Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 28

Wed, 20 Feb 2013

• 1. Re: Purim Costumes (Micha Berger)
• 2. When BD Errs, Who Brings the Sin Offering, AKA the MaHaRal that will not go away (Meir Rabi)
• 3. Re: Persian history (Kenneth Miller)
• 4. Re: persian era (Lisa Liel)
• 5. frig light (saul newman)
• 6. Re: frig light (Micha Berger)
• 7. How do Chabad deal with the Amen of Krias Shema (Dr Isaac Balbin)
• 8. Re: How do Chabad deal with the Amen of Krias Shema (Allan Engel)
• 9. Re: How do Chabad deal with the Amen of Krias Shema (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: How do Chabad deal with the Amen of Krias Shema (Liron Kopinsky)
• 11. Re: partnership minyanim (Micha Berger)

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 06:12:38AM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
: I'm curious to know the evidence that unlinks Purim costumes from
: Carnivale. If they're willing to accept, even if with a "some state"
: disclaimer, that the minhag began in Italy in the 15th or 16th cent,
: how does one *prove* people weren't copying the surrounding culture?

I see I wrote about this question before, revolving around upsherin.

As far as I can tell, there are a number of minhagim that only escape
halachic issues because no one remembers their origins and we evolved
poetic and uniquely Jewish explanations for them as they caught on.

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n008.shtml#09 writen 12-Jan-2011:

> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:17:24AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
>: The following is from Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, Minhag Ashkenaz: 
>: Sources and Roots by Rabbi Binyamin Shlomo Hamburger, Synopsis of Volumes 
>: I-IV.

>:> The German custom to bring a young boy to the synagogue with a wimpel
>:> (wrapping for the Torah scroll) has no connection whatsoever to the
>:> practice of the chalaka (the Arabic term for Upsherin) observed by
>:> Sepharadim and later adopted by many Chasidim...

> I would have interepreted the data this way:

> There was an old inyan to celebrate the transition from babyhood to
> childhood, the boy being ba liydei chinukh in his first mitzvos.

> In Germany, this evolved into a minhag involving a wimpel.

> In the Middle East (and from there to Mequbalei Tzefat to Chassidim)
> it got conflated with the chaluqa. Particularly since they were able to
> find Jewish meanings in having a first haircut at 3 -- which is where
> Mequbalei Tzefat play a significant role.

> We have a number of minhagim that we found meaning to that probably were
> at one time assimilations from the surrounding religion:

> Carnivale and its costumes is usually around Purim time.

> Whitsun (White Sun[day]) was a pagan holiday celebrating the return
> of grass to the fields, and thus the resurgance of milk production in
> the spring. Xianity built on top of it a holiday marking 7 weeks from
> Easter. In Medieval Germany, Whitsun was marked with bringing grass into
> the home and eating dairy products.

> Yes, I know the reasons generally given for the resulting minhagim. I
> would suggest that's what made them into minhagim. That, and the general
> forgetting of the historical origins.

> And if that mechanism is okay for Purim costumes and milchig on Shavuos,
> why not for Upsherin too? Just because it's not /my/ minhag??? Or is
> it more about a fear that Minhagei America and EY are emerging, and
> our own community's minhag appears to be losing this particular battle
> for permanence?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Reb Micha argues that permission is required before one can Pasken, which
is the purpose of Semicha. But I say, this is not true. The purpose of
Semicha is to provide permission to Pasken FOR OTHERS. Anyone and EVERYONE
must engage in Talmud and debate Halacha. If the Posek cannot explain his
Pesak, we are NOT PERMITTED to accept it, as per the reb Chaim VeLosziner I
have quoted in other posts. It is part of the system that compels those who
followed Beis Din's erronous ruling, to bring THEIR OWN sin offering.
Following a Posek, following a Beis Din, does not exempt one from bringing
a sin offering; even when it is the Torah, it is HKBH who instructs us to
follow the BD, to follow the majority.

