Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 063

Tuesday, May 25 1999

• Re: Avodah V3 #62
• halachah from historical sources
• Elections in Israel and Charedi response
• Re: Elections in Israel and Charedi response
• September 16 (fwd)
• Being seen at Temple
• Halocho al Pi Arahceology
• Re: Trumping Halacha
• 13 Ikkarim -- Inadvertent error and other issues
• Re: Lashon Hara
• Minhag Stirah
• Re: Lashon Hara
• Hanukkah, history and later takkanot
• Re: Hanukkah, history and later takkanot
• [none]
• Nusach ha-Tefilla
• Re: Halocho al Pi Arahceology
• Re: 13 Ikkarim -- Inadvertent error and other issues

> From: "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
> Subject: Nusach stirah
> 
> OK, I've looked into the sources R' Brown suggested on changing of 
> nusach, and I find myself in a stirah-position.  I don't see any
> satisfactory resolution of the problem of what happens when a 
> Lubavitcher davens by the amud in an Ashkenaz shul. 
> 
> The Ashkenazi sources, all based on OC 68, i.e. Mishnah Brurah,
> Aruch haShulchan and Igros Moshe all say that minhag hamakom is
> paramount, and the sha"tz must daven the local nusach.  Igros
> Moshe goes so far as to say that the sha"tz must daven the silent
> amidah in the local nusach even if it's not his normal nusach. 
> 
> Yet the Shulchan Aruch of the Baal haTanya says that minhag
> avoteichem is paramount, such that one shouldn't deviate from his
> own nusach.  So if he davens the local nusach, the Lubavitcher is
> oveir by his own lights.  But if he davens the "nusach Ari", he is
> oveir by the tzibur. 

===> As I do not have a S"A of the BhT, I have a couple of queries:
1. Does the BhT (possibly) modify that p'sak in his Siddur (which
sometimes overrides his S"A)?
2. Does he explicitly say that minahg avoteichem overrides the "rights" of
the Tzibbur to follow THEIR Nusach?
3. If so, does he provide a source?
4. What does he do with the citation from OC as cited above?

<snip>
> 
> In my office minyan, we agreed amongst ourselves not to have a set
> nusach - anyone can daven whatever they wish, so during Kedushah
> you hear some people saying Nekadesh, and others say Naaritzach.
> Is that the way out: to unseat the local minhag?

While it is not uncommon to have an agreement that the Shaliach Tzibbur
"determines" the nusach, is there a problem when people answer aloud
differing "versions" of Kedusha?  If not, why not (seems to contradict R.
Moshe's Shittah as to how to conduct one's self when one's personal nusach
differs from the Tzibbur's  -- in this case, the Tzibbur being
"determined" by the Shatz)?
> 
>     Jonathan Baker     |  Ehh, you Sivan Sinaitic revelation, you've
>     jjbaker@panix.com  |  seen 'em all.

--Zvi
> ------------------------------
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Halocho al pi Arachaeology
> 
> Can we dig up evidence to back-up tha the Sadduceean assumption legabei 
> mimochoras Hashabbos was correct, and therefore Shavuos was actually
> Sunday and 
> not Friday?

===> I fail to understand the query.  Since we rule that ANY B"D could
interpret pesukim as it chose during its "tenure", it is at least possible
that a given Sanhedrin chose to follow the Sadducean appraoch -- and was
later "overruled" by the Batei Din that all agreed that Mimochoras
Hashabos refers to "After pesach".  This does not seem totally impossible 
since
the Gemara (in Sanhedrin, I think) mentions a case of an "ignorant B"D"
that burned someone to death "literally" instead of using boiling lead....
So, even if we found a time when Shavuos was celebrated on Sunday, I don't see
relevance of such an event....


> 
> Or what happens if we find the minutes of Sanhedrin and show that Moavi v'lo 
> moavis was voted down?  thne what?
>
====> Is it likely that a matter that is practically compared to a
"Halacha Mekubelet" would be subject to a vote???



 
> Or do we assume at some point in time, that a halacho as paskend is
> binding even
> if we subseqently demonstrate that it was based upon a historical 
> mis-understanding or mis-application?

===> I am still not sure if it is EVER possible to clearly show that
halacha was based upon a "misunderstanding" ... The terminolgy needs
clarification.

--Zvi
> 
> Rich Wolpoe 

Reb Wolpoe wrote
"IOW, once you say halacho can be "trumped" by indepedent research outside
the realm of Mesorah, where does one draw the line?
Can we dig up evidence to back-up tha the Sadduceean assumption legabei 
mimochoras Hashabbos was correct, and therefore Shavuos was actually Sunday
and 
not Friday?"
I was not suggesting that we change halachah according to archeology or
Josephus etc.  I hope that you didn't understand me that way.  The halachah
of hallel on Yom Haatzmaut is  a new discussion and a thourough
investigation of halachah AND history must be undertaken.  In Reb Moshe
Feldman's post nowhere did he suggest that we change hilchos chanukah even
one iota.  In fact there was no stirah between chazal ad the non-chazal
sources.  Reb Moshe was only pointing out that HaRav Yosef's arguments were
factually incorrect.  I also don't believe that is can ever be possible to
"dig up evidence that the Sadduceans were correct"  That would be
impossible because they were NOT correct! anyone who believes in the
Mesorah of Chazal necessarily beleives that a real and honest researcher
into the historical evidence will show the truth only.  If there seems to
be a contradiction, it is only because we need to do more research.
Reb E.G. wrote "Before you throw away psak din of a gadol based on what you
read in an e-mail post I advise you to read Torah Nation by Avigdor
Miller..." I did not advocate throwing away any psak din.  Indeed your very
point that history can be slanted by the individual presenting it can be
applied to HaRav Yosef's analysis of Chanukah.  In fact, most poskim used
halachic arguments over the nature of the mitzvah of hallel in deciding why
we should or shouldn't say hallel, not historical arguments.  May I also
add that Josephus is used as a source for countless Rishonim and Acharonim,
and it is only when it contradicts chazal that they questioned his
reliability.  I absolutely agree that Josephus is far from being the
ultimate emes, but when trying to understand the period of the bayis sheni,
he is definitely one of the most important sources of information.
May I also add to Reb Moshe's points about the nature of Chanukah.  Reb
Moshe mentioned that according the book of Maccabees the eight days of
Chanukah were to commemerate a missed sukkos.  My uncle tells me that he
heard from the Rav that on the first Chanukah they actually took lulavim
and esrogim in the Beis Hamikdash to express their simchah, he thinks that
the source for this is the Sefer Hachashmonaim but neither of us has a
copy.  In fact, in the Megillas Taanis the eight days of Chanukah were not
kenegged the nes of the menorah but only because that is how long the
chanukas habayis took.  I don't have a megillas taanis either so I hope
that someone can fill us in on this detail.
Shaul Weinreb

