Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 022

Thursday, April 19 2001

• Re: CI and Shem HaShem (was "Some Questions About Havoroh")
• Re: Some Questions About Havoroh
• RE: kula-shopping
• Electricity on Yom Tov
• IDT/IDL
• RE: rishonim
• Josippon/Josephus (was rashi and history)
• Re: Owning options on chameitz
• new rishonim
• Re: Rishonim
• Yom Tov fire
• Re: Yom Tov fire
• Koach D'heteira adif
• changes in ritual
• Re: formalizing tefillah
• formalizing tefillah
• Re: formalizing tefillah

Reuven Miller <millerr@mail.biu.ac.il> wrote in Avodah V7 #18:
> On 5 Apr 01, at 22:59, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
>> The Chazon Ish held that no matter what Hashem'sname should be pronounced
>> in one's own nusach.

Thanks for the compliment, but what I *did* write was somewhat different:

"My understanding of what the Hazon Ish said was that even Sefaradim should 
pronounce shem Hashem as do the Ashkenazim."

>We know someone in Jerusalem who says that he davened by the amud in the
>CI's minyan saying the Shem in havhara sefaradit (he is Ashcanazi) and was
>not corrected by the CI (and he says that the CI would have corrected
>him).

This is indeed puzzling.  Similar minyanim today will not permit one to 
daven from the amud if the pronounces *anything* in the prayers in havara 
Sefaradit.  (AAKV'K shem Hashem.)

                         Ira L. Jacobson

On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 05:35:00PM +0300, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
:>Perhaps you have found another justification for R' AY Kook's pesak. RAYK
:>holds that lechatchilah an Ashkenazi ought daven in traditional havarah.

: Ad kan, Harav Kook.

No ...

:>However, for someone raised on Israeli Hebrew and could not be consistant if
:>he tried to daven in Ashkenazis, Israeli havarah is better than inconsistancy.

... ad *KAN* haRav Kook.

Had I been clearer on that, you probably wouldn't have had any questions.

: And why do you assume that such consistency would indeed be 
: impossible?  And what about davening in a havara different from that 
: mandated by the particular congregation?

I don't. R' Kook said that for a person for whom it would be impossible,
it's better to be consistant in Yisraelit than inconsistant but mainly
within one's mesorah.

As for your question (snipped from above):
:                                   How do we weigh the requirement not to 
: change one's minhag against the chance of inconsistency?

R' Kook says the latter is the bigger problem. As for why, my post
suggested a reason why -- because being consistant in the wrong havarah
can't be worse than davening in la'az.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: ykaganoff@barak-online.net[mailto:ykaganoff@barak-online.net]
> First issue above-
> The term "Koach di'hetera adifa" is a pedagogic term, not a legal one. It
> is used by chazal EXCLUSIVELY to mean that when a dispute between two
> authorities applies to two different applications, one in which the kula is
> the bigger chidush, and the other in which the chumrah is the bigger
> chidush, and the statement can be taught in one of two ways, one
> emphasizing the kula and the other emphasizing the chumra, we are always
> taught the case where the kula is the bigger chidush. See Berachos 60a and
> Beitzah 2b.
> This is because it is a bigger chidush to teach the lenient ruling than the
> strict ruling. (Se Rashi to Beitzah ad loc.)

> Any usage of this expression to say that a meikil opinion has more
> authority is in error. There is no such rule in halacha.

In fact, soon after I wrote koach d'heteirah adif, I wrote:
> I didn't mean the Talmudic application of koach dheteirah adif...  I meant
> it more like a melitzah--we should applaud legitimate kulos

In fact, a computer search of Shutim finds that achronim often used the
phrase in the way that I did. See, e.g., Shut Maharshal 33.

If you prefer a different melitzah: my rebbeim have said that it's no
kuntz to be machmir, a true talmid chacham is one who is confident in
being mekil.

It is my opinion that chazal were not looking for chumros in the way
that some people do today. They wanted to do ikar hadin. Rabbi Yishmael,
who paskened that machshirei milah are docheh Shabbos, wasn't machmir
for himself even though all his chaveirim paskened against him.

