will be granted mercy." Based on this, the Rov explained his custom of
staying bowed for the entire modim derabbonon (in accordance with the RMA'
in O"H 127), since the first modim may well mean "we acknowedge" as it
probably does in hoda'a in shmoneh 'esre (modeim anahnu lakh sheata..."
meaning "we acknowledge to You that You are HQBH our Lord"), whereas the
second modim means "thank" (again, as in hoda'a, where "nodeh lekha unsapper
t'hillosekha" is certainly "we thank You and tell Your praises." Actually,
one of the aharonim mentions a hilluq between two meanings of modim in O"H
113, (I don't have it here, so I cannot give the exact reference), and the
distinction he makes is a little different.

Seth


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:59:07 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Pirkei Heichalos


In a message dated 9/14/00 12:53:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:
>  Rabbeinu Bachya al haTorah, at the end of Parshas Mikeitz, quotes Pirkei
>  Heichalos.  (The Mossad HaRav Kook ed. refers to a hotza'as Worthheimer.)
>  Can anyone tell me about the Pirkei Heichalos (history, authorship, etc.)?

It is a Sefer in Kabolo written by Rabi Yishmoeil Ben Elisha Kohein Godol, 
and see at lentgh about him in the Seder Hadoros.

Kol Tuv, KVCT,
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:57:24 +0200
From: "Yisrael Herczeg" <yherczeg@Barak-online.net>
Subject:
Re: Separation or Synthesis


Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>In short, my perspective of yahadus is one in which history drives toward
>fusion. Ra is eliminated by seeing how everything serves the Ultimate Tachlis,
>ending its abuse.
...
> R' Pinchas Winston ...
> ... sees the historical process as one of seperating out the ra, not
> finding ways in which it ceases to be ra.

Mei Hashiloach, vol. 1, Maseches Shabbos, d"h Mai Chanukah sees this as the
machlokes Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding ner Chanukah. B"Sh says
poches v'holech keneged parei hachag, which represents elimination of evil
until only kedushah is left. B"H says mosif veholech, which represents
constant expansion of kedushah until evil disappears. Not exactly what you
are attributing to RYBS and R Kook, but pretty close.

kol tuv
Yisrael Herczeg


Go to top.

Date: 14 Sep 2000 11:26:29 GMT
From: backon@vms.huji.ac.il
Subject:
Re: Shmitta


[Moderator's note: The following was written for soc.culture.jewish.moderated,
a group with much less assumed Jewish knowledge than we have. So, given
that RJB called this version "dummied up" for that audience, I'd like to share
his thoughts with the list.]

In article <8ppo7c$53n$1@panix6.panix.com>,
jjbaker@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote:
>> Seems to me a good reason to at least visit Israel this year, so we
>> galutniks can participate in the mitzvot of shmitta year.  Even eating
>> Heter-Mechira food or Otzar-Beis-Din food is participating in shmitta,
>> since it's something that one has to look for especially.

In article <8pptfp$rfo$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Warren Burstein
<warrenb10@my-deja.com> writes:
> I recall hearing about a plan to let people buy farmland in Israel
> which they could not farm during Shmita in order to fulfill the
> mitzva.  I can't recall if this was an actual plan or a joke.

This is brilliant ! The solution for *heter mechira* is NOT to "sell"
the land to gentiles living in Israel but to a foreign-owned corporation  
(there's a problem of *kinyan karka* [land] but not of *peirot* [produce]).
[See: Bet Yitzchak Yoreh Deah II 113 s"k 6; but see the opposing view
that a gentile does have ownership of the land [Yerushalmi Gittin 4:9;
Chazon Ish Shevi'it 21 s"k 5).

A corporate entity (vs. single person) even if partly owned by Jews may have
a different law (see:  Shaagat Aryeh 89-90; Ha'Elef Lecha Shlomo 238)
so the solution would be to sell or lease the land during shmitta to a 
foreign owned *corporation*.

It would be a completely legal transaction but wouldn't violate the 
prohibition of *lo teichanem*.

Josh


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:20:05 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Separation or Synthesis


In a message dated 9/14/00 1:01:32pm EDT, yherczeg@Barak-online.net writes:
> Mei Hashiloach, vol. 1, Maseches Shabbos, d"h Mai Chanukah sees this as the
> machlokes Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding ner Chanukah. B"Sh says
> poches v'holech keneged parei hachag, which represents elimination of evil
> until only kedushah is left. B"H says mosif veholech, which represents
> constant expansion of kedushah until evil disappears. Not exactly what you
> are attributing to RYBS and R Kook, but pretty close.

