Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 164

Monday, August 16 1999

• Brushing Teeth on Shabbath
• Hi--I'm back--You forgot a Rambam source on Kings right to Kill
• Brief Introduction to Teamim--The MIDBAR and KORAY in Isa 40,3
• A Simple Non Cantillational Proof of the Syntax of Isa 40:3
• RE: Erroneous Psaks--Being Machmir/Maykal for a Tachlis
• RE: Sandhedrin Mamray
• Bracha For Eclipse
• Large gatherings
• Re: Hi--I'm back--You forgot a Rambam source on Kings right to Kill
• Re: ChaZaL and Technology
• Repeating verses for uncertain vocalization
• Shemiros
• ELUL-AND-CLOSENESS-TO-HASHEM
• Ba'al Teshuva - Definition; Dr. Birnbaum
• Re: ELUL-AND-CLOSENESS-TO-HASHEM
• Public health and the Gemara
• Re: Can it help to reverse the psak?
• re: Avodah V3 #153
• re: Avodah V3 #155
• re: Avodah V3 #156

Here are the laws

---It is prohibited to cause bleeding on shabbos--this is an av melacha
---It is prohibited to do any act which inevitably leads to bleeding
(Psik Rayshay)

Here is the medical situation

---There is a dental disease whereby PLAQUE builds up between your gums
and teeth. This
PLAQUE calcifies and allows bacteria to breed. It also expands causing
Gum irritation. If you
look in a mirror you can see the space between your Gums and teeth.

---A person with PLAQUE disease will ALWAYS have MINOR bleeding from
brushing teeth
You can PHYSICALLY SEE THIS by looking in the mirror after brushing
around some teeth...you
can see the drops of blood

---A person who has maintained hygiene will not see bleeding. In fact
healthy gums will not
bleed even if you pick at them a great deal.


SO---If you have plaque disease it is a psik rayshay to brush your teeth
since you will cause 
bleeding and you must bring a Chatath.

---If however you are healthy you can brush without using toothpaste

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA; RJHendel@Juno.Com
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Hi everybody--I'm back (more on that later). Right now let me dive in and
settle some problems

I was surprised everyone quoted Rambam Sandhedrin for a source that Kings
can execute

A much better and logical  source is Rambam Murder 2:4.

In fact this Modifies Moshe Feldmans position that the King worried about
society
and the courts about the law.

The rambam explicitly says that BOTH Kings, and Sandhedrins could execute
without
(full) due process. 

To borrow a concept from American political theory, Judaism posits a
BALANCE OF POWER
between 7 distinct sources:
--The Text of the Torah/Oral Law (God and Moshe Rabaynu)
--The Sandhedrin
---The King
----The Cohen Gadol
----The prophets/prayer
----The people
----Historical minhag

Consistent with the American concept of Balance of Power each of these 7
items sometimes
has "rights" over the others. Similarly each may be sometimes necessary.
To take some
non obvious examples we have
---A Sandhedrin/King can override the law
---A prophet can override the law
---the people can override legislation (eg work on Purim)
---Prayer can override prophecy
---Prophets are needed for Jerusalem annexation
---Cohen Gadol's affect "accidental murder status"

COMMENT:I used the above 7-part Balance of Power in a 4 part series on
the email list
Chevruta to offer a straightforward solution to the Agunah problem during
the past year.

Regards
Russell 
Russell Hendel; Phd ASA;
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Here is a brief explanation on HOW the Teamim indicate STRUCTURE. Rather
than give
you fancy grammar words (like left and right parsing, indicating how we
read sentences)
I instead give you some non notational easy to follow rules.

STEP 1:
======
We start with the sentences and its cantillations.

STEP 2:
======
Cantillations have a hierarchy: The Rishonim used societal terminology to
indicate level.
Here is a brief overview of the cantillation levels.

