Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 096

Monday, January 21 2002

• CY Cesareans
• Re: Daas Torah
• Re: Ayin tachath ayin
• Re: Daas Torah
• Re: What to Ask the Rabbi
• Yom HaShoah (YhS)
• Re: Daas Torah
• CY Cesareans from a Frum Vet, brother of one of the Aishdas Chaverim
• Halachic Methodology - More on Minhag
• Re: eruv
• re:reproducility
• Eid Mipi Eid BeIssurim
• re:daas tora
• Yam Suf
• Halachic methodology - Minhag
• Re: halachic reasoning [note change in spelling]
• Re: Seli'hot

 From a private correspondent:
>> My sources tell me that this is 100% false!  I did speak to a vet today
>> because of your email who tells me that going through the abdomen is only
>> done when the cow is going to die anyway, and is never done for milking
>> cows because it effects milk output.

 From my original source:
>I have just spoken with a veterinarian on staff at Guelph University, I
>believe the most prestigious veterinarian school in Ontario, and perhaps
>in Canada.

>The prof/vet whose name I neglected to write down confirmed the
>information I previously had:

>The ACCEPTED/NORMAL/LECHATCHILO  method for C sections on cows today is
>performed while the animal is in standing position, cutting  through the
>flank and abdomen. This is ALWAYS the preferred method, being the
>fastest, least traumatic and safest method(a.k.a.  back or side door).

>As to the percentages of cows having the c-section, it appears that the
>percentage of milk cows is considerably lower than the general figure,
>but PERHAPS this might be dependant on farm and other conditions.

>I am not upset at the challenge itself, rather by the certainty of your
>correspondent and his source who probably deals with white mice and the
>like. The telephone of Guelph University is 519-824-4120 ask the
>switchboard to connect you with someone who can give you information
>regarding C-sections on cows.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

I wrote
>: Ramchal in Mesillas Yesharim does not mention the idea of a mentor at all
>: ...                      In the introduction to his Ma'amar haVikuach he
>: writes how the understanding of sifrei kabbalah cannot be gotten from the
>: sefarim themselves, requiring "mipi sofrim vlo mipi sefarim"; however, due
>: to all those who tried to learn only from sefarim there aren't many sofrim
>: around and therefore he is writing his sefer "eis la'asos laHashem."

>: He clearly is saying that his sefer is to replace the sofrim...

To which R. Micha responded:
> Lehefech! He is saying you DO need a sofeir. But there aren't any -- or
> at least none of a quality worth the title. Niskatnu hadoros. Therefore
> one can lose less by using his sefer.

Ideally, yes. But if it was absolutely necessary, then Ramchal wouldn't
suggest his sefer to take such a place. In fact he makes this statement
in reference to Kabbalah, whch many would have said that without a rebbe
one is exmept from studying. How much more so about Avodas Hashem.

>But he nowhere says that the sefer
> should replace all attempts at using a human being!

Avada nisht, pumfarkert! In MY (ch 14) he says clearly to make use
of other human beings. But more as a chover to pick and choose good
things from--not a rebbe (even in the non-chassidish, just making sure
that's clear)

> > Ramchal in Mesillas Yesharim does not mention the idea of a mentor at
> > all(not a Rav nor a Rebbe)....Judging from what and how he wrote his
> > other sefarim, would I be wrong to suggest that his Messilas Yesharim
> > bypasses the need for a moreh derech in avodas Hashem?

Shlomoh

> Because pashut peshat is that you must pay an eye's worth for damaging an 
> eye.  You might have asked better from the cases where halachah is okeves 
> hamikra (Sotah 16a).

An eye's worth for damaging an eye is a measure of damages for loss of
property. "Ayin tachath ayin" is a measure of communal justice, i.e., a
matter of criminal law. 
Doesn't Makkos 3 come into play?

David Finch

On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 10:12:37PM +0200, Shlomoh Taitelbaum wrote:
:> Lehefech! He is saying you DO need a sofeir. But there aren't any -- or
:> at least none of a quality worth the title. Niskatnu hadoros. Therefore
:> one can lose less by using his sefer.

: Ideally, yes. But if it was absolutely necessary, then Ramchal wouldn't
: suggest his sefer to take such a place...

He says his sefer is an "eis la'asos"!