The MaHaRal disagrees with Rashi?s Peshat: According to the MaHaRal, the
destruction wrought upon the world by those who rule from Mishnah, has
nothing at all to do with their rulings being wrong. Even were they to
ALWAYS get the ruling correct they would STILL be destroyers because they
DO NOT UNDERSTAND the logic of the Halacha.

Those who engage in Talmud notwithstanding their reaching the WRONG
conclusion in Halacha, are nevertheless fulfilling Gd?s purpose for this
world. These people are engaged in BUILDING the world, whereas those who do
NOT engage in Talmud, notwithstanding the fact that they get the correct
rulings and do the right things, are DESTROYERS of our world.

Reb Micha is puzzled by the question: what is "incorrect pesaq" if the
thought process [I presume R Micha means Talmud analysis] *defines*
correctness regardless of results. Well, of course this is a
misunderstanding of what MaHaRal says. MaHaRal is not defining CORRECTNESS
i.e. Halacha, he is defining what DESTROYS or ENHANCES this world we have
been placed upon and into. Even when people do the WRONG thing, if they
have engaged in Talmud, Gd DOES NOT CARE what they DO, because they have
positively edified and enhanced Gd?s world, they have accomplished Gd?s
purpose for this world, by engaging in Talmud.

Reb Micha agrees that:TALMUD is the focus and the core of our service to Gd
and the foundation upon which the world stands. Halacha, is NOT the
foundation upon which the world stands. Therefore those who learn but learn
only Mishnah, those who do not analyse the reasons, the structure and the
logic of the Mishnah, those who see no need to understand anything deeper
than the Mishnah and therefore feel comfortable to Pasken from their
knowledge, are destroyers of the universe. Whether their Pesak is correct
or not is immaterial.

R Micha has 2 arguments that suggest that MaHaRal is restricting his
comments to the Poskim:

1-      He talks about hora'ah, as does the Gemara, ShaMoRin Halacha ??and
this is the language of "yoreh yoreh".

I do not find this to be at all convincing, as MaHaRal explained, these
destroyers are being Moreh, which means being Moreh correctly.  IT DOES NOT
MEAN THAT THEY ARE AUTHORISED TO PASKEN i.e. THAT THEY HAVE SEMICHA. The
Gemara uses the expression Moreh since even when they issue correct Pesak
they are still destroyers.

2-      The Maharal compares this group to those who aren't meshamshim
their rabbanim of the prior paragraph. Again, a discussion of the
shalsheles hamesorah for pesaq, not that of the masses.

This is also not a satisfactory proof. MaHaRal is simply explaining why
this category is so much worse than the previous categories that have been
mentioned earlier in the Gemara.

How does the MaHaRal forcefully posit that RaMBaM would not have published
his Sefer had he known that its use would lead to people abandoning Talmud
learning, when RaMBaM himself writes in his intro that his Mishneh Torah be
used as the text for TSBP? The answer is that we must keep in mind RaMBaMs
guidelines in Hilchos TT regarding how much time one must dedicate to TT.
And RaMBaM is not providing guidelines for Poskim but for the entire Jewish
People.

Reb Micha argues that the MaHaRal explains the MeVaLey Olam as referring
exclusively to Poskim, people who actually get the Halacha correct. But
this is not true. MaHaRal simply says that the PROBLEM is NOT that they GET
THE HALACHA WRONG, but that they get the METHOD WRONG. THEY HAVE GOT THE
WRONG IDEA ABOUT HOW TO SERVE GD. HKBH does NOT wish to be served by
OBEDIENCE but by ENGAGEMENT. ENGAGEMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE correct
conclusions. And correct conclusions in and of themselves are WORTHLESS.
It?s like the story of the Bachur who ran after the Gevir who Farhered all
the top Bachurim in the Yeshivah, none of whom could answer his Kashye and
therefore none merited to marry the daughter of the Gevir and kiss the
Gevir?s wallet. But this Bachur ran after the Gevir as he?s driving away
and begs him for the Terets. The Gevir kisses the Bachur. Finally, a worthy
suitor for my daughter and a worthy son in law who truly appreciates Torah.

