Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 045

Thursday, May 6 1999

• Re: The Rav (ie R. Soloveitchik) on sefirah
• retrospective reinterpretation
• Re: Ma'aser Kesafim
• Re: Fundraising Dinners
• Re: Fundraising Dinners
• Re: Fundraising Dinners
• Saul Stokar's Additional Comments (fwd)
• Re: Fundraising Dinners
• Flowing water from the Foundation Stone
• Re: Flowing water from the Foundation Stone
• Avos as individuals
• Re: Avos as individuals
• Talmidie R. Akivo and the Holocaust
• baseball games
• Minhag America, Minhog EY
• Re: Talmidie R. Avkio and the Holocaust
• More on Sefirah: Does Excitement Equal Simhah?
• More on Sefirah: Fundraising Dinners
• Pesahim 112a
• Permissibility of attending baseball games
• Halacha & minhag in Ashkenaz

In a message dated 5/5/99 6:51:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
C-Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<< with all this talk about assuring sporting events during sefirah, i get
 the impression that the people on the list say it's ok the rest of the
 year--is this true???????? >>

This reminds of the story attributed to R' David Lifschitz ztz"l. When asked 
whether it was mutar to see movies during S'firoh, he asked if it was mutar 
during the rest of the year as well. And in a follow up, when that more 
fundamental question was asked, I believe he said it was mutar to 
see.....Bambi.

Jordan

I didn't mean just the meshichist/who is Moshiach issue or even the cholov
Isroel issue -- what I did mean is it is hardly as if "modern orthodox"
folks have a monopoly on citing their rebeeim for hetarim that their
rebeeim never gave -- the same Rav Soloveitchik who was supposedly so
liberal on sefira is the same one who argued that attending movies during
sefira is no more assur than doing so the rest of the year.

>>>I have a standing challenge to the chevra to show that there actually is a
halachah of "ma'aser kesafim".<<<

Tosfos Ta'anis 9a citing Sifri.  Achronim debate whether the Sifri is a real 
d'oraysa (!) or a derabbanan.  Did you see the Tos. before you issued your 
challenge, and if so, how did you learn pshat?  

-CB

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> My query is, surely fundraising dinners fit under the category of Seu'das
> Merei'us. Aveilim, R"L, do not attend them. Yet they proliferate during
> Sefira (cut down on music costs).
> 
> Vos is der chiluk?

Perhaps der chiluk is that these fundraising banquets have attached to 
them the funds that are donated by the attendies  in the form of a very 
high covert or banquet sponsorship which (along with sometimes endlessly 
droning and boring speeches) often engenders feelings of burdon rather 
than simcha.  The group activity here is something less than simchadik 
which I believe must be an attending feature of rei'us. The mere act of 
congregating and dining in a room full of people should not qualify as 
simcha.  The fact that aveilim do not attend banquets is probably just a 
chumra be'alma which may be based on the similarity of environment to a 
legitimate simcha such as a wedding or Bar Mitzvah.

HM

In a message dated 5/5/99 9:37:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
C-Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<< The group activity here is something less than simchadik 
 which I believe must be an attending feature of rei'us. The mere act of 
 congregating and dining in a room full of people should not qualify as 
 simcha.  The fact that aveilim do not attend banquets is probably just a 
 chumra be'alma which may be based on the similarity of environment to a 
 legitimate simcha such as a wedding or Bar Mitzvah.
 
 HM
  >>

I would amplify R' Maryles' point by saying that there are many dinners where 
there is some kind of musical entertainment, which would indeed present 
problems for bona fide aveilim. Its not so much a question of the halacha as 
it is about the M'tzius.

Jordan 

On Wed, 5 May 1999 TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:

> I would amplify R' Maryles' point by saying that there are many dinners
> where there is some kind of musical entertainment, which would indeed
> present problems for bona fide aveilim. Its not so much a question of
> the halacha as it is about the M'tzius. 
> 
> Jordan 
> 

This cynical approach towards dinners is, of course, universal, and shared
by yours truly. Nevertheless, the halachos of aveilus do not differentiate
between exciting seu'dos merei'us and tedious ones. Back to the drawing
board.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Let me reiterate that this aspect is beyond the level of arcane knowledge
that is my threshold. I am forwarding it on because two individuals
obviously of a caliber sufficient to grasp the minutae of the issue and
debate cogently seem to be dealing with the matter in a meaningful manner.
Nevertheless, I think further debate on this matter of the Reish Galusa's
letter is best left to those interested and competent to deal with it!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 22:09:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Remy Landau <rlandau@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Subject: Saul Stokar's Additional Comments

Dear Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer,

Mr. Stokar's additional comments suggest a number of other questions.