I take that to mean he holds it /is/ absolutely necessary. However,
despite its necessity it's not available.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

> But as other people understand DT, and as the chassidim understand the
> role of the tzaddiq, he has the ability to make non-religious choices
> (such as which job is more likely to be successful financially) better
> than the rest of us. Whether because of a refined intellect because it's
> more in line with the "Mind" of the Borei (via His Torah) or because of
> a level ruach haqodesh.

Some choices, not others. I wouldn't, for example, ask a rav or a tzaddik
to tell me whether in ice hockey the neutral-zone trap is an efficient
defense against an offensive line with two soft-handed power forwards. I
wouldn't have asked him whether buying Enron Corporation stock was a bad
idea because the company's reliance on the trading of energy-contract
derivatives opened it up to wholesale accounting fraud. I wouldn't,
for that matter, ask him solely on the basis of his Torah knowledge
which prospective job offer is the more promising financially. Forms
of DT which rely on rabbinical opinion on such subjects strike me as
outside of the mainstream of the classic Ashkenazic tradition, whether
chassidic or misnagged, Mussar or hard-core Brisk.

David Finch

>How does this work in conjunction with the permission that a community
>(Kahal) has to make Takkanot?

>This is a classic case of a large community accepting upon themselves
>a Takkana.  We might not like the shape and form and it may be
>"new" -- but does that immediately make it "bad"?

An excellent question!

It is, indeed, in the formulation of the takkna that the Chillul Hashem
(CH) is manifest, and that is what must prevent Shlomei Emunei Yisroel
from true solidarity with YhS.

(I amm cc'ing avodah, as now, B"H, we are moving on to topics of a Torah
Machashava nature!)

Please keep in mind R' Chaim Volozhiner's definition of CH: A challal
(void), devoid of the manifestation of Hashem' presence.

Hashem was kept out of this takkana.

Neither the Chief Rabbinate (CR), nor, certainly, any larger array
of rabbinical scholars, was consulted in formulating this takkna. Al
pi din, takkanos ha'kohol have no legitimacy unless the Chochom ho'Ir
(let us define that for this purpose as the CR) was consulted. Indeed,
the CR's official calendar - Shono b'Shono - did not list YhS until,
IIRC, the early 70's. One is left to conclude that YhS is a wholly
secular day (which in and of itself should give pause to association
of religious-style observance with it), over which the Knesset claimed,
incorrectly and only by creating a challal as above, authority. Al achas
kamma v'kamma that the Knesset and the State sought to give the day
religious meaning - yet they went about doing so in a unilateral way
that contravened the process of instituting takkonos in Am Yisroel -
even of Choshen Mishpat, al achas kamma v'kamma of Orach Chaim.

Zos v'od: The greater CH, perhaps, is the disconnect of the date from
any specific event. As the CI notes, we do not have the authority -
even the CR, even a "synod" of Gedolei Yisroel - to introduce special
elements to the calendar on our own. Those who promulagted such days since
Chasimas ha'Talmud have done so only on the basis of the assumption that
a precipitating unique event (a great massacre such as 20 Sivan r"l; or
a great yeshu'ah - let us say, to argue in this context, the Declaration
of Independence of the State of Israel) is sufficient catalyst for the
manipulation of the calendar (i.e., giving a date a certain intrinsic
and perennial solemn or festive nature). 27 Nissan is void of any such
significance (the uprising in Warsas was on Pesach, we dealt with this
issue in Avodah 3:49). The fixing thereof as YhS in the absence of
any such significance is an affront to the entire Kedushas ha''Zman of
our Luach, a secular attempt to impose a certain character on a day -
compounded in its CH by the lack, indeed, contravention, of Rabbinic
authority and involvement.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

R. Micha:
> :> Lehefech! He is saying you DO need a sofeir. But there aren't any -- or
> :> at least none of a quality worth the title. Niskatnu hadoros. Therefore
> :> one can lose less by using his sefer.
Me
> : Ideally, yes. But if it was absolutely necessary, then Ramchal wouldn't
> : suggest his sefer to take such a place...
Micha
> He says his sefer is an "eis la'asos"!

> I take that to mean he holds it /is/ absolutely necessary. However,
> despite its necessity it's not available.

Okay, simple question: How did Ramchal leave this absolutely necessary yesod
out of MY? Unless, of course, he foretold of a generation that indeed would
have no one to ask . . .