Reb Micha writes that he agrees with the following: TALMUD is the focus and
the core of our service to Gd and the foundation upon which the world
stands. Halacha, is NOT the foundation upon which the world stands.
Therefore those who learn but learn only Mishnah, those who do not analyse
the reasons, the structure and the logic of the Mishnah, those who see no
need to understand anything deeper than the Mishnah and therefore feel
comfortable to Pasken from their knowledge, are destroyers of the universe.
Whether their Pesak is correct or not is immaterial.



Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130220/e379f369/attachment-0001.htm>

Prof. Levine wrote:
> See Rav Shimon Schwab's article Comparative Jewish Chronology ...

and R"n Lisa Liel responded:
> But please note that when he saw that people were taking his
> thought experiment as an actual statement of what happened, he
> retracted it entirely.  Posting this essay without including
> the retraction is a misrepresentation of Rav Schwab's views,
> and is, in my opinion, in poor taste.

I do not understand what RLL is referring to. From what I read there, Rav
Schwab did not make any "actual statement of what happened", so I cannot
imagine what he might have retracted. All he did was to present two
different chronologies, and explain why it was so difficult to reconcile
them.

Please note his closing words, on the last two pages:

"It is because of all these gnawing doubts that I have decided to put a big
question mark after the words "Jewish Chronology." Let somebody with
greater knowledge come and pick up the threads where I left off. Our
traditional, universally accepted Jewish way of counting the years L'brias
Haolam is sacred territory which only fools do not fear to tread upon.

"This may be a disappointment to some, but on the other hand I muster the
courage to belong to those who rather wish to be honest to themselves than
to be "right." I would rather leave a good question open than risk giving a
wrong answer. And I follow the teachings of Rav Shimon (Pesachim 52b) who
said, 'Just as I was awarded for the research, so shall I be awarded for
the retraction.'

"The historic material which I have assembled may still be somehow useful,
even for those who will doubt whether there can ever be a Jewish chronology
which would satisfy the nonbeliever in the wisdom of our Sages. So I fall
back into the ranks of all Shlomei Emunei Yisrael. And to me 'L'brias
Haolam' means what it meant to our fathers. It is as simple as that. And
while we may keep on searching for the answers, we pray that Hashem may
enlighten our eyes."

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/51237a59929137a590181st01vuc

On 2/19/2013 3:12 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> The standard Persian cronolgy is
>
> Cyrus - Cambysis (son)
>
> Darius - Xerxes (son) - Artaxerxes (son).
> Darius usurps the crown and as Lisa points out the exact events are murky.
>
> These events are noted in various writings on walls and other writings 
> that survived
> (see for example The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the 
> Achaemenid Period 
> <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415552796/ref=ox_sc_a
> ct_title_1?ie=UTF8&;psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER> 
> - by Am?lie Kuhrt)
>
> Lisa writes
> <<Chazal actually don't say much about how long Darius and Cyrus 
> reigned.>>
>
> However they give the total Persian rule as 54 years

Again, with all due respect, I have to correct this.  They give the 
total Persian rule *after the fall of Babylon* as 54 years.  The 
Persians and Medes existed as kingdoms even when Babylon was overlord of 
the whole region, and many of the stories the Greeks record as having 
happened under those rulers may have happened during the Babylonian period.

It's notable that Herodotus apparently never heard of Nebuchadnezzar.  I 
mean... that's sort of like a modern historian who never heard of 
Napoleon.  But it makes sense if the Greeks only had contact with 
Nebuchadnezzar's Persian and/or Median proxies.

The Tanakh records Nebuchadnezzar invading and destroying Egypt.  
There's no archaeological evidence of such a Babylonian campaign.  But 
we don't consider Yechezkel a navi sheker, so it probably happened.  
Greek sources describe the Persian king Cambyses invading and destroying 
Egypt in much the same way, though Persian and Egyptian sources talk 
about Cambyses son of Cyrus in much more positive terms.  The Cambyses 
who destroyed Egypt may have been the other Cambyses Darius mentions in 
his Behistun inscription.  The father of Cyrus the Great.  And he may 
have undertaken that campaign at the behest of Nebuchadnezzar, in much 
the same way that the king of Edom went to war against the Moabites at 
the behest of his overlord in Jerusalem.  It's how things worked back then.


> standard chronolgy says Darius I ruled from 522 to 486 BCE (36 years)
> including the battle of Marathon
>
> Lisa and I both seem to agree that his son Xerxes was Achashverosh. 
> This means Achasverosh
> was the son of Darius and not the father of Darius as chazal seem to 
> state.

Might I ask where Chazal state this?  I mean, it isn't Chazal who say 
that the grandfather of Achashverosh in the Megillah was also named 
Achashverosh.  That's from Tanakh.

> In any case if Achashverosh is the son of Darius I then he reigned 
> after the Temple was rebuilt in the days of Darius

But we don't agree that he was the son of Darius I.  Darius I, also 
known as Darius the son of Hystaspes, was the king whom Chazal call 
Darius the Persian, who reigned *after* Achashverosh of the Megillah.

> Again Ezra and Nehemia seem to use the same names as the standard 
> secular chronolgy. Seder Olam Raba is written in EY about 500 years 
> later while the more detailed Gemara statement are about 1000 years 
> after the events.

Let me explain what I think happened:

Cyrus II            Cyrus the Great
Cambyses II         Cambyses II
Darius I            Darius the Persian
Xerxes I            Ahasuerus III
Artaxerxes I        Darius the Persian
--------------      --------------------
Darius II           Darius the Mede
Cyrus III           Cyrus the Great
Artaxerxes II       Ahasuerus II
Artaxerxes III      Darius the Persian
Arses (Xerxes II)   Ahasuerus III
Darius III          Darius the Persian

The column on the left is a list of the kings of Persia that you'll find 
in any history book.  Ignore the break in the middle, which I only 
inserted to make the match to the right side more clear.  On the right, 
there are two lists.  The first is the list of Persian kings according 
to Chazal (I'll explain Ahasuerus III in a moment), and the second is 
the list of Medo-Persian kings over the same period.

As I mentioned in my previous email, Chazal describe a kind of rotating 
high kingship between the Medes and Persians.  Darius the Mede was king 
of Media *and* high king of the Medes and Persians.  Cyrus was king of 
Persia.  When Darius died, Ahasuerus succeeded him as king of Media, but 
Cyrus, who was still king of Persia, became high king of the Medes and 
Persians.  Ahasuerus killed Cyrus and became high king of the Medes and 
Persians and apparently even took the Persian throne for himself.

Ahasuerus III is there because of the story of Babylon's destruction, 
which was revenge by Darius over the murder of his son by Babylonian 
pretenders, and because it explains why Nechemiah had to return to 
Persia temporarily.

There were a lot of things the Greeks didn't understand.  For example, 
they didn't know that the Persian name of the king we call Darius was 
Daraya-wahush.  So they didn't know that the shortened form Wahush, 
which they transliterated as Ochus, was referring to Darius.  They 
didn't realize that the hypercoristic form of Kshay-arsha was Arsha, or 
more familiarly Arsha-ka, so they created transliterated names of Arses 
and Arsaces, not realizing that these were just nicknames for the king 
they otherwise called Xerxes.

Chazal say that Artaxerxes (Persian Arta-khshatra) was a title used by 
multiple Medo-Persian kings.  See, all of the various maamerei Chazal 
fit together into a coherent account of the history of that time period.