> I did not provide enough details to explain precisely which year I was
> talking about. The year referred to in the letter (4595) uses the calendar
> origin of "Bereishit" (i.e. the year whose Molad is BaHaRad);

> this calendar was widely used in Jewish circles until the 10-th century.

My problem with the above statements is that the current year numbering
is the Aera Mundi epoch, with GUChADZaT tied into the epochal molad of
BaHaRaD. If that system actually stopped after the 10th century, when
again did the Jewish world return to it?

Also, where in that letter is it actually possible to pick up the
information that the Rosh HaGolah's calendar was using an origin
of "Bereishit" with the molad of BaHaRaD? 

> In our current calendar we would call that year 4596, since our current
> calendar uses the origin of "Yezirah" i.e. the year whose Molad was
> Vav Yud Daled i.e. 6 hours 14 minutes.

This is clearly erroneous information. The molad VaIaD is the molad of
Tishrei 2H of our current Aera Mundi. It is also the molad of Tishrei
for year 1 of the Aera Adami.

> As I stated in my previous post, while the Rosh HaGola states
> that this year has siman "Zayin-Chet-Gimmel" our current algorithm would
> require it to be be "Zayin-Shin-Heh".

It seems to me that it would take far more information to come to
any kind of conclusion governing the calendar than just this fact alone.
What other factual matter does the Rosh HaGolah's letter bring to bear on
the issue of the calendar algorithm used?

Could the mis-typing of the year have been the result of simple arithmetical
error? The 11th century scholar Albiruni noted the following

    In this chapter you may learn the primary qualities of the
    year (its being common or intercalary), but not its secondary qualities
    (its being perfect, intermediate, or imperfect). For frequently passover
    has been postponed, when it ought to have been advanced according to
    the theory of the Jews, or it has been advanced when, according to them,
    it should have been postponed.  

This quote may be found on page 159 of Dr. E.C. Sachau's English
translation of Albiruni's "The Chronology of Ancient Nations".

> Sar Shalom, and the sages and scholars he quotes in his book, as well
> aware of the above-mentioned difference between what Remy Landau calls the
> "Aera Adami" and the "Aera Mundi" (although they use the Hebrew rather than
> the Latin terms). I didn't mention this point earlier because I didn't want
> to obfuscate the argument against the claim that the current calendar
> algorithm is of Talmudic origin;

Pointing out the differences between these two epochal modalitites, and
how these apply to calendar calculations, would have helped the initial
readings of the argument, and possibly lent them greater credibility.

However, if the argument is that the current calendar algorithm is not of
Talmudic origin, then why even bother with the Rosh Hagolah's letter? There
is absolutely NOTHING of the arithmetical calendar method anywhere in the
Talmud. In other words, you cannot build the Hebrew calendar from the
pages of the Talmud.

At the same time, it is not possible to conclude that the currently fixed
calendar method was unknown to the sages of the Talmud.

In the case of the Rosh HaGolah's letter, we have not been informed of
anything more than the label "deficient" applied to a number,
ostensibly 4595, should be, according to some numeric process, "abundant".

This type of information hardly constitutes even the minimum
level of scholarship needed to help answer the questions governing 
the historical antiquity of the fixed calendar method. Therefore, more,
vastly more factual information will be required to support any
reasonable conclusion in this matter.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Regards From  Remy  Landau /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Downsview, Ontario, Canada \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

In a message dated 5/5/99 11:26:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< This cynical approach towards dinners is, of course, universal, and shared
 by yours truly. Nevertheless, the halachos of aveilus do not differentiate
 between exciting seu'dos merei'us and tedious ones. Back to the drawing
 board.
 
 YGB
  >>

Well, I would think that perhaps a dinner that is in many respects like a 
business function, more in the nature of an annual report type of dinner, is 
more what Harry and I are talking about. As someone who attends many dinners 
as part of the musical entertainment, I definitely see a difference. Perhaps 
it might also make a difference if it is a dinner where awards are a major 
portion of the dinner. Many Yeshiva dinners I attend, such as for Yeshiva Har 
Etzion or Shaalavim, are like quasi reunions as well, and those definitely 
have a much more celebratory atmosphere than some big organization dinners, 
such as the OU or Agudah, which concentrate a great deal more on the strictly 
business aspect. And shul dinners, which are often advertised as "Dinner- 
Dances" obviously fall into the former category.

Jordan    

On Arutz-7 report if the past wednesday, it was this text

7. RUMORS CONTINUE TO FLOW
Rumors of flowing water from the Foundation Stone on the Temple Mount
have
cost at least one man a few hours of freedom.  Rabbi Yosef Elbaum, who
regularly takes visitors on tours to Halakhically-permitted areas of the
Temple Mount, was arrested yesterday when he attempted to verify the
rumors
of the flowing water. He took his usual route, and when a policeman
ordered
him to veer off the path and walk in a Halakhically-forbidden area,
Rabbi
Elbaum refused. The policeman arrested him, and he was released only a
few
hours later.  Rabbi Elbaum was unable to verify the truth of the rumors.


Speaking with Arutz-7 today, Rabbi Elbaum said, "The Book of Ezekiel
mentions that water will begin flowing from the Foundation Rock, after
chapters on the construction of the Beit HaMikdash (Holy Temple).  We
have
heard rumors of foreign press reports over the past week that waters
have
started to flow from the Rock, and that it is impossible to locate the
source or to stop the flow."  Rabbi Elbaum said that, from the answers
to
his inquiries on the topic during his walk yesterday, and from the fact
that he was arrested on "such a baseless charge," he suspects that the
policemen and the Waqf personnel were attempting to hide something from
him.


Can anyone told me more on this sign ?

On Thu, 6 May 1999, OUAKNINE Salomon wrote:

> Can anyone told me more on this sign ? 
> 

So far as I know, the waters only flow after the Beis HaMikdash is rebuilt
and they bwecome a torrent outside of the Beis HaMikdash.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

REC: >Actually, we do say Elokei for all of them; we say Elokei Avotenu.  
This makes the recitation of Elokei Avraham, etc. seem even more repetitive.<<

Jordan:>>The Avos were each of them m'chadesh the idea that mere finite man 
could  even have a prayer relationship with the infinite Borei Olam.<<



1)  See Shmos 3:6 etc. which lich'ora have nothing to do with Tefilo. There is 
one exception possuk 3:16 which highlights the redundancy within the other 
pesukim in the parsha.  The formula in the shmoeni Exrai follows the pattern in 
3:6 except ovichu is reflected back as avoseinu.



2) I heard the Rav on Tisho B'av say over and over that Yirmiyahu by saying 
Eicho gave us permisssion to question and to be mekonnein.  Otherwise we would 
have been expected to remain silent (perhaps like vayidom Aharon)

Rich Wolpoe     

I had understood the mention of the individual avos in Sh'moneh Esrai to be
about them as archetypes. We identify HKBH as the G-d who can be worshipped
through the chessed of Avraham, the avodah and gevurah of Yitzchak and the
Torah and emmes of Ya'akov.

We percieve HKBH in three very different ways depending upon which eyes of the
soul are doing the looking. To the nefesh, HKBH is seen in perishus from
self-indulgence in gashmiyus, through the tzelem Elokim seen in others, through
laws that set up an orderly society.

To the neshamah, HKBH is a real and immediate presence, one that can be spoken
to, and in the case of a navi, heard. The "kol d'mama daka" of Elokei Yitzchak
is a very different relationship to HKBH than the orderly society of Elokei
Avraham.

Yaakov "ish tam yosheiv ohalim" saw HKBH through the thoughts of the ruach,
by learning His Torah and trying to think His "Thoughts". To be a ba'al
teshuvah, creating and recreating his self and stiving for self-perfection.

In short, because the human self is tripartite, we see three different images of
the deity. Each of the avos mastered each.

To my mind, the point of "E-lokei avoseinu" isn't a summary of "E-lokei Avraham,
E-lokey Yitzchak, v'E-lokei Ya'akov", it's a contrast to "E-lokeinu". When we
speak of HKBH as a Legislator, midas hadin, we can mean it in two different
ways. Hashem's the Author of the laws of nature, which we all /must/ obey, and
He's the Author of the laws of Torah, which we can choose to obey. The avos
accepted the Legislator of this second kind in a way we only strive to.
Therefore, while "E-lokeinu" is about the Author of nature, "E-lokei Avoseinu"
is about the Author of halachah.

The Gaon understands the b'rachah to be an expansion of the theme of "haE-l
haGadol haGibbor vihaNorah". In his structure, "E-lokeinu" corresponds to
"haGibbor", which the Gaon understands to be a statement of HKBH acting within
derech hateva. "E-lokei Avoseinu..." is "vihaNora", lima'alah miteva. After all,
the avos experienced far more neis than we do.

This fits my understanding. By accepting HKBH's laws beyond just those imposed
by teva one can merit HKBH going beyond teva in reponse.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287     MMG"H for  6-May-99: Chamishi, Behar-Bechukosai
micha@aishdas.org                                    A"H O"Ch 317:23-29
http://www.aishdas.org                               Eruvin 76a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.    Kuzari II 13-16

Esteemed Moderator Micha:
 >>As to whether this sets a precedent for our descendents 500 years from now to
find a sin that caused the holocaust... There's a clear difference, as the 
holocaust was a national tragedy, killing the potentially sinfull and the 
newborn alike. <<

I'm not sure what's meant by "national tragedy" Wouldn't the death of the 24k 
talmidim also consititue a "national tragedy?

I liken the death of the 24k Talmidim to those of Nodov v'Avihu...v'achicheim 
kol beis Yisroel yivku es hasreifo...

Similarly, aren't we all in a sense mourning the deaths of the 24k Talmidim 
during Sefiro?

Rich Wolpoe

Attendance at a baseball game no doubt provides special opportunities for
the intellectual understanding of the game that are unavailable to the
passive, stay at home, audience. To that extent, attendance would not be
simhat mereut.

In real life, however, even those with a keen intellectual appreciation of
the unfolding drama on the field will usually attend a baseball game as a
social event. Few of us, except for journalists and scouts, would go
alone. Thus the essence of such attendance is social.

I don't know what the Rav zt'l would have said about someone like
President Nixon, who for a period after his retirement from his official
position spent every possible evening at Yankee Stadium as a matter of
course. 

REC:>>
The issue of "minhag America" is a complex one.  Rich Wolpoe has 
discussed it in the past.... Rather, New York has a din
of a place with two (or more) battei din, wherein different kehillot 
are entitled to maintain different customs. <<

BTW  focus re: Minhag America has been primarliy litrugical. With all due 
respect, the above sevoro seems to be a bedieved rationalization of what 
happened rather than a lechatchilo prescription for what should happen. 
(Remember, NYC was originally colonized in 1654 by Sefardic Jews refrained from 
There was no Ashkenzic Minyon in NYC prior to circa 1820.)  

Let's re-visit Minhag EY. Isn't that also a place that has absorbed numerous 
immigrants?  So how is it Benie Ashkenaz would be forced to wear Tefillin 
be'tzin'o during chol hamoed while in NYC they can wear it befarhesyo?  

to quote RYGB "Vos is der chiluk?"        

Me:
> As to whether this sets a precedent for our descendents 500 years from now to
> find a sin that caused the holocaust... There's a clear difference, as the 
> holocaust was a national tragedy, killing the potentially sinfull and the 
> newborn alike.

Richard Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> asks:
: I'm not sure what's meant by "national tragedy" Wouldn't the death of the 24k 
: talmidim also consititue a "national tragedy?

What I meant was that since the holocaust included people who clearly
weren't guilty -- such as newborns -- there's no way we can understand it
as a retribution for the victims' sins.  That is unlike R' Akiva's students,
where they are being identified as the guilty individuals, each dying for
their own sin.

Perhaps the nation's sins could be identified to explain how the holocaust
worked within din (perhaps not), but nothing that would explain why these
particular people had to be its victims. At best we could say the nation
as a whole got punished for it as a whole's sins. Which, as I mentioned, is
all any of the tochachos guarantee in terms of s'char va'onesh in this world.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287     MMG"H for  6-May-99: Chamishi, Behar-Bechukosai
micha@aishdas.org                                    A"H O"Ch 317:23-29
http://www.aishdas.org                               Eruvin 76a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.    Kuzari II 13-16

Moshe Feldman writes:

>Excitement and simcha she'balev are
>two different things.  Perhaps baseball games are exciting for some
>and bungee jumping is exciting for others.  No one ever prohibited
>bungee jumping during sefirah.

>Again, I differentiate between excitement and happiness.  Remember
>that in the time of Chazal, simchat m'reut with music was probably
>infrequent (weddings, probably not bar mitzvahs).

I believe the technical distinction between excitement and simhah
collapses when the person in question derives great enjoyment from it.
For whatever reason (and I leave such analysis to sociologists and
psychologists), many people today "enjoy" shocks, thrills and
excitement.  A huge sector of the entertainment industry caters to this
audience, from roller coasters to horror films, from shock radio to
Stephen King novels.  I believe that going to an amusement park is
entirely inconsistent with the nihugim associated with sefirah, and I
think most authorities would agree.   Similarly, if a person finds
bungee jumping very enjoyable then (he should get professional
counselling :), but in any case) such an activity would also be
off-limits during Sefirah.

A different question involves the subjective vs. objective question,
i.e., when is a particular activity so generally regarded as a
simhah-oriented activity that is becomes prohibited for all.  It is not
my place to to establish a general standard, but I think baseball games
pass the test.

Finally, you add a bit of historical speculation regarding the times of
Hazal.  Honestly, I have no idea (and I wonder whether you do) how often
simhat me-re'ut occurred in the time of Hazal.  Al regel ahat, I would
guess that the answer was, for the rich, often, for the poor,
infrequently.  But, in truth, I believe the point to be irrelevant to
our discussion.

I grant that simhat me-re'ut is intended to be a non-routine activity.
But I think the determination has to be made on an activity-by-activity
basis.  I think it is halakhically insufficient to say that we have more
leisure time than Hazal did, therefore we regard all simhah as more
routine.  Take, a wedding, for example.  A wedding is a big event, even
in our day.  When does it become routine?  For an officiating rabbi or a
musician, the answer, I think, is clear.  But what if, as commonly
occurs at a certain stage of life, a person has many friends who get
married within a single year?  While attending, say 12 weddings in a
year may make the events less novel, I do not believe the weddings would
lose their status regarding simah me-re'ut.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

RYGB asks:

>Subject: Of Baseball Games and Fundraising Dinners

>There must be some connection between the two. REC?

>My query is, surely fundraising dinners fit under the category of Seu'das
>Merei'us. Aveilim, R"L, do not attend them. Yet they proliferate during
>Sefira (cut down on music costs).

>Vos is der chiluk?

The question is an excellent one.  Having sat at more than one such
dinner and wished I was sitting behind third base, I can honestly say
that simhah, in this case, is a relative term.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two answers.  One is that we tend
to be meykil on certain things when tzedakah is the goal.  A fine
example of this are the appeals held in shul on hagim, and even Yom
Kippur, which are not very much in keeping with the kedushat ha-yom or
the kedushat ha-makom, except that they relate to some kind of tzedakah.
 (However, I actually have strong halakhic objections to the oft-heard
assertion that giving money to a shul or a school is tzedakah.  While
the IRS calls it charity, I don't think halakhah does.  But don't get me
started on that  . . .)

My second answer is that, in the absence of music/entertainment and for
a person who is not an honoree, a strong argument can be made that there
is no simhat me-re'ut, because the people are coming primarily for
li-dvar mitzvat tzedakah.  Hence, a person who is (lo alenu) an avel
should be allowed to attend such a dinner just as much as s/he is
allowed to attend shul or a public shi'ur.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

R Daniel Eidensohn writes:

>To tell one's Rebbe that you will kill him because you love Torah so much
>is hard to accept - even if not meant literally.

Agreed.

>But your second
>alternative would mean that a student can threaten to commit suicide (which
>is what prison was in those times) in order to force his rebbe to teach him
>Torah?! Finally R. Shimon is poskening before his Rebbe. He doesn't say
>"would you please reconsider your decision - he says "if you don't retract
>your psak that you won't teach me because of danger and accept my psak that
>you must teach me  - I will inform on you".