This is Tolui in the famous Machlokes brought in the Toras Kohanim in 
Bchukosai on the Possuk of Vhishbati Chayo Ro'oh wether it means that they 
will be removed from the world or that they will become good, (Gam Oyvuv 
Yashlim Imoi) or in the diference between Lvovoi Nemon (Bishnei Lvovecho) or 
Libe Cholal Bkirbee - Horgoi Btaanis.

Kol Tuv, KVCT,
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:17:42 -0400
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Separation or Synthesis?


RM Berger wrote:
: In short, my perspective of yahadus is one in which history drives toward 
: fusion. Ra is eliminated by seeing how everything serves the Ultimate 
: Tachlis, ending its abuse.
     
That seems to be the major theme of Ramchal's Da'as Tevunos.

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:34:36 EDT
From: Richard Wolpoe <PMSRXW@IBIVM.IBI.COM>
Subject:
Re: Your mail


On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:48:32 -0400  said:
> I won't cringe, but I will note that R. Binyomin Hamburger, who did (AFAIK)
> the only real count of the issues where we know clearly there is a
> difference between minhag EI and minhag Bavel (from the Sefer Hahillufim),
> says that Ashkenaz was like Bavel in about 60% of the cases, so it is
> clearly not just a continuation of minhag EY.

If I did not make my disclaimer clear I'll do so now. I did an
oversimplification to point out a flawed premise in ROY's opinion.

To make my point accurate I would have had to post an entire
book like R. Hambruger's.
Plus AIUI Ta Shma's Minhag Ashk. Hakadmon is talking about a more
ancient version of Minhag Ashk. than R. Hambruger deals with, hence the
name Kadmon.

[The following was sent separately -mi]

And BTW, Sefard is a BIG oversimplification itself encmpassing Amsertdam
and Morroco and Syria etc.

and Ashk. is an oversimplifcaiton embracing Minhag ashk. AND minhag Polin
etc.
Any Roedelhim siddur/machzor will note minhag Polin dicrepancies/ this
is a very complex topic when you get to nitty gritty. The general trend
is what I am dealing with on a machshovo level. And even in Germany,
Heidenheim/Roedelheim did not alwys concur with Baer. Frankfort did
not concur with other German communities.

But the point is that the Minhag Ashk. has a separate tradition
from the Bavli and it is incorrect to assume that if the Bavli
disagrees ergo the minhag ia minhag taus. And this is the premise
that is begining to take root amongst yeshiva-leit that any minhag
that does not defer to the Bavli must be ipso facto in error.

KVCHT
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:41:04 -0400
From: "Daniel A. Schiffman" <das54@columbia.edu>
Subject:
RSZA Essay on Heter Mechira


In the book Shmitta: Mekorot, Hagut, Mechkar, published 5733, an essay
by RSZA on the Heter Mechira is printed, in what appears to be an
abridged version.  RSZA does not take a clearcut Yes/No position.  He
lists 8 sefekot regarding the heter, saying that three of these have
been resolved clearly, while five others remain unresolved.
I permit myself to make one comment.  We can see from this essay (in
safek #3 below), that unless RSZA changed his position radically (from
what he held when he wrote this), he would never have signed a statement
that used the term "chillul Hashem" with respect to the heter mechira.
(The statement signed by Rav Elyashiv, Rav Scheinberg, Rav Steinman and
others explicitly accuses those who rely on the heter of chillul
hashem).

Here's a paraphrase of RSZA's essay:

Sefekot which are Clearly resolved ("pitronan barur")
1. Sheviit today is derabbanan, both for kedushat perot and ovodat
haaretz
2. As per the psak of Maran RY Karo (in Avkat Rochel 24), Perot Goy,
grown in EY have no kedushat sheviit. However, even according to RY
Karo, the land remains bekdushata, and avoda by a Jew is prohibited.
3. Even though the mechira appears to be a haarama, "ein lachush
lechach."  Kal Sheken when we are talking about a derabannan here.  RSZA
quotes Rav Naftali Hertz, writing to the ADERET (Rav Kook's father in
law, Rav Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim): "Ma shekatav ki hu davar zar
vehaarama berura vekechucha Utlula vechillul hashem, hiney kvar asinu
bifnei HRH"G Yehoshua Leib Diskin, uchvar dibarnu imo harbey bainyan
hazeh yoter mikal hadvarim velo shamanu mimenu sheyachush lazeh."