> Everyone agrees that the Greek accounts need to be taken with a very 
> large grain of salt both because they were prejudiced and because they 
> didnt use modern historical methods for determining the truth.
> Nevertheless they present Persian-Greco wars from about 500 to 450 (50 
> years).
> It is  hard to believe they made up battles between themselves and the 
> Persians.

Nor am I suggesting that they did.

> If the entire Persian empire lasted only 54 years then these wars 
> began immediately after the conquest of Babylonia and then immediately 
> following the end of these wars Alexander invaded Persia (implying 
> that the Peloponnesian wars never occurred).

See above, regarding the existence of both Persia and Media during the 
Babylonian period.  In fact, the king of the Medes is known to 
conventional history as one of Nebuchadnezzar's vassal-allies in the 
destruction of Assyria and the rise of Babylon.

Lisa


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130219/a00e4f61/attachment-0001.htm>

http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2013/02/interesting-psak-o
pening-refrigerator.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130219/c0ed264b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 07:56:35AM -0800, saul newman wrote:
: http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2013/02/interesting-ps
: ak-opening-refrigerator.html

I'm missing the chidush the blogger is pointing my attention to in R'
Ofir Malkah's mini-teshuvah.

- Amira le'aku"m to do a pesiq reishei being mutar is news to me, but
  not a surprise.

- I know many Ashkenazim who rely on the Biur Halakhah and give their
  children (who aren't old enough for chinukh in the given melakhah)
  a motive to do a melakhah for their own benefit. So, why can't he tell
  a Sepharadi to make use of this heter -- as long as the child is Ashk?

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

Picture the scenario, you are a chabadnik and normally you don't say the
Bracha immediately before Shema loudly, and in fact are basically inaudible
when you are Chazan, so that others don't need to be in the conundrum of
saying Amen.

How though, as a Chabadnik or anyone else who follows this practice, do you deal with a Chazan who says the Bracha loudly and clearly.

Do you say it word for word with him, like others?
Do you simply ignore what he said and not answer?

With Go-al Yisroel, which I understand you are meant to say audibly, many
finish their own bracha and commence Shemoneh Esreh so that they won't be
in a position to say Amen.

The one Bracha where everyone says Amen after, is Boneh Berachamov in Benching.

Sefardim of course have no issue saying Amen after their own Brachos as per their Rishonim/Poskim.

I don't know if this is at all related to Brich Shemai where (if you aren't a yekke or litvak who doesn't say it) some end with an Amen and others don't.
I think there is a relationship here too.

The Rambam says answering Amen to one's own berocho is "meguneh", except
when it is the final of a group of berochos (eg Boneh Yerusholayim or
Shomer Amo Yisroel Lo'ad) when it is "meshubach".

(Hil. Berochos 1:16)

On 19 February 2013 22:09, Dr Isaac Balbin <is...@balb.in> wrote:
>
>
> The one Bracha where everyone says Amen after, is Boneh Berachamov in
> Benching.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130219/4df9322f/attachment-0001.htm>

On 19/02/2013 5:09 PM, Dr Isaac Balbin wrote:
> Picture the scenario, you are a chabadnik and normally you don't say
> the Bracha immediately before Shema loudly, and in fact are basically
> inaudible when you are Chazan, so that others don't need to be in the
> conundrum of saying Amen.
>
> How though, as a Chabadnik or anyone else who follows this practice, do you deal with a Chazan who says the Bracha loudly and clearly.
>
> Do you say it word for word with him, like others?
> Do you simply ignore what he said and not answer?

It's a problem, not just for Chabad but for everyone, which is precisely why
Chabad has the minhag of avoiding it by not being heard. But if the chazan
doesn't have or forgets this minhag, then the problem exists and Chabadniks
have to deal with it the same way everyone else does.  For instance by saying
the bracha with him, or by starting shma a second earlier.


> With Go-al Yisroel, which I understand you are meant to say audibly,
> many finish their own bracha and commence Shemoneh Esreh so that they
> won't be in a position to say Amen.

