Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 157

Sun, 06 Dec 2015

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:10:51 +0000
Subject:
[Avodah] Halacha as a System


Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original
truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history)
or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do
we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah
understood him through time)?  If the latter, is this because this is what
HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an
effective legal system must work?

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151204/2f42b9c1/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Micha Berger
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:16:34 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Halacha as a System


On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:10:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original
: truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history)
: or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do
: we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah
: understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is
: what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an
: effective legal system must work?

We have discussed this topic repeatedly.

Eg
http://google.com/search?q=constitutive+accumulative+avodah+site:aishdas.org

That search is based on buzzwords from R/Dr Moshe Halbertal's paradigm,
which I summarize at
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/eilu-vaeilu-part-i
and in
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/halakhah-truth-law
I comment how the Rambam's unique approach to the goals of Judaism
(that its goal is to lead us to metaphysical / theological truth;
Moreh 3:54) that leads to his unique support of an accumulative
model.

But in general, RMH says that

1- The ge'onim typically believed that machloqes is an attempt to remember
what was lost.

2- The Rambam says that new halakhah was built from what was given. So
machloqesin over new laws could be two valid conclusions built from the
process. But, machloqesin over interpretation of existing law are attempts
to remember what was forgotten.

3- Most rishonim say that correct halakhah is defined by what the poseiq
concludes, that this is an authority humans were given.

So, the Rambam would tell you to care what he originally thought,
but according to the majority view, the history of insterpretation of
what he thought is more significant halachically.

And in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/postmodernism-and-mesorah I described
that process as:

    The old way of doing things, from the Enlightenment until the middle
    of the 20th century, was to encounter texts by trying to determine
    the authors original intent....
    ...
    One popular Postmodern school is Deconstructionism. Rather than
    looking look for the meaning the text had to the author, but the
    meaning the text has to the reader. A hyper-correction to the opposite
    extreme. ...
    ...
    Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral
    Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in
    the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical
    intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than
    what R Yochanans original intent is what R Ashi thought that intent
    was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what
    the Rosh and the Rambam understood R Ashis meaning to be, which in
    turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh
    and R Chaim Brisker.
    
    That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanans
    statement.
    
    Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a
    statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being
    within current that runs through history from creation to redemption.
    ...

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:33:57 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah


On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein
: Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being
: kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on.

Why? Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and
ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos 
on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of.

I agree with your point, just that in this case, nothing compells
consistency.

Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone
could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse
to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it).

A chumerah in one din only causes a kulah in another (or a kulah in
one din only opens an opportunity to be machmir in another) when it's
a single decision about a single act in one event. Not when deciding
general rules -- there would be no problem with playing safe both ways.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:38:23 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] submission to an authority


On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 11:18:44AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote:
:> In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this
:> holds for your rav as well.
: 
: There's a difference between deference and submission.  One has to
: consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's
: no prohibition.  Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where
: it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10.

I would accept that correction. But it would still require having a
rebbe to defer to.

See also what I recently posted about mesorah as a dialog down the
generations. Withut a rebbe, you're not sitting in on the conversation.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             People were created to be loved.
mi...@aishdas.org        Things were created to be used.
http://www.aishdas.org   The reason why the world is in chaos is that
Fax: (270) 514-1507      things are being loved, people are being used.



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Micha Berger
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:12:05 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah


On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:46:56AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: R' Daniel M. Israel wrote:
:> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the
:> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey,
:> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived
:> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream
:> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post
:> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in
:> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists
:> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside
:> value system. This makes all the difference.

: Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside
: agenda?

Please let me split the question...

1- Were these changes actually sourced by an outside agenda?

2- Is it within the process to make changes source by an outide agenda?

3- Does emunas chakhamim allow us to believe that yes, they were changed
because of an outside aganda?

E.g. I could be obligated to believe that she'eris Yisrael lo
yaasu avla, change because of an outside agenda would be an avla,
and therefore believe that these changes were entirely internally
cused. But not be able to prove the point from historical evidence
and analysis.