Sefekot which are not resolved
4. Is  a temporary mechira a violation of Lo techanem, or is it totally
mutar (afilu midrabbanan), and less chamur then a sechirut?
5. Can a temporary mechira accomplish hafkaah mikedushat perot sheviit?
6. Does the mechira work despite not having any official legal status in
the eyes of Israeli secular law?  (It isn't registered in the official
government land registry)
7.  Although RY Karo holds that avoda by a Jew is assur, and this is how
we pasken, Sefer haterumah holds that today, EY has the din of Suria so
that a kinyan nochri is strong enough to permit avoda.  May we rely on a
daat yachid such as this beshaat hadchak?  Even the matirim allowed
avoda only for aniyim who could not afford to hire nochrim, and this
only for melachot that are derabbanan even when shmitta is deoraita.
Any melachot that are deoraita may only be performed by Nochrim, not by
a Jew, no matter what the circumstances.  However, Betzira U'Ketzira are
letzorech perot only (not the land/trees), and are allowed if the perot
have no kedusha, so for perot nochrim these melachot are muttar (despite
being meikkaran, assur mideoraita).
8. Is there an issur aseh of shvitat sadehu, as there is an issur aseh
of shvitat behemto an Shabbat?  Shvitat behemto is violated when the
behema is rented to a goy, and the goy works it on Shabbat.


Daniel


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:47:59 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject:
RE: Pirkei Heichalos


From: Yzkd@aol.com [mailto:Yzkd@aol.com]  Yitzchok Zirkind
>>  Can anyone tell me about the Pirkei Heichalos (history, authorship, etc.)?

> It is a Sefer in Kabolo written by Rabi Yishmoeil Ben Elisha Kohein Godol, 
> and see at lentgh about him in the Seder Hadoros.

"Scholars" say that the Zohar was written not by R. Shimon bar Yochai, but
by R. Moshe Cordavero.  What do "scholars" have to say about the authorship
of Pirkei Heichalos?  Who was the first rishon to quote Heichalos?

Kol tuv,
Moshe


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:25:32 EDT
From: Richard Wolpoe <PMSRXW@IBIVM.IBI.COM>
Subject:
Re: Following ROY's psak


On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:50:16 -0400 Feldman, Mark said:

>From: Richard Wolpoe <PMSRXW@IBIVM.IBI.COM>
>> If you discount the the Ashekanz Mesorah, then the Sefardic minhag
>> triumphs on many grounds, not just because they dominated EY.
>> The facts are that the Bavli closer to Sefardic tradition.

<snip>                                                                  nd
>So it's unfair to state that Sefardic minhag should trump because the Bavli
>is closer to the Sephardic tradition.  Minhag EY/ Ashkenazi minhag is just
>as old & illustrious, and one could make the argument that in Israel today
>it would make sense l'hachzir atarah l'yoshna even for Sephardim!

Indeed it is unfair!  That's why I insist that one should NOT
discount the Ashk. Mesorah.  Please re-read what I posted and
see that is both what I mean and what I actually wrote.

KT
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:28:46 +0200
From: D Bannett <dbnet@barak-online.net>
Subject:
RO"Y and Minhag E"Y


R'Rich Wolpoe pointed out that in 500-900 CE, minhag E"Y was closer to
minhag Ashkenaz. So RO"Y should have looked to before the Bet Yosef to
establish the historical E"Y minhag.

First, I believe that RO"Y's claim is (correctly) that the yishuv in
Yerushalayim was almost completely Sefaradi until the middle of the 19th
century and all accepted the B"Y. It was years before the Ashk. newcomers
were permitted their own shechita or even given a small place to daven
according to their minhag. So, the minhag hamakom in Yerushalayim was
Sefaradi. This is the metzius not an examination of ancient history.
Further,to this day, the sefaradim are still the majority in Israel. So,
RO"Y says, newcomers, converts, those without customs, automatically
become Sefaradim. He also permits change of custom without problem from
Ash. to Sef, but frowns on the reverse switch.

As to nusach hatefilla: While it still contains remnants of the old
nusach E"Y, today's Ashkenaz siddur is closer to the Bavli nusach than to
the ancient nusach E"Y. This was talked about a bit in Avodah during
discussions on Oseh Hashalom (E"Y) vs. Ham'varekh et 'amo Yisrael
bashalom (Bavli). and the 18 to 19 berakhot of Shmoneh Esrei (Bavli)
vs. 17 to 18 in EY.