> Second,
> The gemara in Avoda Zara 7a discusses the issue in which there are two
> opinions, one lenient and one stringent. The ruling cited by this Gemara is
> the final word on what to do about such a case- According to the halacha
> (the opinion of Rav Yehoshua ben Karcha), the halacha follows the stringent
> opinion in a Torah law, and the lenient opinion in a rabbinic issue. (There
> is a question among poskim whether this rule is also followed when one of
> the two halachic authorities has a greater following or is the greater
> scholar.)

1.  Almost always, the issue is rabbinic, not d'oraissa.  The issues we have
been discussing, such as chometz b'pesach or hilchos shabbos, almost always
have some reason there is no actual d'oraisa involved.

2.  The Rambam, Hil. Mamrim 1:5, when he quotes this halacha, adds an
important qualification to it--it applies "im aincha yodei l'heichan hadin
noteh."  I was talking in a situation where a posek's kulah makes a lot of
sense to you (and you're a talmid chacham), or it is clear that klal yisrael
has been following the mekil shitah.

> Certainly, any reference to "vi-chai bahem" in this context 
> is totally out of place.

In the context that I wrote it--i.e., not as a halachic statement with
regard to violating Shabbos rather than die--it is most certainly
not out of place. I was making a hashkafic statement rather than a
halachic statement. I have heard poskim use the term "Va-chai bahem" as
a hashkafic statement in the context of not going crazy in checking for
bugs--the Torah is supposed to be livable rather than an esoteric tool.
Compare to ain bes din gozrin gzeirah she'ein hatzibbur yachol laamod bo.

> Third,
> Although it is true that one who is a Torah scholar has the right to decide
> a halachic issue on its own merits and thus to determine what the halacha
> is, this applies only to .001% or less of people who can be called poskim.
> I refer the readers to what the gemara in Sotah 22a says about a Talmid
> chochom who is not qualified to paskin shaylos and does.  Certainly, anyone
> rendering an opinion on the subject at hand, who does not make any
> reference to the Gemara in Avoda Zara above mentioned and the poskim that
> discuss it qualifies as someone who is paskining shaylos and should not be.

But I have been told that deciding what to do for oneself is not
considered hora'ah. Hora'ah is paskening for others. I was personally told
by Rav Michael Rosensweig, Rosh Yeshiva at YU, that ideally I should learn
through a given sugyah and be machree'yah for myself among the poskim
what I should do. From the style of limud at Yeshivat Har Etzion, I would
guess that RMR's rebbe, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, has the same shitah.

RMR's statement to me is consonant with his article "Rabbinic Authority
and Personal Autonomy." Here is an excerpt from R. Rosensweig's article
where he quotes Maharshal from the introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo on
Bava Kamma (p. 108):

pp. 99-100: "One should not be astonished by the range of debate and
argumentation in matters of halakhah. . . . All these views are in
the category of divrei Elokim hayyim as if each was received directly
from Sinai through Moshe. This is so despite the fact that Moshe
never projected opposing perspectives with respect to any one issue.
The Kabbalists explained that the basis for this is that each individual
soul was present at Sinai and received the Torah by means of the 49
paths (tzinorot). Each perceived the Torah from his own perspective
in accordance with his intellectual capacity as well as the stature
and unique character of his particular soul. This accounts for the
discrepancy in perception inasmuch as one concluded that an object was
tamei in the extreme, another perceived it to be absolutely tahor, and yet
a third individual argues the ambivalent state of the object in question.
All these are true and sensible views. Thus, the wise men declared that
in a debate between true scholars, all positions articulated represent
a form of truth."

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: gil.student@citicorp.com [mailto:gil.student@citicorp.com]
> Check the Avodah archives under Electricity. Moshe, you are consistent
> in that you asked for the source of the Aruch HaShulchan last time as well...

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
: But I never received an answer!  

RGS:
> Generally chalked up to misunderstanding of the nature of electricity.

R' Moshe Feldman:
: What was the misunderstanding and how did it affect the use of electricity
: on Yom Tov?  I was told to look at Yecheh Daas on this.  Anyone have the
: cite?

I believe it was Rav Epstein who handed down a psak that electricity is 
permitted on yom tov.  When I was growing up, there were several shomer 
shabbos families who used electricity on yom tov.  The reason for the heter, 
as was stated previously, was because of "aish me'aish"--that by turning on 
an electric switch, you were not creating a new fire...the fire was already 
there in the electrical currents.  Recent advances in the understanding of 
electricity seem to indicate that this is not actually what happens when you 
flip on a switch--and that what does happen in fact constitutes a prohibited 
melacha on yom tov (don't ask me about the technicalicalities of this...I'm 
not an engineer, but I bet there is someone on this digest who can explain it 
more scientifically).

That's what i know and remember on the subject...hopefully some others can 
fill in the blanks.

Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> How was the madreiga of yetzias Mitzrayim "lost?" I thought Bnei Yisrael
> were actually on a lower madreiga at Yetzias Mitzrayim (...), moved
> to a higher madreiga during the time leading up to ma'amad Har Sinai,
> and then losing it with chet ha'eigel.

I  haven't  seen the Ohr Gedalyah inside but from my understanding of the
way it is being presented, this sounds like a similar concept that Rav Chaim
Yaakov Goldvicht zt"l talks about in his seforim. Namely, the idea that
reaching a madreiga through one's own effort can not compare with reaching
that madreiga by having been elevated as a matanah from HKBH. It would seem
that B"Y were on a high madreiga after Kriyas Yam Suf (after all they saw
nevuah) but that madreigah was a matanah from HKBH. Consequently, there was
a need to reach that madreigah through their own effort to make it last and
meaningful.

From: Eli Turkel <Eli.Turkel@kvab.be>
>> How about Ri Migash who is acknowledged to be a major rishon who heavily
>> influenced Rambam but whose commntaries were lost?

From: Wolpoe, Richard [mailto:Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com]
> You answered your own question. Once the Ri Migash got considered
> important he became important. For some reason, the jury is still out
> on the Me'iri's influence on "Halachah" {say in contradistinction to
> lamdus or peirush}.

I think that it's more that the Ri Migash was *always* considered important,
even when his works were lost, because it was known that the rishonim
considered him important.  R. Menachem HaMeiri, unfortunately, lived at the
turn of the 14th century, and IIRC in 1306 the Jews were expelled from
Provence.  Prevencal figures of the later period (i.e., after Ramban) never
received a lot of recognition in rishonic works.

The other reason that the Meiri has not gained full acceptance is (as noted
by Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik) that his commentary is not in the classic model
of commenting on the text and dealing with shakla v'tarya; rather, he
summarizes shitos (more like a secondary text, like an encyclopedia).  To
the average yeshiva student, he doesn't write like an "authentic" rishon.

From DCS' class at Revel, I came to the conclusion that many yeshiva
students look at psak in an ahistorical way--some figures were great
rishonim, others less so.  Ramban, Raavad, Tosfos--all important people, so
let's compare one with the other.   DCS looks at things from a historical
perspective: Each of the Medieval European halachic communties--Ashkenaz,
France, Provence, Spain--were important.  DCS asked questions like: What was
the Provencal halachic community like?  Who were its leaders?  What was its
development.  In that context, it is clear that Meiri was a rishon of great
importance.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 18 Apr 2001, at 14:09, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>> My father's scholarly endeavor has been largely devoted to Josephus.  From
>> what he has told me, there is no question that Sefer Yosifon is not
>> Josephus, though some in the Middle Ages may have thought that it was.
 
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> Around Chanuka time here, a sefer called "Yosifon" was published (in
> Hebrew) which AIUI was marketed as Josephus...

I have a Josephus (in English, Whiston tr., printed about 1850), and a
Yosifon (printed in the 50s).  They're not the same.  I haven't compared
them in detail, but IIRC Yosifon covers material in his one shortish book
that Josephus takes two long books (Antiquities and Wars) to cover.

From a catalogue of a book exhibition in the National Library of Canada,

51. 
Joseph b. Gorion, pseudonym
    [ Josippon ]

[ Yosef ben Goriyon ]
Josephus Hebraicus
Basel: Henricus Petri, 1541.

The Hebrew paraphrase of the Hegesippus, composed in southern Italy in
the tenth century and generally known as Josippon, is sometimes referred
to as the Pseudo-Josephus. Of the various editions and abstracts of the
work published before modern times, this edition by Sebastian Münster, to
which he added an incomplete Latin translation and notes, is the only one
based on the original text of the incunabular editio princeps. 

And here's someone who quoted Moshe's honorable Father, in discussing
various pseudo-Josephi:

<http://citd.scar.utoronto.ca/CRRS/Pub/censures_of_sigonio/2.7.Josephus-Philo.html>

-jon baker

One more point--
In U.S. Tax law, there is a concept that a holder of an option may
be treated as the owner of the underlying property on which an option
has been written if the option is substantially certain to be exercised
(e.g., it's "in the money"). The point from a tax perspective is that the
law presumes that you will exercise the option, and, from an economic
perspective, there is no difference between exercising the option now
and exercising it later.

I would argue that this tax concept should not be transferred to
ownership of chometz. The tax concept is concerned with economics--a
person's financial position. Halacha is concerned with actual ownership.
For example, investment banks can create a financial derivative which
mimics the economic properties of a particular stock. For certain
purposes, the tax law may treat the derivative holder as owning the
actual stock--since he is in the same economic position. But I don't
think that a holder of a derivative based on the price of chometz should
be treated as owning the actual chometz.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> The answer to me is simple. If a consensus of Poskim say the Zohar is
> the genuine article, then it gets accepted. Otherwise, it becomes an
> academic or intellectual curiosity and not Halachically significant.

We have now switched arguments. Originally it was argued that recently
found rishonim are less vaild because they did not undergo peer
review. Not it has become a question of consensus whether it is the
genuine article.

Does anyone really doubt that the Meiri is genuine or R. Chananel for
that matter.

Also what is the defintion of peer review?

At one time R. Chananel was a new perush but it has now been around
for many years. Will the Meiri be more accepted as more generations of
Talmidei Chachamim learn it?

Again, the early achranim (eg ketzot and nesivot) did not have many of
the chudushei rishonim now considered classical.

Eli Turkel

On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 09:05:31PM +0300, S. Goldstein wrote:
: Concerning pt #3 and "counting Rishonim for psak halakha":  Even if disputed
: by RYBS or even his grandfather, it is still an undisputable(historical)
: fact that the MB consistently counts the Meiri as a Rishon in Biur Halakha.

By the same argument, if the particular idea from the Me'iri did survive
to impact the subsequent development of halachah, why wouldn't it be
treated as the opinion of a rishon?

We're not talking about the ideas of the Me'iri that were never
lost. We're only addressing those that were. Can the finding of the
Me'iri unwind parts of the subsequent development of halachah? As I
understood the idea -- which admittedly I only know second hand --
RYBS asserted that an acharon's shitah that became halachah has more
authority than a shitah in the Me'iri that was only found afterwards.


On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 03:14:13PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: Surely, you would agree that where the Meiri shows that a Raavad is not a
: daas Yachid but the view of all of Provencal Jewry, the Meiri should have
: important halachic weight.

I think that RYBS's point is that if the halachah wasn't yet determined,
it would. However, if we already pasken against the Raavad because we
thought it was a da'as yachid, it wouldn't have any bearing.

IOW, if there is no resolution from the acharonim, we listen to the
Me'iri. But if acharonim did pasken, the pesak stands. This effectively
places the Me'iri's authority (at least WRT lost shitos) equal to that
of the generation who found his work.

: As an aside, I seem to recall that the MB counted rishonim ...
:                                 I think that Dr. Soloveitchik would disagree
: with the MB's methodology.  Instead of counting rishonim such as Ramban,
: Rashba, Ritva, Ran as four different rishonim, I would guess that DCS would
: count schools of rishonim...

This would also be against Maran Bet Yosef, as it invalidates his
triumverate.

I also question the historian's role in making such statements. Isn't
the historian of halachah supposed to record how halachah evolved, not
assert how it ought to evolve? To me this sounds almost alchemical,
trying to forcefit reality to the theory. The MB is the halachacist,
his approach is the data. R' Dr. Haym Soloveitchik, when not wearing his
maggid shiur hat, is the observer. (And he wouldn't consider himself in
the same league as R' YM Kahan (*) even when he is acting as "R'", not
"Dr.".)

This is related to the question of the authority of a lost Me'iri:
knowing the history of halachah or of *a* halachah doesn't have much
weight in the realm of pesak. Which would bring us back to the subject
of the role of new scientific knowledge in halachah, but I assume the
chevrah can live without RRW and I arguing that one yet again.

-mi

*- Yes, I was intentionally not calling the CC/MB by the name of his sefer.
<grin>

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

RMF:
>> cite a p'sak by the Orach Hashulchan to the effect that the use of
>> electricity on chag is permitted

> Generally chalked up to misunderstanding of the nature of electricity.

What was the misunderstanding and how did it affect the use of electricity
on Yom Tov?

If electricity is a fire in the wires in the wall of your home, why not
continue to the appliances on the other side.

> I was told to look at Yecheh Daas on this.

Who? ROY?

RSZA became famous through his first sefer, Meorei Aish, in the 1920s
assering electricity on Yom Tov.

Shlomo Goldstein

I thought I noted this last time we were around this bend, or the time
before that. But I couldn't find it in an archive search, so...

In Cheena deChayei, R' YAA Kreiger (my greatgrandfather) had a teshuvah
matiring electricity. I believe that CdC was written at the time when
RYAAK was the O rav of the non-austritt Frankfurt-am-Mein kehillah.
This teshuvah may date back to his days in Kashduri, Litta.

In a later teshuvah, written once he got to Boston, RYAAK prohibited
electricity usage. But what's interesting is that the topic of this later
teshuvah is "acharei rabim lahatos". He still thought that he was more
true to theory (both physical and halachic).

The majority of the posekim at the time, in R' Kreiger's opinion,
mistakenly thought that electricity was eish. Not that a glowing filament
was, but that electricity itself is actually a fluid form of fire.

(The idea that electricity is a fluid was Benjamin Franklin's. It was
common until the idea caught on that atoms have structure, and that
electrons were part of that structure. Now, in the quantum mechanical
model of things, we can't even exactly speak of a current of electrons.)

IOW, the posekim of the CdC's (*) day didn't have electricity pegged
correctly, but in a way that should have made them pasken overly
lechumrah!

-mi

*- Use of book's name to refer to author intentional. <grin>

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

RYK:
> The term "Koach di'hetera adifa" is a pedagogic term, not a legal one. It
> is used by chazal EXCLUSIVELY to mean that ...                 we are always
> taught the case where the kula is the bigger chidush. See Berachos 60a and
> Beitzah 2b.

> This is because it is a bigger chidush to teach the lenient ruling than the
> strict ruling. (Se Rashi to Beitzah ad loc.)

All technically true, but poskim take this phrase out of context to
excuse their search for a maikil understanding of the halacha.

> the gemara in Sotah 22a says about a Talmid chochom who is not qualified
> to paskin shaylos

Girsas Rashi, Rambam and SA is Talmid. Presumably they hold every t'h
by definition can pasken.

> rendering an opinion on the subject at hand, who does not make any
> reference to the Gemara in Avoda Zara above mentioned and the poskim
> that discuss it

Which poskim say this is a major rule in psak? Many tshuvos are written
knowing that others learned differently. I don't recall the Igros Moshe,
l'mashal, say disregard all of his kulos because it touches a din Torah
and others argue. Perhaps this rule is extremely limited to the one who
has a legitimate safek of which way is correct after thoroughly learning
the issue and being one's own posek.

[Bounced from Areivim. RMF and I shifted the topic from a particular
contentious proposed change to something more general, and hopefully
less contentious. -mi]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:08:39 -0400 "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> wrote:
> Perhaps one can be mechalek between (1) innovation in permitting certain
> halachic practices and (2) changes in ritual. #1 is an issue of strict
> halacha--poskim have often been willing to disagree with each other,
> and even pasken against what the hamon am has been doing. #2 is an issue
> of mesorah--the flavor of Judaism--it's more of a visceral issue.

one needs to define more clearly what is a change a change in ritual.
RYBS is well known for changes in the Nusach Hatefilla.

As a simple example he insisted on the sefardi avodah on yom kippur
even though the general nusach was ashkenaz because he felt it was
based on mishnayot and so more correct. He also had other changes
based on his analysis of the tefilla.

Thus, it seems that his objection was not innovation per se but
rather the rationale behind the innovation. Innovation based on
halakhic reasoning, e.g. the Gra, is acceptable while innovation
not based on halakhic precedents is not okay.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:08:12 -0400, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
wrote:
> I think we need to divide da'as Torah into at least three venues:
> 1- halachic pesak, where I assume all O Jews agree, that it 
> DOES apply;

I disagree at least with my understanding of Daas Torah. The way it is
aplied today is that some gadol or group of gedolim issue a psak in the
name of daas Torah and everyone is commanded to follow it.

My personal idea is that one should follow one's personal Rav and not
these announcements.

As a simple example I have been told that in EY one is not allowed to
use cottenseed oil on Pesach because R. Eliyashiv paskened against
it and he is the Daas Torah of EY (don't know of any vote on that).
Any objections are brushed off as irrelevant since only R. Eliyashiv
counts and anyone else is meaningless.

MB continued [from Areivim]:
> 2- other religious advice, where something can be contra-Yahadus without
>    being technically assur; and
> 3- advice that revolves around knowledge of the metzius (career advice,
>    etc...)

> RYBS's statement in Kol Dodi Dofeik about the gedolim being wrong about 
> religious Zionism and the Shoah revolves around rejecting the role of
> da'as Torah in the third venue.

> This conversation[, the one on Areivim] is about the second.

> I believe that R' Twersky is arguing that due to those vague umbrella
> chiyuvim/issurim, category #2 is illusory. Once you say that it doesn't
> fit the Torah's priorities to the extent that it should be avoided,
> at least one of those chiyuvim would render it technically assur.

Eli Turkel

On 19 Apr 2001, at 10:02, jjbaker@panix.com wrote:
> AKhG instituted a whole fixed prayer scheme for that big reason.  This
> goes against the principle of not making one's tefillah keva, and in
> fact creates a whole non-mitzva structure.  

That depends how you interpret keva. Not so pashut....

[<snip> -mi]

-- Carl

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

[Part of some posts from Areivim. The discussion of women's prayer groups,
which also spawned the thread on chumros, da'as Torah, and non-spefically
assur-ed behavior, touched on the nature of fixed tefillah. So, I'm moving
that here too. -mi]

Carl Sherer wrote: 
>> You seem to assume it's "less".  If it's not assur, and
>> it doesn't impede women from fulfilling their mitzvot,
>> and it encourages them to be better about fulfilling
>> their mitzvot, the only reason against it is "it hasn't
>> been done before".  If that were a valid reason, we wouldn't
>> have the contemporary seder.  We wouldn't have davening.
>> Davening is a wholly human construct.  Do you really think
>> David Hamelech davened Shmoneh Esreh 3x daily?  Or that
>> the Anshe Knesses haGedolah shouldn't have instituted 
>> the Shmoneh Esreh because "it hasn't been done before,
>> it's less or more than what was mandated"?

> Bad comparison. The Gemara in Brachos is quite explicit that 
> "Tfillos avos tiknum." There was not a fixed text until the Anshei 
> Knesses HaGdola. The Anshei Knesses HaGdola fixed a text 
> because otherwise people did not know how to daven. I don't see a 
> similar imperative here. 

AKhG instituted a whole fixed prayer scheme for that big reason.  This
goes against the principle of not making one's tefillah keva, and in
fact creates a whole non-mitzva structure.  Maybe "tefillos avos tiknum",
but the maskana is that they follow the sacrifices [even though the gemara
seems to state otherwise, all the codes from the Rif on down follow the
maskana that they were ordained to follow the sacrifices], and furthermore,
neither Rambam nor Ramban (the major parties in the dispute) hold that
the mitzvah constitutes more than once-daily prayer.  See Rambam, Hil.
Tefillah 1:5.

The braisa on Brachos 26b that talks about "tefillos avos tiknum" is clearly
in the midrashic or homiletic style.  It's a nice story to illustrate the
idea of 3x daily prayer, but it's not enough to create an obligation.
"Eino ela..." when the words are clearly used in other contexts to mean 
other things than just the context that works for this example.
Anyway, it doesn't even demonstrate at all that the times the avos "decreed"
were additive.  All it shows is that Avraham liked to daven at this time,
Yitzchak at that time, Yaakov at the other.

So no, I don't think the gemara proves that either 3x daily prayer, or 
a fixed text, was mandated by the Avos.

[Rest of post was on primary topic. Snipped. -mi]

From: jjbaker@panix.com
> Or that the Anshe Knesses haGedolah shouldn't have instituted 
> the Shmoneh Esreh because "it hasn't been done before,
> it's less or more than what was mandated"?

The Gemara, in describing the AKH's role in formulating the nusach
hatefila, includes "umeihem kama nevi'im". I take that to mean that
innovations such as this are not meant for the novice. Before you jump on
that, the proponents of WPG are, lechol hadeios, novices compared to AKH.

[<snip> -mi]

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

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


[ 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         ]