[Email #2. -mi]

Chaim:
> Shlomoh Taitelbaum wrote:
> > Ramchal in Mesillas Yesharim does not mention the idea of a mentor at
> > all(not a Rav nor a Rebbe)....Judging from what and how he wrote his
> > other sefarim, would I be wrong to suggest that his Messilas Yesharim
> > bypasses the need for a moreh derech in avodas Hashem?

> Perhaps if one takes into account the life of the Ramchal (the cherems for
> being from what I understand [and I am open to correction] an independent
> thinker who did not follow the "authorities"), can one learn from him,
> then or now?

Consider a second: the Gr'a said he would walk to Italy to learn avodas
Hashem from Ramchal; IIRC one of the main issues the Gr"a had with
Chassidus was the undermining of the Talmidei Chachomim. So either the
Gra did not see the Ramchal's omission as problematic, or . . . I don't
know what.

Shlomoh

 From my friend the Frum Vet:
>I am  not clear on the question here.   If not through the abdomen
>then what is the option for a c-section?  The word literally means to
>cut through, ie the baby does not fit through the birth canal so it
>is taken out through the abdominal wall.

>(Granted there are other options not called a c-section.  eg 1)
>fetotomy - cut up dead fetus and pull out pieces 2) split pelvis of
>mother to make more room.)

>Anyway,  most Americans do a caesarian in a cow with the cow standing
>and a left flank incision (high up near the backbone in the
>paralumber fossa (if you look in a picture it is the triangle you see
>in the flank - kesallim or below the bassar heAtzeh) .  Some do it
>with the cow on her side with a low flank incision.  Some do it on
>the back with a paramedian incision.  I have done all three.   In
>none of these is the uterus removed but in all it is incised and sewn
>together.   I guess the issue for triefos is the basar hachofeh (?)
>and where it is, is it incised and how big is the incision?

>My impression is that the Rabbanut hold it to be only the peritoneum
>and that it must be a incised more than a tefach to be a treifa.
>When I saw a left sided DA surgery and commented on the size of the
>incision the vet got mad at me since he said only the deepest layer
>had to kept under a tefach.   In a DA  you only need a tefach opening
>to get your hand (tefach) through to do the work. In a caesarian you
>need a hole to pull a 100 pound calf through  (obviously bigger than
>the pelvic opening).

>There is no reason not do it in a milk cow.  If it is done
>lechatchila and the calf is alive the recovery can be relatively
>uneventful and the return to milking can be better then after a
>difficult canal birth.  Different breeds have different levels of
>difficulty birthing.  American dairy vets do not do a lot of c-
>sections while Belgian (beef?) vets typically do more than 400/yr.
>I have had some die but the feti were long dead and rotten and
>there was peritonitis and systemic compromise before i ever got
>there.

>I do not recall if the chart in the vet's office in Be'er Toviya (?)
>had only instructions and pictures for a kosher DA or also for a
>kosher Caesarian.

Me speaking: What's a DA?

[Email #2. -mi]

 From my friend the Frum Vet:
...
>> Most vets might do only a few a year.

Me speaking:
I figured out what a DA must be - the 5754 issue.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Re: the Minhag of not being a Sandek twice for the same family
This is a follow up to an earlier post of mine and evolved from a shiur by 
RDEK {Rabbi Kanarfogel} at Cong. Beth Aaron of Teaneck on Friday night 
Shabbas Vayetze and the response of a congregant who "thought" the Minhag 
involed was a "shtus"

Sefer Maharil - Minhaggim - Hilchos Milha Machon Yerushlayim {MY} editoin p. 
476
{loose Translastoins}:

The zchus of a Sandek is SO great that it is like being maktir ktores and for 
this reason Rabbeinu Peretz {a ba'al Tosafos} ascribed it the reason of NOT 
doubling or tripling the privliege just as we do not do so for ktores...

fn3: Points to Nodah Biyudah {NoBi} Yoreh Dei'ah {kama} 86 and Shut Chasam 
Sofer Orach Chaim 158 {this I do noet have and I have not seen}

fn5: The Rema in YD 265:11 brings down this Maharil lehalachah.  See Shach 
sk20
The GRA in sk46 asks questions on this Rema....{more later}

The Shach in sk22 explains the Rema in such a way as to suggest hakskamah to 
the Rema

Note the Pischei Tshuva in 265:14 cites NoBi above and the Shaarei Tshuvai 
nOrach Chaim 591:3