KVCh"T,
David


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:29:02 EDT
From: Richard Wolpoe <PMSRXW@IBIVM.IBI.COM>
Subject:
RE: Pirkei Heichalos


On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:16:35 -0400 Feldman, Mark said:
>"Scholars" say that the Zohar was written not by R. Shimon bar Yochai, but
>by R. Moshe Cordavero.

Perhaps you meant to say R. Moshe DeLeone?

RMDL published the Zohar.  That is not a fact in dispute  AFAIK.
The question is what percentage is his writings and what is older.

The extreme RW position si that it is 100% RSBY (or at least 99%).
The cyncial critical position is that RMDL made it up.
The probably truth is that a CORE is a kabblah/Mesorah from RSBY
that was embellished over time with perisuhim that got included
into the text itself.
As both a maamin and a bit of a critical scholar, it seems to me
that RSBY planted the seed, but the fruit and the pruning came
about later.
I am no expert in kabbalah so what percentage the CORE layer is
is beyond my expertise.
virtually ever sefer has a like history.
Think of the Mishan and the Gemara
or the Tur and Beis Yoseif.

The problem with the Zohar AISI is that the nos'ei keilim were embedded
in the text of the first edition.

And back to minhag Ashkenaz. The same process happened. The core minhag
of EY was translpnated to Europe but also embelishedand pruned over time.

This is the nature of Mesorah. The Seed of all future TSBP was planted
at Sinai, but the CORE TSBP (hlmm) was probably very limited. some TSBP
is more intimately linked to the CORE original and others posses a more
tenuous connection.

now consider the English Language. I was brought up to think of English
as being rooted in the language of Germanic Angles But I hav also read
that 60% of English vocab is Latin based IOW Romance language. Well gues
what? Despite it's island stature, many foreign influences permetated core
English. the structure is Germanic perhaps, but the vocab has evolved.

If R. Hamburger tells you that 60% of Min Ashk is Bavli it might be true,
but that does not undermine the CORE.

Similarly you can probably show that 75% of the Zohar MUST have been
post RSBY, but that dos not take away the possiblity that RSBY's core
implied much of the embellishment, and the outer 75% might be mostly
elucidation of the CORE.

Think of the Mishan and the Gemoro. The Mishnah, a small percentage
reamins teh CORE dn comes form EY. The outer TB is probably more than
75% Gemoro and is nearly all Babylonian (though R. Yochanan and Reish
Laksih figure in as do others from EY)

Consider that Briskers consider R. Chaim's chidushim to be implicit in
the Rambam itself. If that is true, cannot the same be said of RMDL's
version of RSBY's Zohar, that he could have published a book that was
a logical extension of the CORE thoughts of RSBY?

Most of the Torah today said in the name of RYBS is really his
talmiddim's version of RYBS and not RYBS himself. Not that the two are
very different.

RW'ers tend to ignore the evolutionary aspect of mesorah. LW'ers tend
to ignore Mesorah's genuine antiquity.

All of us can only do our best to distinguish the trunk from its branches
the best we can. Often it is not a cut-and-dry process.

KVCHT
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:03:26 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject:
FW: Pirkei Heichalos


FYI

From: yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU [mailto:yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU] 

> The following comes from EJ s.v. "Merkabah Mysticism":
>> Heikhalot Rabbati ("Greater Heikhalot," in Battei Midrashot, 1 (1950),
>> 135-63), i.e., the Heikhalot of Rabbi Ishmael, in Hebrew. In medieval
>> sources and ancient manuscripts the two books are at times called Hilkhot
>> Heikhalot. The division of Heikhalot Rabbati into halakhot ("laws") is
>> still preserved in several manuscripts, most of which are divided into
>> 30 chapters. Chapters 27-30 include a special tract, found in several
>> manuscripts under the title Sar Torah, which was composed much later
>> than the bulk of the work. In the Middle Ages the book was widely known
>> as Pirkei Heikhalot. The edition published by Wertheimer includes later
>> additions, some of them Shabbatean (see G. Scholem, in Zion, 7 (1942),
>> 184f.). Jellinek's version (in Beit ha-Midrash, 3, 1938) is free of
>> additions but suffers from many corruptions.