Level 1--The Emporer level----SOF POSOOK, ETHNACHTAH
Level 2--The King Level---ZAKEF (eithr one), Segol, Tipchah
Level 3--the Vice President level---Pashtah, zarkah, tevir, reviah
LEvel 4--the secretary level---Pazer, telishah, azlah 

All other cantillations are CONNECTIVES (actually eg A Shalshelleth is a
substitute segol but
this is so rare I am leaving it out)

STEP 3:
=====
Now simply REPEATEDLY break down the verse using the following two rules
	STEP 3a: Break down using higher level cantillations first
	STEP 3b: If you have 2 equal level cantillations break on the FIRST one
(Right parsing)

STEP 4:APPLICATION
============
4a) We have two halves based on the EMPORER cantillations
	A voice cries in the wilderness make a path for God
	Pave in the swamp lands a hiway for the Lord

Notice how the two halves correspond to the emporer cantillations.

4b) Now break up each half sentence at the FIRST KING Cantillation
	A voice cries
		In the wilderness Clear a path for God
	Pave in the swamp lands 
		A hiway for God

The indentation reflects how the sentence is broken up. Thus CRIES ends
in a ZAKEF, the
first King in the first half of the sentence and hence we break there

4c) Continue breaking up using the remaining kings
	A voice cries
		In the Wilderness
			Clear
				A Road of God
	Pave in the swamp lands
		a hiway for God

More could be said...but I think the basic idea is clear (I didn't break
up phrases with only
2 Hebrew words since according to Cantillation theory the pausal
cantillations are only
for breathing and not for meaning--but it would not change matters) 

Another example of two zakefs occurs in Ester 2:1. Or an example of 3
Zakefs occurs in 
last weeks parshah Dt 19:10

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA
RJHendel@Juno.Com
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

There is a simple way to PROVE that the cantillations in Isa 40:3 are
correct. This method
follows strict logical rules and is apolitical.

The method focuses on the fact that 93% of Isiah follows
PARALLEL-CHIASTIC style.

This means that almost ALL verses is Isiah either have a parallel or
chiastic construction.

What does that mean? See for youself

	A VOICE DECLARES
	=================

1st half of verse			2nd half of verse
-----------------------			-----------------------
In the desert			in the swamp lands
clear				pave
a road				a highway
to God				to the Lord

Or to preserve the order in the verse:

	A VOICE DECLARES
	=================

1st half of verse	Position in 1st half	2nd half of verse	Relation to 1st
half
---------------------	-------------------------	-----------------------	-
--------------------------
In the desert	(1)			pave			(see (2))
clear		(2)			in the swamp lands	(see (1))
a road		(3)			a highway		(see (3))
of God		(4)			to the Lord		(see (4))

So the point is that GOD=LORD ((4)), DESERT = SWAMP LANDS (1),
ROAD=HIGHWAY
Thus the verse demands by its structure that each segment have 4 parts.


Pure logic! Pure beauty! Not an ounce of politics. Each verse leg has 4
components
and this motivates the cantillations independent of any historical
context.

The words PARALLEL and CHIASTIC refer to the following:

Note how components (3) and (4) of the two halves are parallel
(DRC=MSILAH,GOD=LORD)
We would show this correspondence by drawing PARALLEL LINES.

On the other hands the first half a verse is (1),(2) while the second
half of the verse is 
(2),(1). We would indicate this with crossed lines line the English
letter X (or the shape
of the greek letter CHI).

Yes Yes...I know...Poetic structure is not a rule in all of Tnach and
there are many exceptions.

BUT...It is a good rule with Isiah.


With regard to the other question asked----"when can we deviate from
rishonim interpretations"
The whole point of my Rashi website is that all Rashis and most Midrash
Halachah is grounded
in logical rules of meaning and should not be broken. Feel free to browse
it (or to ask me questions
if you think you have a rashi that cannot be made into pure pshat)

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA;
rjhendel@juno.com
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

I think Rambam, Litigation 16:9 has relevance here.

It is prohibited even in complaints to exaggerate and even if your
whole goal is to get them to tell the truth. 

I would conclude that IN A SIMILAR MANNER it is prohibited for
a posayk to change a halacha because of his knowledge of the
personality of the asker.

Another point is that this person is RESPONSIBLE for taking care
of himself and therefore the POsayk has no way of knowing what
else has been done for any particular problem he is trying to
rectify. Maybe the asker of the question already took steps
to rectify it and distorting the halchah will hurt him not help him

Just an idea
Russell Hendel; RJHendel@Juno.Com
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Jeff asks about the possibility of a Sandhedrin Mamray.

His point is well taken. If you look carefully at HILCOTH SHGAGOTH you
see that
in the case where a Psak came out of the main Bais Din in Jerusalem and
the 
community followed it then

---if the Bais din uprooted a whole law (eg said the SABBATH was
symbolic) then
it is the COMMUNITY that has to bring a KORBAN CHATATH

---but if the bais din uprooted some part of the law (e.g. said it was ok
to brush
your teeth on shabbath with toothpaste) then it is the court that has to
bring
a KORBAN CHATATH.

It seems to me that this defines a balance between the responsibility of
the court
and the responsibility of the community

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA RJHendel @Juno Com
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

I am surprised no one answered this yet---it is OSEH MASAY BRAITSHIT 
(applies to all natural wonders).

For those into chilukim my understanding is that
	OSEH MASAY BRASHIT--applies to natural wonders
	COCHO OOGVARTHO--applies to manifestations of power

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA
rjhendel@juno.com
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
moderator Rashi Is Simple
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Shlomo Abeles writes:

> 90,000! Amazing !

Apparently matan toyre had six hundred thousand people though admittedly
it didn't make it to the local press. Probably hated chareidim. But then
again that probably doesn't count since the eyrev rav were amongst the
crowd whereas here the crowd was whiter than white. In the words of Ben
David himself 'anakhnu dor metsuyan'.

Confirms too that Menachem Porush's greatness far surpasses that of
Moshe Rabeinu since when Moshe Rabeinu said 'mi lashem eyloy' he could
only come up with the benei leyvi whereas our modern day hero utters the
very same words and he gets the equivalent of the entire dor hamidbor.
mamesh akhsher doro!

BTW anyone heard of 'ki atem hamat mikol hoamim'?

Dovid Herskovic

In a message dated 8/15/99 5:39:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
rjhendel@juno.com writes:
>  I was surprised everyone quoted Rambam Sandhedrin for a source that Kings
>  can execute

Actualy my first source about a king was from Hil. Mlochim 3:10 (which is 
it's place), for proof that it can be done also thru Beis Din I brought 
Sanhedrin 24:4, 
>  
>  A much better and logical  source is Rambam Murder 2:4.

As the others are Bimkomom I don't know why it is better or more logical. 
(and LchiShtimtzah you will see that in Hil. Rotzeach is Bkitzur Lgabei the 
other 2 places, Ubpashtus since that is not the main place) V'Otu Ki Ruchla 
Lezil Vlechsiv. 
>  
>  In fact this Modifies Moshe Feldmans position that the King worried about
>  society
>  and the courts about the law.

It was not his position but of the Ran.

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 8/15/99 1:13:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, weissz@idt.net 
writes:

> ====> I have no evidence that ChaZaL were "builders 

Al Tkrei Bonyich Eloh Boinoyich <g>

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

R' Mechy Frankel noted in v2n176 (yes, February was a long time ago) that
repeating zecher/zeicher a/m/a/l/e/k/ only dates to the widespread use
of the Mishneh Brurah in this century.  Do people repeat other verses
with uncertain vocalization?  For example, our baal kriah (the rav was
on vacation) decided, after comparing several chumashim, to repeat the 
phrase in this week's parsha of "dam/dom naki" (19:10). Some chumashim say 
dam-patach (including the Massorah notes in my mikraot gedolot), others
say dom-komatz (including the Koren chumash, generally considered very
reliable).  Is this normal?  Was it OK?  (The last, I suppose is a question
for the LOR).

  Jonathan Baker     |  Mishenichnas Elul marbim becheshbon hanefesh.
  jjbaker@panix.com  |  Don't know if it's classic like Av, Adar, but is true.

Rabbosai,  I want tostar a new thread about a major "pet peeve" of mine.
Many people these days hang up various types of "shemiros" in their homes.
The origins of such things come from as many different sources as their are
such "shemiros".  I have always had a very great philosophical problem with
these things, I can't accept that HKB'H would grant hashgachah pratis based
on wether or not I have a "raziel Hamalakh" in my window.  I have always
found support in the words of the Arukh Hashulchan Hilchos Mezuzah YD Siman
288 seif 11, and I quote, "Vegam Yesh limnoah osan hameisimin sheimos
hakedoshim vesheimos hamelachim vekorin lazeh shemirah umeisimim osam meal
pischeihem vachalonoseihem vezehu chutzpa kelapey shemaya sheHKBH tziva
lanu lekvoa mezuza bilvad veheim mosifim od devarim vezehu derekh amey
haaretz venashim vachaserei daas umitzvah limchos beyadam"
According to several acquaintances of mine that have recently visited EY,
it seems to be very common to find people hanging all sorts of stuff in
their homes,  Including putting such things UNDER THEIR MEZUZOS!!
Personally, I find this appalling,  maybe some of you have different
opinions on this matter.  If I could find out more sources on this subject
I would really appreciate it.
Shaul Weinreb

I have heard several drashot over the years about the
special relationship we have with haShem in the month
of Elul.

Can anyone please point me in the right direction to
find sources?

Thank you and a successful month of tshuva.

__Bob Werman
Jerusalem			rwerman@vms.huji.ac.il

As a newcomer to the list, I spent some time in the Avodah archives and other AishDas web pages to get a better sense of what its all about. I was pleased to learn that AishDas and this list (or at least a segment of it) promotes (or is at least sympathetic to) the program and aspirations of Dr. Nathan Birnbaum ("NB") for the elevation of Torah Judaism. A few more mouse-clicks into AishDas brought me to an article on NB by Rabbi Bechhofer, apparently a leading contributor to this list, entitled "Der Aufstieg..." from The Jewish Observer (Sivan 5757). 

It happens that I had a bit of a disagreement with Rabbi Bechhofer concerning that article in an exchange with him that appeared in TJO (Kislev 5758). I found the exchange less than satisfying because, among other reasons, I was denied an opportunity to respond to Rabbi Bechhofer's rejoinder (by no fault of his, of course), and some issues that I consider important were left unresolved. Given this group's apparent interest in NB and the timeliness, with Elul upon us, of teshuva-related subjects, I'd like to reopen the discussion.

The gist of my letter to TJO: Rabbi Bechhofer's otherwise fine essay is mistaken in stating that NB was not a ba'al teshuva ("BT") in the sense in which "we generally define a [BT]" and, even more so, in stating that NB "never succumbed to yetzarim," all of which is inconsistent with NB's own account in "From Freethnker to Believer." On the contrary, NB is an outstanding example of a BT for our age.

The gist of Rabbi Bechhofer's response: His contention is based upon a statement attributed to Rabbi Avrohom Eliyahu Kaplan that "[NB] is not a [BT]. He is like Avraham Avinu in that he came to recognize his creator." and related remarks of Rabbi Tzvi Kaplan in MiMa'ayanei Kedem, in both of which the term BT is used in its "classic sense," as opposed to the "modern, generic (and inaccurate) usage" that I employed.  The "classic definition" is based upon cases such as that of Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya, "an archetypical paridigm of teshuva," while in "modern usage" the term BT includes "all types of persons who come to emuna after a period of distance."  (Note the shift from the original essay, in which Rabbi Bechhofer based his claim on the way "we generally define a [BT]," not on a "classic definition.") 

So much for history.  Now, to get on with it, I beg to differ for the following reasons:

I. The purported "classic definition" does not capture the breadth of traditional usage. Chazal offer Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya not as a defining "paradigm," but as an exceptional case of such extreme depravity that his teshuva necessarily entailed death. Avoda Zara 17a. For paradigms of teshuva, see Avoda Zara 4b-5a and Menoras HaMaor, pp. 598-602 in the Mosad Harav Kook edition. The term BT is not reserved only for the penitent who was a willful or habitual sinner or who committed particularly serious sins.  The classical authorities reject such limitations and also apply the term with respect to the casual and occasional sinner and the perpetrator of common and seemingly minor transgressions. Orchos Tzadikim, p. 193 in the Eshkol edition; Shnay Luchos HaBris, p. 242-3 in volume 3 of the Oz Vehodor edition; Beur HaGra, Orach Chayim 53:5.  In its most basic sense, the concept does not even entail the occurrence of an antecedent sin. Shem MiShmuel, Shmos volume 1, p. 78; Siduro!
 shel Shabbos, Drush 3:3:5-6.

II. There is no justification for the charge of inaccuracy as to modern usage. Historically, the BT  is a committed member of a Torah community who, having sinned, subdues the active force of the yetzer hara that incited him to stray.  In contrast to this historical model, the contemporary BT is often a Torah-deprived product of assimilation, a tinok shenishba whose errant lifestyle is not the work of the yetzer hara, but whose return requires that he overcome the yetzer of indolence and inertia that resists all positive change. (On the inertial force of the yetzer hara, see Noson MiBreslov, Likutay Halkhos, Tefilin 5:6 and Rosh Hodesh 7:17; Tzadok HaKohen, Sefer Pri Tzadik/Roshay Hodoshim, p. 246 of the Jerusalem edition of 5754.)

Recognizing the distinct character of this contemporary model, we shouldn't lose sight of the common features that justify the use of the the term BT as to each model, the most important of which is the repair or elimination of a breach, whether great or slight, voluntary or involuntary, of ones bond with Hashem and His Torah, the spiritual life-source of Klal Yisrael and each Jew. Rambam, Hilchos Teshuva 7:6-7; Or HaChayim, Vayikra 19:9. Any Jew who recovers his/her grasp of the Aytz HaChaYim is definitely a BT. See Zohar, Mishpatim 106b.

Also, within the historical model of teshuva we find a phenomenon, call it the hybrid model, partaking of key elements of the contemporary model, in which sustained yetzer-driven deviation from Torah behavior results in habituation and compromises the volitional element in ones misconduct. See Meshekh Hokhma, Vayikra 5:11; Maharal, Nesivos Olam, vol. 2, p. 155; Peleh Yoetz, erech Yetzer; Pituchay Chosam, Vayishlach 36:21. This can occur to such an extent that the position of a Torah-observant Jew, the starting point of the historical model, becomes analogous to that of a tinok shenishba, the starting point of the contemporary model, in terms of diminished responsibility (not necessarily accountability), non-operation of the active force of the yetzer hora and dominance of the inertial force of the yetzer hara. All of these models are within the inclusive scope of the term BT in its proper sense.

III. NB was a BT of the traditional variety, exemplifying the hybrid model, not only in some "modern, generic" sense. In "From Freethinker to Believer" (in L. Dawidowicz, ed., The Golden Tradition, pp. 213-220), NB describes his upbringing by Eastern European parents in Vienna "with concepts, and amidst the practice, of traditional Judaism;" his gradual transition from "a believing youth, eager to practice Judaism" to abandonment of mitzva observance; and his subsequent intellectual conversion to atheistic materialism and his sustained action on those heretical convictions to the point that his will was "imprisoned and suppressed" and "the voice of my people was ... silent within me."  He also tells of the inclinations to change that stirred in him during the 20 years of his estrangement and of his powerful resistance, which he eventually overcame only with special syata dishmaya. 

In this account, all the classic elements of the hybrid model of the traditional variety of teshuva are discernable: (1) the characteristic stratagem by which the yetzer hara progressively incites a committed Jew to transgressions of increasing severity, beginning with the seemingly minor, until it finally draws him into heresy (Shabbos 105b; Nidah 13b; Reshis Hokhma pp. 393-4, 500 in volume 2 of the Or Hamusar edition); (2) the volitional paralysis that results from sustained deviation; and (3) the operation of the inertial force of the yetzer hara in resisting positive change.

IV. Finally, as will soon become clear, it is unhealthy to perpetuate the idea that NB was not a BT.  Apart from the statements of the Rabbis Kaplan, to whose authority Rabbi Bechhofer appeals, we can add that a rather cryptic pronouncement has been attributed to NB himself in which he dissociates somewhat from BT status, stating that the title BT does not apply to him with all appropriate precision because he was not a chotay umachti es harabim.  A. Shurin, Shiltay Giborim, volume 1, p. 25. To understand these statements, note that NB did not become a docile, unassuming member of the Torah community, but, as he writes in "From Freethinker to Believer," took his place as a vocal critic of Orthodox Jewry and a demanding advocate of sweeping change.  According to Rabbi Chaim Nussbaum, who knew NB and witnessed these events, "many felt that a [BT] ought not criticize contemporary Torah-observant Jews, much less suggest changes in Torah life," and NB's proposals received a cool re!
ception in certain quarters. C. Nussbaum, The Essence of Teshuva, p. 71.

NB's background was thus used as a pretext for dismissing his message. The perception of him by some as an uppity BT constituted an obstacle to the acceptance of his ideas. It is only natural that, with the purest of motives, NB and his admirers would downplay this aspect of his past, lest petty prejudice impede the ascent of Klal Yisrael for which he strove.  Most likely, Rabbi Avrohom Eliyahu Kaplan and NB were doing just that in the statements attributed to them, intending them only as rhetorical expedients to combat the smug dismissiveness that NB encountered as a BT. 

We've progressed beyond the prejudice that Rabbi Nussbaum describes and don't need of the fiction that NB was not a BT to cleanse his ideas of some supposed taint.  I'm not suggesting that Rabbi Bechhofer harbors any such prejudice. I'm confident that he doesn't. Nevertheles, contemporary BTs deserve the elimination of any vestigial remains of this historical prejudice, including the once-useful fiction that NB was not a BT.  Today's returnees shouldn't be deprived by definitional sleight of hand of the honorable title of BT that Chazal bestowed.  The example of NB should move us to recognize and take full advantage of the unique breadth of enlightened perspective that BTs bring to our communities. See Tzadok HaKohen, Machshovos Harutz, p. 44.            

Ksiva Vchasima Tova
David Nadoff                                                           

In a message dated 8/16/99 5:00:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
RWERMAN@vms.huji.ac.il writes:

> I have heard several drashot over the years about the
>  special relationship we have with haShem in the month
>  of Elul.
>  
>  Can anyone please point me in the right direction to
>  find sources?
>  
>  Thank you and a successful month of tshuva.
>  
See Tur and S"A Orach Chayim 581, and the Klei Nosi'im

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

Can anyone recommend a study of public health as viewed in the Gemara (if such a thing exists)?

Sholem Berger

--- D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@ibm.net> wrote:
> R' Moshe Feldman writes:
> 
> I agree that if a minhag has been accepted by klal yisrael (as you
> correctly
> define it), then we cannot uproot it. However, if a mistaken psak
> was
> accepted, once the correct facts are established, I don't see why
> we cannot
> uproot the psak. In the case at hand, it was mistakenly believed
> initially
> that electricity is aish. Consequently, electricity was prohibited
> on Shabbos.
> Today, we know this not to be the case. So, why not reverse the
> psak?
> 
> I think you have answered your own question in the first line
> before you
> asked it. Okay, so reverse the psak. Does that make the minhag of
> klal
> Yisrael vanish?

Yes.  It should make it vanish.  It's a minhag ta'ut--based on
incorrect information.  A minhag yisrael that is binding is one which
spread for "legitimate" reasons.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Richard Friedman will be back in the office 9/23/98.

Richard Friedman will be back in the office 9/23/98.

Richard Friedman will be back in the office 9/23/98.

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


[ 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         ]