The GRA sk46 objects to this:
{if ktores indeed were the impetus, then...}
A)  Why only limit the sandek to being ONE time for ONE family, limit him to 
ONE per lifetime?
B) Ktores is supposed to make one wealthy. The GRA never saw anyone get 
wealthy by becoming a Sandek.
C) Rather the Minhag is because of "tzavas R. Yehudah Hachasid"

fn5 in Maharil abve notes that
GRA does NOT reject Minhag but DOES Reject the Ta'am

{Wolpoe:  This goes along with Minhag reflecting the WHAT accurately but not 
always the WHY.  The Maharil et. al. are merely giveing a nice drasha, but 
even if this ratoinale is flawed, the Minhag is not necessarily flawed.}

NoBi YD(1):86 {excerpts}
A) first he objects to deeling with a Minhag that is not rooted in the Talmud 
Bavli {TB}. 
B) he objects to the logic of the Maharil comparing the legs of hte Sandek to 
the legs of the mizbach ktores. Makes more sense to compare it to the regular 
- i.e. outer -  Mizbei'ach
C) {since} this has no root in the TB it is after all "just" drash and remez 
and NOT l'ikkuv NOR for a minhag kavu'a
D) and in mdinos Polin they are not medkadeik rather the Rav Hakavu'a of the 
city is ALWAYS The Sandak    

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

Re: item D above, this is easy to deal with.  The mashal is that a Sandak is 
like a kohen hedyot and therefore - like Ktores - the welath should be spread 
around. But a Rav might be easily construed as being do'meh to a kohen gadol 
who MAY do multiple ktoros - and who must on YK! 

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

Bottom line:
A) To the Maharil and the Rema, the Minhag AND the ratoinale were accepted as 
is
B) To the GRA, the Minhag might be normative, but the rationale was suspect 
and rejected.  But a rejected ratoinale does not necessarily uproot the 
Minhag ipso facto.  Think of Mayyim Acharonim 
C) to the NoBi since this is not Talmudic and the Rationale is suspect - just 
disregard it.  But he does NOT go so far as to call it minhag ta'us us or 
Minhag Shtus

Re: the GRA, it seems strange to reject a practice based upon the results
that we see. If we said Tzeddakah matzil memaves and then people who
gave Tzedakah went on to die anyway - so what?

Re: the Maharil: this is not the only place he suggests a drasha impacts
Halachah or Minhag. IIRC it is the Maharil who darshens the connetion
beetween ki yikach ish ish and gdillm ta'aseh lach. Does the Maharil
posit that we can still darshen in such a way as to impact Halachah -
even when that Drasha has no {straightforward} makor in the TB or its
companion texts? Or is this taking the Mahailr and the R. Peretz too
far in that they were only post facto justifying a minhag?

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 1/17/02 3:56:38pm EST, Eli.Turkel@colorado.edu writes:
> As noted it is common practice for yeshiva bochurim not to rely on an
> eruv and see their wives push the carriages and shlep the kids

Many years ago I read excerpts from 2 separate Tshuvos re: the Manhattan Eruv

Tshuvah 1:
The Manhattan Eruv is ONLY to be relied upon "besha'as Hadechak"
Tshuvah 2:
Women who are "cooped up" with the kids on Shabbas constitute a sha'as 
hadechak.

{FWIW I am not sure where I saw this - was it in R. Kasher's article? - I do 
not recall the details.}

The upshot is that this pshat came to mind immediately:
That is any man should NOT rely on this Eruv
BUT
women who feel under duress MAY.

What I did not know was that this was being implemented this way mamash
in practice!
----------------------------------------------------
Also FWIW: 
Whlie I personally myself do not rely upon the Manhattan Eruv, I have
seen wheelchair bound do so - and no I am not referring to R. Schwab.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On 17 Jan 2002 at 13:06, reuven koss wrote:
>> I know that for this past shmitta, Rav Elyashiv poskined for She'eris
>> Yisroel not to use matzaim menutakim and for the va'ad hashmitta of
>> the local kehilla (I also think he poskined the same way for Rav
>> Efrati) he poskined that they could use matzaim menutakim.

From: Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> Do you know why? Does it have to do with She'aris holding like the CI
> with respect to Kdushas Shviis for peiros nochrim?

They both hold that there is K"SH in peiros nochrim. The reason that R'
Elyashiv poskined that way I do not, however there was some contention
from the She'eris hanhala here in Netivot. The reason that I knpw about
it is become I am mashgiach for both of the above metioned stores.

good shabbos
reuven

Gil Student writes:
>I have this vague recollection that eid mipi eid is kasher be'issurin.
See Gemara Bechorois 36:1, and S"A Y"D 314:5, Even Hoezer 7:2,

>I thought it was in a Ketzos but I could not find it.

you're probably reffering to Chap. 284:1

kol tuv
yosef stern

From: "Howard Schild" <hgschild@hotmail.com>
> Perhaps if one takes into account the life of the Ramchal (the cherems for
> being from what I understand [and I am open to correction] an independent
> thinker who did not follow the "authorities"), can one learn from him,
> then or now?

The GRA is upposed to have said that if the Ramchal was still living he
would have gone to him by foot.

reuven

Eliyahu Kitov Sefer HaParshiyot brings that the Yiddin went through the
Yam Suf "like a bow" and his picture shows they went in and out on the
same side. Checking his references in the back, he is gong acccording
to Chizkuni 14:22 which says they went in a half circle coming in and
going out on the same side. Does anyone else say this? a midrash?
Or is this a unique opinion? The Artscroll Rishonim book says the Chizkuni
liked to quote "less popular" views.

Chaim

Re: Birchas Hanosein Layaeif Koach

Tur Orach Chaim 46
   There is another bracha in the Siddurei Ashkenaz - Hanosein layaeif 
Ko'ach...
and it was instituted...according to the Midrash on Chashshim labkorim...

BY there (SK 6 in the NEW Tur Hashalem)
  Even though there is a beautiful Smach - since it was not mentioned in the 
Talmud I do not know how there is premission to institute this Brachah.  I 
found in the Agur that he saw those who opposed {mekattreggim} and the 
Rambam, Smak and Rokei'ach do not mentoin it, and so we follow.

SA O. Ch. 46:6
    Some say Hanosein and there words are not "nir'in" {note the mechabeir's 
rejection is pointedly milder than the use of Ta'us in 46:7 re: OTHER 
Brachos. IOW he objects yet respects on this case}
 
Rema there:
  But this is a Minhag Pashut amonst Ashkenaim to say it {tziyunim for Rema 
cites the Tur's citation of Ashkenazic Siddurim}

Taz sk 7 there:
<<  Even though it was instituted by this drash on Chadashim labkarim, it is 
NOT in the the Gmara and so wrote the Reshal in Tshuvos 64....

Behold the Smag counts it...

v'nir'eh that there is proof to rely upon the Minha.
{Taz then shows two Rosh'es contradicting each other re: saying non-Talmudic 
brachos} and he concludes that one of those 2 brachos were instituted BY THE 
GA'ONIM.
{now the clincher! --smile--}
That IF there is already a Minhag to say the Bracha we should NOT be mevateil 
this Minhag EVEN though it is not BEFEIRUSH in the Gmara.  because it is 
POSSIBLE that the Ga'onim had a SMACH from the Gmara.
{the Taz then goes on to dismiss the issue of Bracha levattalah with regard 
to extra brachaos and the Pri megaddim questions the Taz's logic here}
Concludes the Taz
the Minhag is Kdai {suffficient} that we need not uproot this brach mah 
she'ein kein by magbiha shfailim which isNOT in the Gmara AND is not a 
Minhag.  {The Taz notes a small smach to say this brachah and cites his 
father-in-law - the Bach -that we need not erase it from siddurim}>>

GRA 
 46:12: Tur based upon the Midrash 
 46:13 we do not innovate a Bracha not in the Gmara 
 46:14 {but the Minhag} see TY BM 7:1 and Maseches Sofrim 14:18 - "minhag 
okeir Halachah" - v'kammah mkomos bsehas...

SA - of the Ba'al Hatanya 46:6
In these lands it is customray to say Hasnoein laya'eif Ko'ach....
v'yesish mfakfkim because there is NO POWER to institute a Bracha AFTER 
Chasimas Hatalmud - {however} this is not enough "lidchos" the minhag and 
takkanas haGaonim BUT a Bracha that was NOT instituted by the Gaonim OR their 
Takkanah did not spread and most of hte Tzibbur did not customarily say it 
should not be said at all.

Aruch Hashulchan {AHS} 46:6
...perhaps they had this nusach IN THEIR GMARA...  

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

-----------

The Taz and the Ba'al Hatanya give some parameters re: Minhag {as in Minhag} 
Ashkenaz when in conflict with the Talmud - even an ommission from the 
Talmud:

1) it must have had a Gaonic Takkanah
2) it must be nispashet as a Minhag

IMHO the Takkanah is lav Davka so formal.  Leshitasi - I would say the Minhag 
having been nispasheit is a RAYA BRURA that such a psak or Takkanah was made 
during the Gaonic era.

OR that it was even instituted DURING the time of the Gmara but did not make 
it inot the text of the Gmara.  This is simliar to the AHS speculatoin that 
THEIR Gmara had this nusach.  Rather than playing with the text of Shas, I 
would simply say that there was a Masorah from the Talmudic era that did not 
necesarily make it into the text.  And what is the proof that there WAS such 
a Masorah to being with?  The fact that it was nispasheit as a brachah that 
had no Talmudic pedigree.  The Chazah must be that it had a valid source - 
Gaonic at least and perhaps Amoraic - albeit NOT in writing.   

------------------------------------------------
So to sum up how an Ashkenazic Minhag can be in conflict with the Gmara.  The 
Minhag iutself does not CREATE the imperative, rather it must:
1) Ratify a Takkanah
2) Give evidence to an older Masorah
And/Or
3) Give Evidence to a older Psak

So re: the hierarchy of Minhaggim, for any Minhag that goes against Basic 
Talmudic lore:  it must have a very early pedigree.  Later Minhaggim cannot 
overturn Talmudics - unless you take an extreme view of the GRA above that 
suggests Minhaggim may continue to overturn Halachah.

------------------------------------------------
Caveats - Note: the Reshal above does NOT seem to buy into the Minhag 
Ashkenaz as Halachah.  It seems that the Nodah BiYhuda YD(1):86 holds 
similarly.

Note: Sephardim DO say this brachah despite the BY/SA but al pi kisvei 
Ha'Arizal
---------------------------------------

We have then several schools:
1) Talmud ONLY:
   Rambam, BY, Meharshal etc.
2) Talmud Modified by Minhag:
   Tosafos, Rema/Maharil Taz etc.
3) Talmud modifed by Kabbalah:
  AriZal, Kaf Hachayyim, ben Ish Chai etc.

More on this later BEH 

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 1/16/02 11:43:14am EST, David Riceman dr@insight.att.com
writes:
>   I suggested that theoretical study is a modern innovation.  If it had
> been customary it's too good an answer not to be used more often.  I
> asked whether RRW had evidence that traditional sources used this
> dichotomy.

See Mishanyaos Brachos re: Rabban Gamliel
IMHO he makes exceptions for himself w/o abrogating the text of the
Mishnah or AISI the underlying theory.

In theory the Halacha makes no exceptoins.
In practice it does - hence the need for ma'asim

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

Now extrapolate this to the cases where generalizations are made literally
but not meant to be universal.

Ein na ela lashon Bakashah - which really means HERE na is bakasha but
not universally.

There are many cases of Halachah being kept as a sweeping generalizatoin
in theory but not in practice.

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

When you write a sefer as a code you deal with the theoretical and the ideal.
When you pasken in real life it's not so simple.
And written Tshuvos are probably a bit of both

Regards and Kol Tuv,
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>

In a message dated 1/2/02 3:48:49pm EST, cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
> Most Ashkenaz Nuschaos for Shachris and Mincha on Yom Kippur go straight
> from Yaaleh v'Yavo to Zchor Rachamecha. At Musaf, after the several
> pages of piyutim at the end of the Avodah, they go straight to Zchor
> Rachamecha. What RYBS re-established was saying Slichos before Zchor
> Rachamecha and after Yaaleh v'Yavo and the Avodah.

Correct
BUT
there WERE machzrim with dozens if not hundreds of pages of slichos that
were already composed for Shacharis Mussaf and Mincha. They are easily
availalbe in the Roedelheim Machzor and a bit more hard to find in the
Vilna Kol bo to name two

My question is:
If you are going to restore the slihcos to the way they were for 4+
centuires why not go back to an existing model and structure that has a
long tradition instead of slapping together a patch quilt version that
has not Masorah at all?

Plus if you see RYBS's version they are way different than the
tradtitional structure for slichos.

It was a great idea to restore the idea of Slihcos but why not do a
thorough job researching existing liturgy from Lita and Germany - one
that is actually still being said?

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.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         ]