>Anyway you analyze it - the gemora seems to be incongruent with hashkofa and
>halacha. I have never heard any event which sounds anyway similar to this
>story.

You will forgive me I hope if I do not read a halakhic debate into this
particular aggadah.  Although you choose to read it that way, I find
nothing in the gemara's words to warrant such a reading.

As I understand it, the story is abour Rashbi's willingness to sacrifice
his life for Torah.  This is very much in keeping with other midrashim
("Adam ki yamut ba-ohel . . .") as well as the related aggadah about R.
Akiva in Berakhot.  While R. Akiva was willing to make the sacrifice for
himself, he did not want to risk the life of his talmid.  When Rashbi
insists that he wishes to take the risk upon himself, R. Akiva relents.

The ma'aseh is still extreme.  But it does not lack rough hashkafic
parallels.

(Indeed, given our past hashkafic debates, I find it telling that you
read the aggadah primarily in the context of the subordination of a
talmid to his rebbe, rather than as an illustration of literal (!)
mesirut nefesh for Torah.)

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Elie Ginsparg asks:

>with all this talk about assuring sporting events during sefirah, i get
>the impression that the people on the list say it's ok the rest of the
>year--is this true????????

I think this is one of the more pressing issues for all benei Torah to
resolve (especially those who are Yankee fans).  On this question, I
direct the tzibbur's attention  to the high-level debate on this
question between our esteemed listmember, RYGB, and R. Mayer Schiller,
which appears in the correspondence pages of the Torah u-Madda Journal
(I forget the volume number).  Indeed, perhaps RYGB would like to take
the opportunity to get the last word in here, on this list, as he was
not able to in print.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark 

Apropos of recent discussions on the role of minhag among the Ashkenazi
rishonim, here's an abstract of an article in the Bar-Ilan journal Sidra
vol III:

    Law, Custom and Tradition in Early Jewish Germany
                - Tentative Reflections
                   Israel Ta-Shma

    In "Law, Custom and Tradition in early Jewish
    Germany-Tentative Reflections"- Prof. Ta-Shma
    investigates early Ashkenazic custom from
    phenomenological and historical evolutionary perspectives.
    In the first part of the paper various attributes particular to
    Ashkenazic custom are presented. The author
    demonstrates the full development of Ashkenazic custom
    as exiting already in the eleventh century, challenging the
    widely held belief, since Graetz, that obsession with custom
    is a fourteenth-century development, an outgrowth of the
    decadence characteristic of that century. A general theory is
    proposed for the attitude towards custom and its rank in
    halakhic hierarchy in early Ashkenaz.

    The actual historic development of Ashkenazic custom and
    the struggle concerning it are dealt with in the second part
    of this paper. The establishment by R. Gershom of the
    yeshiva in Mainz, and the ensuing advance of the study of
    the Babylonian Talmud, undermined the basic Ashkenazic
    perception of the precedence of living custom and oral
    tradition over halakhic literary sources. In the ensuing
    competition between the mitzva of theoretical Torah study
    and observance of other mitzvot, the former gradually
    gained the upper hand. The many contrasts between
    Babylonian halakhah and the traditional halakhah and
    custom of Ashkenaz were gradually exposed and it became
    clear that these could be harmonized only with great
    difficulty, if at all. During the eleventh century the devotees
    of the old school strggled to protect their traditions and their
    attitudes, and they sanctified custom in almost
    metaphysical terms. Important scholars opposed this trend,
    but the devotees of custom succeeded in censoring the
    opposition in their writings, which constitute the majority of
    what has come down to us from eleventh century literature.
    Thus, when we first meet Ashkenazic custom in its full
    strength, in the middle of the eleventh century, it wass
    already in retreat, struggling to survive in the face of young
    scholars whose "academic" study was at its peak and who
    sought halakhic authority for their own method. This
    process is the background of the Tosafist phenomenon and
    the revolution they brought to the Jewish word of spirit and
    of halakhah.

It looks like this paper is a predecessor to the book I'm reading,
which is "Halacha, minhag, umetziut b'Ashkenaz 1100-1350", by Ta-Shma,
Magnes Press 1996.

    Jonathan Baker     |  Daffynition: Omernasolaryngologist:
    jjbaker@panix.com  |  Iyar, nose & throat doctor.

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


[ 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         ]