With go'al yisroel there's no minhag to say it quietly, because the halacha
is more definitely decided against saying amen, so there's no shayla to
avoid.  The chazan says it aloud, and the people don't answer (except those
who are not davening, or are in pesukei dezimra).


> The one Bracha where everyone says Amen after, is Boneh Berachamov in Benching.
> Sefardim of course have no issue saying Amen after their own Brachos as per
> their Rishonim/Poskim.

I think you must now be talking about ga'al yisrael, not ohev amo yisrael.
Sefardim are no different from anyone else in *not* saying amen after their
own brachos, *except* at the end of a series.  That would include ga'al
yisrael, if it were permitted to say amen then, but it does not include
ohev amo yisrael.  That's not the end of a series, so saying amen after
oneself would be "meguneh".


> I don't know if this is at all related to Brich Shemai where (if you
> aren't a yekke or litvak who doesn't say it) some end with an Amen and
> others don't.  I think there is a relationship here too.

No, there's no relation.  There's no problem of hefsek there.



-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Zev Sero wrote:

> On 19/02/2013 5:09 PM, Dr Isaac Balbin wrote:
>
>> Picture the scenario, you are a chabadnik and normally you don't say the
>> Bracha immediately before Shema loudly, and in fact are basically inaudible
>> when you are Chazan, so that others don't need to be in the conundrum of
>> saying Amen.
>>
>> How though, as a Chabadnik or anyone else who follows this practice, do
>> you deal with a Chazan who says the Bracha loudly and clearly.
>>
>> Do you say it word for word with him, like others?
>> Do you simply ignore what he said and not answer?
>>
>
> It's a problem, not just for Chabad but for everyone, which is precisely
> why
> Chabad has the minhag of avoiding it by not being heard.
>

I know some shuls, where the rav is an accepted Talmud Chacham, who Davka
say amen out loud right before shema.

Kol tuv,
Liron


-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130220/d2fc3491/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 02:18:29PM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: However it is somewhat astounding, to my mind, that Rabbi Freundel brings
: this Meiri, Tosepheta and other sources, but does bring what I would
: consider the more authoritative halachic literature on the subject.  In my
: view, the key halachic source is rather this Beis Yosef Orech Chaim Siman 53
: (letter 2):
...
: "And from the words of our rabbi [the Tur] and the words of the commentators
: that I wrote it is derived explicitly that a katan is not permitted to go
: down before the ark even only on a casual basis and there is to wonder on
: that which is the custom that a katan goes down before the ark on Motzei
: Shabbatot and prays the prayer of Arvit..."

: And so he poskens in the Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 53 si'if 10:
...
: There is to learn zechut on the places where the custom is for the katanim
: to go down before the ark and to pray the prayer of arvit on Motzei Shabbat.

The BY is a stronger defense of the minhag than the SA. It would seem from
the BY that given a choice, he wouldn't end the minhag. Whereas the SA's
speaking of "limud zekhus" implies to me a disapproval with the minhag,
and just a way to judge those who follow it more favorably.

: Now it should be noted that the Rema in the Darchei Moshe responds to this
: by saying:
...
: (3)There is not amongst us this custom and greater than this the Maharil
: writes (there siman 8) that one who becomes 13 years on Shabbat is not able
: to be shaliach tzibbur in arvit on the night of Shabbat because we add chol
: to kodesh on erev Shabbat and this addition is not relevant to the years of
: a lad, and since we pray while it is still day he should not pray.  And I
: heard that in the country of [Saxony - as per Lisa] that the minor
: boys are made shaliach tzibbur on the four weeks before their bar
: mitzvah and they should not do so.

What is see is that the Rama and the SA agree that in principle, having
a qatan as a shaliach tzibur is a bad idea. The SA's relationship to
existing minhag aside, he still stands pretty far from advocating it
for those who have no such minhag.

...
: Now Rabbi Freudel does note this, but appears to treat it as some sort of
: halachic aberration...

But isn't he following the SA in that attitude?

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 28
**************************************

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