> Pirke Heikhalot was first published in Venice, 1601. The Werthheimer
> edition is:
> Pirke Hekhalot rabati / : meha-tanaim Rabi Yishmael
> ha-kohen ha-gadol ve-Rabi Akiva. Tsavaat Naftali ben Yaakov ...
> Maamar be-shem Petah hekhalot li-Shelomoh Aharon Verthaimer.
> (Jerusalem, 1889) 

> (You may post this to the list shoudl you desire). Kt, yisrael


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:48:03 EDT
From: Richard Wolpoe <PMSRXW@IBIVM.IBI.COM>
Subject:
Re: Following ROY's psak


On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:50:16 -0400 Feldman, Mark said:
>So it's unfair to state that Sefardic minhag should trump because the Bavli
>is closer to the Sephardic tradition.  Minhag EY/ Ashkenazi minhag is just
>as old & illustrious, and one could make the argument that in Israel today
>it would make sense l'hachzir atarah l'yoshna even for Sephardim!

And the meta-issue here is how narrow do we focus?

Let's start back from Rebbe's time:
Do we accpet  Rebbe's decision to exclude Tannaitic material
not found in the Mishnah?
Do we accept the TB to the exclusion of other Amoraic material?
Does the Zohar supercede older Kabbalistic texts (E.g. Bahir/Ytzirah)?
Does the Ari supercede previous kaalistic texts
Does the Tany superced th ari
Does the Shulchan Aruch supercede the Tur
Does the MB superced the Taz and the Magen Avraham?
Does Kehati supercede The Bartenura and the Rambam

There is a statemt from the Ri Migash IIRC that claims the TB is basroi
re: the Yersushalmi and therefore we can ignore the yerushalmi... RYGB
may have the source for this.

My point is, Is it acceptable to us that the TB has evolved to become
the ONLY authoritative source of TSBP to the exlusion of Yerushalmi etc.

Now I am not challenging in this post our derech halimud This is more
about psak than academics.

{Personally I would tell talmiddim that the TB is the primary source of
TSBP but not the exclusive one.}

I fondly recall my late rebbe R AZ Shafronsky OBM saying that
so-and-so had learned Bavli, Yerushalmi, Tosefta, Mechilta Sifra and
Sifrei. IOW this formulaic expression tended to define the full range
or Tannaitic/amoraci material was a formulaic expression sayuing he was
a baki in kol hatorah kulah

The expectation was that while the formal program focused upon Mishna
and TB, we would be expected to learn more.

The POPULAR - but perhaps inaccurate - perception is that halachah as
we know must conform to the TB. Minhag ashkenaz is only one exception
to this. R. Moshe F. has a teshuva re: Kvurah on YT Rishon that seems
to go completely against the TB. However, Satmar went ahead and buried
someone on Shavuos Erev Shabbos. I don't think it was ONLY a function
of of following the TB, it was al pi their mesroah. (KAJ AFAIK holds the
same) OTOH R. Moshe's Thuvah seems to hold that the issue of kavod hameis
is obviated by refrigeration and therefore Kavod YT should supercede
this dinna digmoro.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:12:25 EDT
From: Richard Wolpoe <PMSRXW@IBIVM.IBI.COM>
Subject:
Re: RO"Y and Minhag E"Y


On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:40:47 -0400 D Bannett said:
> As to nusach hatefilla: While it still contains remnants of the old
> nusach E"Y, today's Ashkenaz siddur is closer to the Bavli nusach than to
> the ancient nusach E"Y. This was talked about a bit in Avodah during
> discussions on Oseh Hashalom (E"Y) vs. Ham'varekh et 'amo Yisrael
> bashalom (Bavli). and the 18 to 19 berakhot of Shmoneh Esrei (Bavli)
> vs. 17 to 18 in EY.

I regret missing this.

Let me say that Kalir's krovos on Tisha b'av skis "matzmiach keren Yeshua"
indicating that AFTER vlamalshinim there was 18.

AIUI there were 18 BEFORE vlmaslhinim and that afterward binyan
Yerushlayim and Yeshua were merged to preserve the mystical number 18.

re: Oseh {ha}shalom bimromav... This change is iirc al pi Ari and
the Gra. however the addition of this Hei during 10 days of Teshuva
is problematic in that Oseh Shalom Bimromov is a half-passuk in Iyov.
Adding the Hei is aiui a mosif that is goreai (similarly adding Kadosh
to Zecehr tzaddik livroacha is gorei because ZTL is a passuk in Mishle,
adding Kaddosh reduces its status). I fondly recall a conversation on
this with R. S. Schwab who pointed out this is a passuk. He did not
extrapolate about the added Hei, but I did get the impression that he
might have.

If someone can privately get me up to date on that thread I'd apprecaite
it. I vaguely recall something to the effect that Ashk followed R. Amram
Gaon and Sefard R. Saadya Gaon

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com


Go to top.


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


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >