Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 8

Wed, 06 Jan 2010

• 1. Re: Explaining boneh/electricity to a non-religious person (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: The Scope of the "7 Mitzvos d'Rabbanan" (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Explaining boneh/electricity to a non-religious person (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: [Areivim] Rov Jews in EY? (Zev Sero)
• 5. electricity on shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: Why are beards considers so choshuv? (T6...@aol.com)
• 7. conservative and reform for a minyan (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: reform and conservative (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: electricity on shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: The Scope of the "7 Mitzvos d'Rabbanan" (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Why are beards considers so choshuv? (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Re: The Scope of the "7 Mitzvos d'Rabbanan" (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 13. What are the Bracha Rishona and Bracha Acharona on a Granola Bar? (Yitzchok Levine)
• 14. The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

Plz post
R Zev Sero:
> 2. The prohibition on having ones mill running on shabbos, or any similar
> machine that makes noise heard by passersby, who will think that one
> is breaking shabbos. This doesn't apply if there are no Jews within a
> techum shabbos. It also would seem not to apply to any machine that is
> not audible from outside ones property, such as a radio. And it surely
> wouldn't apply if a Jewish passerby's first thought would be that it
> was on from before shabbos, or was on a timer (e.g. a clock radio in
> the morning).
> Did you mean one of these two issues, or something else?

I'm referring to Cat#2

Maaseh re: where vistors come by

I have used a clock-radio to wake up in the morning and I leave it run
on Shabbos

I once had a Shabbos guest [a PhD!] Question me - "how did I turn on a
radio on Shabbos?"

I was shocked - shocked! ;-) that he was chosheish me! Hadn't he ever
seen or heard of a clock radio before?

So it's my impression that leaving on radios or TV's fall into cat#2
here. [I'm open to changing my perception on this!]

But I have permitted programming a VCR before Shabbos to run out-of-sight

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

> Talmud
> Sheiltos
> Behag
> Rif
> 
> All have brachah on Ner Hanukkkah
> YET
> NONE have brachah on Ner Shabbos!
> 
> WHY?
> 
> Now, Silence from ONE source is perhaps not proof positive OTOH
> Silence from that collective is aisi solid indication.

A ballebatishe answer is that men don't make the bracha, so it wasn't
on their minds.  Perhaps they didn't even know their wives were making
it and teaching their daughters to make it; or perhaps they knew but
it didn't need to be written down because it wasn't relevant to the
expected readership, who would never make it.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

R Zev Sero:
> 1. A computer's *purpose* isn't to make sound.  One is allowed to knock
> on a door, because it is not a sound-making tool; one is not allowed to
> use a door knocker, because it is.

--


The Rif and X

Some say the g'zeira extends to any "sound maker" such as knocker and
others say ONLY musical instruments - and therefore knockers Are OK -
provided one does NOT use it to tap out a musical beat.
I'm looking @ Orach Hayyim 339:2 and I'm not finding it.

There is a macloqes re: snapping thumbs to quiet a Tinoq...and whether
derech M'shor'rim is applicable

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


Re:
Klei shir
Microphone
Bicycles

We had a debate offlist

Is microphone a klei sheer - and as such part of the original g'zeira
OR
It's an extension of the original g'zeira - shema yetaqein...?

If included, then extending to a bicycle makes no sense

If an extension, then further extension to apply to bicycle could
indeedmake sense, [albeit one is not compelled to agree to that extesnion]

+++++++++++++++
Tangent
IIRC I asked a sheilah from my late Rosh Yeshiva RSY Weinberg OBM
"what's the issur of microphone on shabbos?"
His answer: "hashmo'as kol"

AIUI then, this would apply to a non-electric megaphone, too

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 01:43:08PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:

> : >But this is already discussed in the gemara and rishonim, WRT the 10
> : >shevatim. My understanding of "Yisrael, af al pi shechata, Yisrael hu"
> : >only applies to someone who knows he is a Yisrael.
 
> : Where is this to be found?
> 
> See R' Aharon Lichtenstein's "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity".
> http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&;lpg=PA57&pg=PA63#v=onepage
> 
> And then try to summarize this discussion and reply on Avodah...

His case boils down to the gemara on Yevamos 17a about the ten tribes.
Assuming that Yirmiyahu didn't bring them back, and that they remained
in the places named in Tanach, where they made up a majority of the
population, the gemara first says that if a goy from those places is
mekadesh a Jewish woman she needs a get.  This is then rejected, for
one of two reasons: 1) The women of that generation of the 10 tribes
miraculously became barren, so that they have no Jewish descendants;
or 2) "They" [presumably the Sanhedrin of the time] "made them complete
goyim", which the gemara bases on a pasuk in Hoshea that says they had
goyishe children ("bnei neichar").

RAL follows the second answer, and seems to assume that this was not
a gezera but a psak din about anyone whose children are "bnei neichar",
which he is medayek to mean that they feel like strangers to Am Yisrael,
and therefore the same applies to anybody who is completely alienated
from Am Yisrael.  I'm not sure I followed his reasoning all the way,
but this is what I think he's saying.

The other basis he cites is a story about R Chaim, as told by RYBS,
who helped a Bundist but refused to join in congratulating a meshumad,
saying that the latter's children wouldn't know they're Jewish.

Interesting, but I'm not convinced.  I'd like to see it in *some* posek.
The pashtus haloshon of the gemara on which he ultimately bases his
theory ("lo zozu mishom ad she'asa'um") seems to be to be against him,
and like the Bach that he cites in footnote 32.  If it was a psak din
clarifying what the din is in such a situation, rather than a takana
that changed the halachic metzius, why would they need to do it on the
spot (wherever and whenever that spot was)?  And what is the lashon
"she'asa'um"?

And I don't think we can build such an enormous tower on the foundation
of an orally transmitted story about R Chaim, in a matter that depended
on mussar and gefihl rather than halacha.  It seems to me rather that
R Chaim was simply judging the relative severity of the two sinners,
and explaining why one was worse than the other. But if one *were* to
derive a psak from this story, it would be the exact opposite: R Chaim
was concerned that the meshumad's children won't know that they're Jewish,
not that they won't be Jewish.  If they won't be Jewish then who cares
whether they know it?  Let them davka *not* know.  "Ki yosir es bincho"
teaches us that your grandson from a shiktze is no relative of yours,
and you have no reason to care if he serves AZ or jumps off a cliff.
But if they *will* be Jewish and yet won't know it, then the story
makes sense; R Chaim was echoing the concern of the chumash, that if
your daughter marries out then he (the sheigetz) will teach your Jewish
grandchildren to serve AZ.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

<<Agian, this presumes that it's not close enough to inevitable to be
pesiq reishei. That has to be established>>

To be a psik reisha sparking would have to occur every time
one used the appliance not just over the long run. I severely
doubt that most appliance are constantly sparking.
Also as the article points out modern electrical appliances are
arcless.

This issue came up again with using (special shabbat)elevators on shabbat.
RSZA said it was not a problem because it is unintentional,
too small to be seen or have heat as is not psik reisha.
The physical facts were supplied by Rabbi Rozen of the tzomet institute.
Those that argue with R Rozen argue about the issue of the weight of
the person affecting the speed of the elevator. As far as I know no one
argues that sparking is an issue

-- 
Eli Turkel

 
From: Avroham Yakov _avyakov@hotmail.com_ (mailto:avya...@hotmail.com) 




>>Why are beards considers so choshuv?



We know from  the seder how Rav Azariah had a big gray beard
come via a  miracle.



But to get a beard requires two things: good genes and  not
shaving.  A person has no control over
the genes, and to grow a  beard, a person just does not shave.  That is the 
opposite of l'fum tzara  agra.



So with that, why does Judaism consider a beard so  chashuv?



Aside from the issue of the permissibility of eclectic  razor,
why is a beard so chashuv?  And why do
many men feel  embarrassed by their inability to grow a full bread (having  
peach
fuzz)?  <<







>>>>>
 
1.  It wasn't R' Azariah, it was R' Elazar ben Azariah, quoted in the  
Hagadah, "Harei ani keven shiv'im shanah" -- "I am like a man of seventy years  
old."  He was the man who was appointed head of the Sanhedrin or something  
like that at the age of 18 and miraculously his beard turned white, so that  
the other chachamim would respect him as an elder and not look down on him 
as a  youngster.  The white beard is a sign of age and in general, in the 
Torah  world the elderly are given more respect than the young, because they 
are  presumed to be more knowledgeable and wiser.  "Zekenim" is virtually a  
synonym for "the wise and learned."  "Zaken = zeh shekanah chachma."
 
2.  Since there is an issur of shaving with a razor, not shaving at  all is 
a sort of hiddur mitzva.  There is also an issur of not cutting off  the 
corners of your beard, i.e., the payos, and once again, leaving the whole  
face unshaved is a sort of hiddur mitzva.
 
3.  Shaving off the beard is considered a denial and denigration of  one's 
masculinity -- it is a sort of "feminizing" thing to do, making one's face  
look more womanly and less manly, so that's one reason it's frowned upon in  
certain frum circles.  The beard is /both/ a sign that one is adult  and no 
longer a child, and /also/ that one is male and not female.   Obviously in 
Litvishe circles where all the bachurim go beardless, they are not  
concerned that being beardless is "effeminate."  But even in those circles,  men are 
strongly encouraged to grow their beards after marriage, when they need  to 
appear more adult and less juvenile.  (And maybe they also need to be  more 
masculine in their role as husband and father?  Just  speculating.)
 
4.  Why  do men care if their beard grows in spotty, fuzzy or  sparse? -- 
that is because, as members of the human race, they are subject to  the trait 
of vanity.  Men want to be handsome!  For a similar reason  -- because they 
care how they look, even at age 80 -- women mind very much if  they find 
themselves growing a beard, even if it is only peach fuzz, and they  will go 
to great lengths to eliminate facial hair.  This now brings us back  to the 
"effeminate" side of eliminating one's beard, showing that the removal of  
facial hair is a feminine thing to do.
 
5.  One of the most charming typos I have seen in a long  time is your 
reference, above, to the "eclectic razor" -- which  is quite different from 
Occam's razor.  Occam's razor would be the  simplest, most straightforward 
answer to your original question.  The  eclectic razor would be, I guess, shiv'im 
panim laTorah.   It would  give 70 different answers without, however, 
shaving the truth.
 
 

--Toby  Katz
==========

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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100106/83df983f/attachment-0001.htm>

The daily halacha list sent the following clarification

Several readers asked us for clarification between last week's halacha
#1183 and #1186, as follows:


1183. Jews who sin out of a lack of knowledge of the mitzvos (aka
'tinok shenishba') [even if they sin in a mitzvah that the Torah
prescribes the death penalty for] may nevertheless be counted towards
a minyan. Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Berurah 55:11

1186. One may not count one who denies the truth of Torah Sh'baal Peh
- aka The Oral Torah (and certainly one who denies The Written Torah
received at Sinai via Moshe Rabbeinu) towards a minyan. [One may not
count Conservative or Reform Jews towards a minyan.] Shulchan Aruch
w/Mishnah Berurah 55:11, Piskei Tshuvos 55:21


Clarification: Conservative or Reform Jews who believe in Conservative
or Reform dogma that denies any portion of the Oral Law - Torah
Sh'baal Peh, may not be counted towards a minyan. They may pray with
the minyan, but are not counted towards the 10. However, Jews who
consider themseleves Conservative or Reform, but do not knowingly deny
the truth of The Oral Law (or any portion of it) are classified as
Tinok Shenishba, and may be counted towards a minyan.

-- 
Eli Turkel

 from "daily halacha"


Special Clarification: Reform/Conservative Counted in Minyan

Clarification: Conservative or Reform Jews who believe in Conservative or
Reform dogma that denies any portion of the Oral Law - Torah Sh'baal Peh,
may not be counted towards a minyan. They may pray with the minyan, but are
not counted towards the 10. However, Jews who consider themseleves
Conservative or Reform, but do not knowingly deny the truth of The Oral Law
(or any portion of it) are classified as Tinok Shenishba, and may be
counted towards a minyan.

Listen here for the Rogatchover's take:http://media.libsyn.com/media/kmtt/sheelot_teshuvot_eng_10_5770_BTa
bory.mp3

KT
Joel Rich

In late February 2010,  our NY Office is moving to :
333 West 34th St.
New York, NY 10001-2402
All telephone and fax numbers (and e-mail addresses) will remain the same.
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.

On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 08:42:01AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: To be a psik reisha sparking would have to occur every time
: one used the appliance not just over the long run. I severely
: doubt that most appliance are constantly sparking.
: Also as the article points out modern electrical appliances are
: arcless.

I suggest takig the casing off a light switch and seeing ho often there
is a spark right before it closes. I would guess it's above 90%.

Similarly, a motor running on outlet-sized voltage, assuming it has
brushes and isn't running at 50 rpm (60 rpm if you were in the US),
say the one in your blender. If you took off the casing and saw where
the brushes touch the plates. I bet there is a spark nearly every time
the brush goes from one plate to the next, multiple times a minute.

Unlike in a spark plugs, these are lo nikha lei.

: This issue came up again with using (special shabbat)elevators on shabbat.
: RSZA said it was not a problem because it is unintentional,
: too small to be seen or have heat as is not psik reisha....

I don't see the problem for a different reason. My weight's *contribution*
to causing those sparks has negligable effect on the sparks, the lights in
the various indicators, etc... I think that was the essense of what RYZ
of Zomet was speaking of. But here we're talking about being the person
who flips the switch, e.g. the use of a regular elevator. "Everyone"
holds it's assur, although reasons why differ, and the opening question
was how to explain to someone still exploring Yahadus the CI's reason
why. This rapidly shifted, as replyers noted that the CI's reason isn't
the more easily understood, nor the most often cited.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

I never understood the import of R Simla'i's words about the original
613, never mind the additional 7 derabbanan. Here we have a maamar from
a single tanna that we can group the thousands -- millions? potentially
infinite? -- dinim deOraisa into 613 mitzvos. And based on this we have
an entire genre of seifer in which geonim and rishonim figure out
systematic ways to do so.

Why? A din is just a binding whether it qualifies as the umbrella
under which are subsumed many other dinim, or is organized as one of
the details. I don't get how machloqesin about how to count the 613
could be so heated. Or how it motivates all that effort to find a system
that works.

I would have just taken R Simlai as drawing a parallel between mitzvos
to time (the 365 days of the solar year) and body (rama"ch eivarim).
(No, R' Simai doesn't refer to shasa"h gidim.)

As Cantor Wolberg noted just under a year ago
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n016.shtml#01>, R' Saadia Gaon
gives the source for 620 mitzvos not from the gematria keser, but the
number of letters in the 10 diberos in Yisro. Except that his additional
7 are the 7 mitzvos benei Noach.

Interesting implications about the nature of lo sirtzakh as a mitzvah
miSinai vs the 7MBN version.

The variant in which the extra 7 letters correspond to the derabbanans
is R' Moshe Cordovero's. I don't know if he's first, I just found it in
Pardes Rimonim 8:3. It's also in the Tanya, IhQ ch. 29.

And I think I found why they couldn't say like Rav Saadia. The Leshem
writes (Derushah Olam haTohu a/k/a "Dayah" 2:3:16, tr. R' Pinchas
Winston):
    This is done as a result of Bris Avos, which is in the 620 Amudei
    Ohr in Keser; there is the sod of Bris Avos and Yisroel, and from
    there the Torah was given, and this is the 620 letters of the Aseres
    HaDibros, because the beginning of redemption is not possible except
    from very high up in a place that the actions of men cannot affect -
    the beginning of the will for all revelations of G-d, and from there
    redemption from Egypt originated. In the merit of Bris Avos the
    world survives ...

IOW, al pi qabbalah (both the Gra's and the Besht's variants, it would
seem), the message underlying the diberos has to be specifically Jewish.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

The beard was for the amcha, not the rabbis. He was already a member of the
Sanhedrin and they voted him to be nasi. It was his wife who didn't believe
that he would be accepted because of his youth. However, clearly the
problem wasn't with the rabbis.

Ben
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: T6...@aol.com 

  >>>>>

  1.  It wasn't R' Azariah, it was R' Elazar ben Azariah, quoted in the
  Hagadah, "Harei ani keven shiv'im shanah" -- "I am like a man of seventy
  years old."  He was the man who was appointed head of the Sanhedrin or
  something like that at the age of 18 and miraculously his beard turned
  white, so that the other chachamim would respect him as an elder and not
  look down on him as a youngster.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100106/98547d58/attachment-0001.htm>

The Ramban has similar concerns about the significance of saying there 
are 613 mitzvos. He discusses it a length in his comments to Shoresh I 
of the Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvos

R Micha Berger wrote:
> I never understood the import of R Simla'i's words about the original
> 613, never mind the additional 7 derabbanan. Here we have a maamar from
> a single tanna that we can group the thousands -- millions? potentially
> infinite? -- dinim deOraisa into 613 mitzvos. And based on this we have
> an entire genre of seifer in which geonim and rishonim figure out
> systematic ways to do so.
>   

The following if from the Hakhel Email Community 
Awareness Bulletin 1/6/10.  http://www.hakhel.info

Special Note Two:  What are the Bracha Rishona 
and Bracha Acharona on a Granola Bar?  In a 
recent issue of the OU?s Daf HaKashrus, Rabbi Eli 
Gersten, Shlita, Recorder of OU P?sak and Policy, 
writes, ?If one does not understand the process 
involved in creating a granola bar, one could 
study the ingredient panel a hundred times and 
still not be able to answer the above 
question.  However, through our access to the 
companies that produce these bars we are privy to 
information that is important in resolving this issue.?

Hakhel Note:  This is the point we constantly 
refer to--one must consult with the Hashgacha as 
to the proper bracha to make on a product when 
one has any doubt.  For example, how can anyone 
know what bracha to make on ?Multi-Grain Squares? 
or ?Corn Cakes (made with rice)? unless there is 
a better understanding of the product 
itself?  There is a real risk, chas veshalom, of 
bracha levatala--both as to the Bracha Rishona 
and Bracha Achrona.  As far as the Bracha Rishona 
on granola bars, both Rabbi Belsky, Shlita, and 
Rabbi Schachter, Shlita, the final Poskim for the 
OU, rule that the appropriate bracha is Borei Pri 
Ha?Adomo.  The Bracha Achrona is more 
complicated--for it involves the doubt of Tosfos 
as to whether a possibly new Bracha Achrona--?Al 
HaAdama V?al Pri Ha?Adama? should be 
recited.  The OU?s conclusion is that if a person 
consumed 2 granola bars in less than 2 minutes, 
he has no choice but to recite a Borei 
Nefashos.  Ideally, however, one should either 
plan to eat less than 1? Nature Valley granola 
bars every 2-5 minutes and recite a Borei 
Nefashos (avoiding the possibility of reciting an 
?Al Ha?Adama VeAl Pri Ha?Adama,? as an 
insufficient shiur of toasted whole grains has 
been eaten within the required Bracha Achrona 
timespan), or to only eat the granola bars after 
having washed on a meal containing bread.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100106/9e219edc/attachment-0001.htm>

RAM:
> R' Rich Wolpoe wrote:
>> When did ner shabbos get a brachah? As per Maggid Mishnah [hilchos
>> shabbos 5:1] it's Seder Rav Amram Gaon. If so this list [of 7 derbannan's]
>> is NOT Talmudic. - but a bit later.

> The Maggid Mishnah's actual words are: "Kach kasuv b'Seder Rav Amram,
> v'chen hiskimu kol ha'acharonim z"l." In my view this falls far short
> of something like "Rav Amram tiken bracha al ner Shabbos".

> RRW seems to be interpreting the Maggid Mishnah to mean that until Rav
> Amram's time, no bracha was said on Ner Shabbos. I do not see that from
> this source.