In which case, it would not be so clear from objective evidence, but
clear to me anyway "that these changes were not sourced by an outside
agenda.

Moving from the question to my own first thoughts about answering it:

I guess that if there were two equally viable derakhim one could take,
why couldn't decisions between them depend on which fits other criteria.

The question is how much does prcedent itself make that derekh the
more viable of the two. Would my "I guess" only apply to entirely new
situations, or ones with a diversity of precedents to work with?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is capable of changing the world for the
mi...@aishdas.org        better if possible, and of changing himself for
http://www.aishdas.org   the better if necessary.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: H Lampel
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:55:53 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Ahab




On 12/3/2015 11:00 AM, via Avodah wrote:
> those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by
> Boaz's court (eg the Rambam)
The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1)  assumes Rambam 
held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new derashah, and 
that this is the reason Ploni Almoni's was wrong to fear that a later 
Sanhedrin would overturn the rule.

Zvi Lampel



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Zev Sero
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:48:09 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah


On 12/04/2015 01:33 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone
> could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse
> to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it).

There is no opinion that grape juice does not become stam yeinam.  The
discussion over whether pasteurised juice can be used for kiddush was
an entirely unrelated question.   *If there were* people who thought
it was not stam yeinam it was out of pure amhoratzus.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Zev Sero
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:30:14 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah


On 12/04/2015 07:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:

> But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do
> you suggest drove that ruling?

Lehoros bein hatamei uvein hatahor.  On both sides it was a pure
question of halacha.  Nobody had a personal or ideological stake in
the matter.


> Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century
> or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov
> activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside*
> our value system.

No it wasn't.   Whether one opposed or supported it, nobody accused or
suspected its proponents of having an agenda.


-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Ben Waxman
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 18:20:24 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah


The switch to Nusach Sefard was part of a movement that was put in 
cherem.  The assumptions made about that movement were a lot worse than 
those made about the Judeo Feminists. It took decades before that split 
was healed and it still isn't completely healed.

Similarly, Rav Kook was kulo internal sources/internal agenda. That 
didn't stop people from putting him in cherem. To this day there are 
plenty of folks who consider him and everything he said to be treif.

Ben

: R' Daniel M. Israel wrote:
:> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the
:> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey,
:> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived
:> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream
:> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post
:> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in
:> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists
:> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside
:> value system. This makes all the difference.





Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:19:48 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Ahab


R' Eli Turkel asked:
"Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry
a sister."

Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben
Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise
to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according
to this medrash.

Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda
that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only
was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan
shenolad dami applied even before matan torah.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151206/0ee77574/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:53:54 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Ahab


OTOH Rashi on the recent parsha with "kol benotav" gives 2 options. Either
each son had a twin daughter and so the sons of Leah married dauighters of
the other 3 wives (the twin of Binyamin being much younger)
and similarly for the other 6 sons or else that they married Caananite
women.

So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying
canaanite women

Eli

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Marty Bluke <marty.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> R' Eli Turkel asked:
> "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry
> a sister."
>
> Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben
> Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise
> to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according
> to this medrash.
>
> Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda
> that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only
> was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan
> shenolad dami applied even before matan torah.
>



-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151206/df8e35ca/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:43:58 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] chu'l duchening


On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY
: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to
: Duchen....

I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense
needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That the point of MSbF is that it
shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But
with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially
acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that
"in your face" even when in public.

: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal
: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker.
...

But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF
wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF? Why would he
feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason,
or make implications about their yichus?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch



Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:55:08 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile


On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 09:36:53PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd
: like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe
: writes:
: 
: "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have
: started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two
: or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the
: contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the
: Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz."

"They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu
lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the
sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children
or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor
the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch.

So I disagree with this conclusion:
: But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing
: something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay
: for yet another generation to continue on that same path.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:22:44 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim?


I feel that this conversation strikes me very like a group of blind people
arguing about the difference between red and maroon. Quite literally:

1- We are trying to contrast first-hand experiences that any of us
who are neither nevi'im nor even privy to ruach haqodesh have ever
experienced. For that matter, even nevi'im (other than MRAH) have a hard
time processing their own experience of nevu'ah; we are told that's why
they wrap the message up in familiar physical imagery.

2- It could well be a non-boolean distinction. Trying to find the line
between nevu'ah and ryach haqodesh may be as fuzzy as trying to find
where red stops and maroon begins.

I am therefore resolved to say that those who have "seen maroon" know
the difference, but I do not expect to know what it might be.

Because how can we distinguish by effects between

1- Nisnabei velo yada mah nisnabei, such as when Avraham says before the
   aqeida "venishtachaveh venashuvah aleikhem", that more than one of them
   will return, and
2- The author of Esther knowing what Haman was thinking in 6:6, R'
   Eliezer's proof that the book was written beruach haqodesh?

An indictation that they may all be points on the same spectrum is
Sanhedrin 11a saying that ruach haqodesh left BY with the passing of
Chagai, Zekhariah and Malakhi. I would have thought they marked the end
of nevu'ah. Seems to me that nevu'ah is being called RhQ, and the RhQ
we were left with after them is being deprecated as nothing in coparison.

(The same way "Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah" didn't obviate the need
to continue giving a heter hora'ah. It seems to be rabbinic idiom.)

Similarly, between the ruach haqodesh of kesuvim vs that of chazal
or whomever would just be more points of gradation about a kind of
experience we are totally clueless about, and should simply take the
statements as is.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 15
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:36:49 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim


On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 06:49:53PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot.

: The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what
: happened

Meaning, we are supposed to learn how to act from how the avos are
portrayed, which is all we really know about how they act.

This "problem" is true all over halakhah; why should this be any more
immune to machloqes? We do what we always do: find which of the paths
up the Har Hashem is going to be ours, and follow it. In terms of the
lessons drawn, eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim.



On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
: Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal
: understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that
: attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated
: by halachic mesorah...

Making that comparison, yes. Not quite saying it's an example.

...
:> I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are
:> perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than
:> the gemara did.
: 
: So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are
: "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are]
: therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"?
: Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal
: say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal
: say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of
: Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?)

I tried to explain why.

Peshat in the pasuq is less TSBP and more TSBK. The notion of a chain
of oral tradition is a less relevant concept.

Second, disagreeing with peshat is an argument about what words or
phrasing mean. A basically theoretical debate, with no nafqa mina
lemaaseh. Medrashim are there to teach mussar and hashkafah, which
hopefully do impact behavior. If all a rishon did was argue about the
story in a medrash, and the story had no nimshal that had behavioral
implications, it would be more comparable. But that's not what medrash is.

Similarly, if a rishon who presents a unique peshat were to draw a lesson
from the difference that is also at odds with chazal's, then we would
have a real issue. But as long as the difference is only in theory, or
understanding it to be maqor to an idea Chazal derive from elsewhere,
mah bekakh?

It is one thing to propose a new theory about what the pasuq means,
quite another to propose a conflicting lesson about values.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter



Go to top.

Message: 16
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 16:43:23 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations


On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
: >And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one
: >understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or
: >gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on
: >a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant.

: No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim
: are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation?
: Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's
: discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be
: learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest
: ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous?

Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that
doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it
in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been
introduce to the possibility.

There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to
decide new ones.

To illustrate:

If the amora said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that
there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply.
A tanna who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a
different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter,
one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to
permissability.

Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two
that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case
arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the
same statement and extend it to the new situation differently.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya



Go to top.

Message: 17
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:58:14 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile


On 12/06/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu
> lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the
> sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children
> or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor
> the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch.

There is also explicitly no value judgment about the first generation
either.  He doesn't understand what heter they had, but assumes they
must have had one.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".


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



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


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


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

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)


< Previous Next >