OK let's lump some brachos together.
    She'asani kirtzono [Abudarham]
    Hanosein laya'ef ko'ach [Tur O H 46 quoting siddurei Ashkenaz]
    Baruch H' L'olam [Ma'ariv]
    Meqadeish es shimhca barabbim [Tur]
    Birkas Hallel on R"Ch [R"T]
    Ner Hanukkah in shul [S"A O H 671:8]

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

TA"Z on Orach Hayyim 46:7 WRT "hanoseih laya'eif ko'ach" 

Takes an approach which "nails it" AISI.
Noting a serious steerah Between 2 Ro"Sh's one saying "...lo matzinu shum brachah shelo huzkara baTalmud..."
The other "zos habracha tiqnuha ha'gonim u'mistabeir.."

Essentially:

1 Everything brachah in the Talmud is "axiomatic" - a given

IF the minhag [Catholic Israel] is to say the brachah -even If it's
post-Talmud "ein l'vatlah"
So "Talmudic" does not exactly equate to Post-talmudic BUT Post-Talmudic
brachos can be legit.

Now see Rambam Haqdama on post-Talmudic Taqqanos/G'zeiros/Minhaggim.  

Talmud is binding because all Israel [Catholic Israel] accepts it.
Anything later is local [but can be Nispasheit. See Rambam on the
obligation to recite Arvit]

Now see the aforementioned Maggid Mishneh. I am convinced it matches
the Ta"z. Why?

He brings TWO factors
A Gaon [viz. Rav Amram]
AND
The acceptance of all [his] acharonim [that equates to minhag or Cath
Israel]

This fits the Ta"z's thesis to a "T"

[Note I'm not saying that there are no other reads of this MM. What I
AM saying is: with my read all these sources fit together neatly]

Now see Abudarham WRT She'assani kirtzono - not in Talmud but it is
either A minhag or THE minhag as he reports it. This too fits Ta"Z.

Now the brachos in Tur. Since they are in Siddurei Ashkenaz, they pass
minhag [Cath. Israel]

M'chabeir himself proposes the non-Talmudic use of Birkas Ner Hanukkah
in shul, which does NOT conform to ner-ish-uveiso. It's a Post-Talmudic
use of the brachah

R"T proposes brachah on Hallel for R"Ch. [This it might be Talmudic or
might be minhag. It's a gray area.]


Those brachos such as "magbi'aH sh'falim" fail minhag. Thus they get
rejected completely.

Summary: with this approach it lays out the issue simply
A Talmudic Brachos are a "national" given
B Post-Talmudic Brachos are taluy on the minhag.

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


g'zeiros too.

Viz.

A Talmudic G'zeiros are a "national" given
B Post-Talmudic G'zeiros are taluy on the minhag. Or the acceptance or
Catholic Israel.

I haven't seen the Ro"Sh on PT g'zeiros.
I'm suggesting in the meantime that he might be saying:

One may not IMPOSE PT g'zeiros but one may indeed PROPOSE them. 

Caveat:
The weak-link is that with brachos - that latitude seems to be limitted
to Gaonim.

While with g'zeiros I'm not requiring a Gaonic initiative. [though the
Rambam might have.]

Otherwise my approach is m'yussad on this Ta"z and the MM AIUI

Another Caveat:
the Mechabeir rejects Hanosein layaakeif ko'oach and Afaik she'assni
kirtzono is said by Sephardim w/o sheim umalchus. So it follows that
ROY might reject this entire thesis as non-comformist to the Mechabeir.
Which is why I kinda dismiss ROY's approach as tied to a different
paradigm.

As above Mechabeir himself has proposed the non-Talmudic use of Birkas
Ner Hanukkah
In shul, which does NOT conform to ner-ish-uveiso. The SA here is using
an Ashk'nazic dynamic here and the no'sei keilim note that. And that
it does not match his stand opposing Birkas Hallel on R"Ch.

There you have it. The conjunction of Rambam, Maggid Mishneh and Taz
provide the foundations for this approach.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 8
*************************************

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..."