Someone just showed me last Thursday's YEDIOT newspaper with a column on the
Charedi response to the election results. There may be repercussions in the
charedi community regarding *Daat Torah*. The rabbanim had *promised* that
Netanyahu would be re-elected. Kids in yeshiva are already asking their
rebbeim "how could our roshei yeshivot be wrong ?" The article even mentioned
their "ruach ha-kodesh". MUSSAR HASKEL: don't *promise* what you can't
deliver.

The secular community here are all for *pluralism* (a.k.a. Reform and
Conservative) in Judaism. I have a gut feeling that the articles that
just came out on the Donmeh (the 15-20,000 descendents of the followers
of Shabbetai Tzvi living as Muslims in Turkey and who consider themselves
as Jewish and who may want to come on aliya to Israel as *full* Jews without
the need for giyur) is a bad sign. It may make the case of the 100,000
Ethiopians (a 15th century Xtian sect called AHUDAI whom the Radbaz
may have mistakenly considered Jewish) pale in comparison.

Josh

On Tue, 25 May 1999 BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:

> The secular community here are all for *pluralism* (a.k.a. Reform and
> Conservative) in Judaism. I have a gut feeling that the articles that
> just came out on the Donmeh (the 15-20,000 descendents of the followers
> of Shabbetai Tzvi living as Muslims in Turkey and who consider
> themselves as Jewish and who may want to come on aliya to Israel as
> *full* Jews without the need for giyur) is a bad sign. It may make the
> case of the 100,000 Ethiopians (a 15th century Xtian sect called AHUDAI
> whom the Radbaz may have mistakenly considered Jewish) pale in
> comparison. 
> 

What RJB is of course referrring to, is that the Donmeh are all safek
mamzerim with no hope og generating a sfeik sfeika, unlike the Bnei Israel
of India and the Beta Israel of Ethiopia where the possibility exists. I
believe that the Sefardi Poskim are meykel on the Indian and Ethiopian
issues outright, but, for historical reasons, she'ein kan makom l'fortan,
cannot and will not do so by the Donmeh.

YGB

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

An interesting statistic from Remy Landau...

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: Tue, 25 May 1999 06:17:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Remy Landau <rlandau@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: September 16

Dear YGB,

It occurred to me that I forgot to answer the question of the 
significance to the Hebrew calendar of the Gregorian date *September 16*.

For the next century at least, any Hebrew year beginning prior to 
September 16 will be a leap year. Any Hebrew year beginning later than 
September 16 will be non-leap (ie 12 months).

Some Hebrew years beginning on September 16 will be leap, and others 
non-leap.

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

I was learning in Rosh haShanah around pages 4-5 that the passage
"shalosh paamim bashanah yeira'eh col zchurchah ..." is redundant,
that we don't need it for the mitzvah of appearing at the Temple,
so it's used to define bal t'acher (not being late with various 
nedarim etc.).  See esp. the first Rashi on 4b.  Pretty much all
of the tannaim cited agree that the passage is redundant and does
not teach the mitzvah to appear at the Temple, although it might
teach tashlumin for Shavuot sacrifices, or that all the chagim 
atone for certain sins against the Temple.

So why is that passage used  in the Siddur, in the Yom Tov musaf,
as *the* prooftext of the mitzvah to appear at the Temple?  Naaleh
veneira'eh venishtachaveh bishalosh paamei ragleinu CACATUV
B'TORATECHA...?

R. Moshe Feldman>>Perhaps one could distinguish between (1) Tefillin and (2) 
when chazal/rabbinic authorities institute hallel on Chanukah/Yom 
Ha'atma'ut:  In case (1) the issue is whether historical data can be
used to revise current practice.  In case (2) the issue is whether 
historical data can be used to inform current rabbinic authorities in 
deciding whether and how to make a certain takanah.  In case (1), if one 
holds like the Chazon Ish (CI), then one would
take the position that historical realia is irrelevant to the halachic 
process if the halachic process has ignored the realia.  In case (2), 
we do not deal with the *development* of halacha.  The issue of 
instituting hallel on a national basis has never arisen since the time 
of Chanukah (the case of  community-oriented days of hoda'a --such as 
discussed in Chatam Sofer--can be distinguished from *national* days). 
 Therefore, we must  go back in history and understand what went on in 
Chazal's minds when they instituted Chanukah. <<

Points well taken.

My point is this: that one may not go back in time and leapfrog 2,000 yars of 
halachic precedents.  If one were allowed to do so, and therby to ignore 
principles of mesoarh, basro'i, etc. then, for example, one could make a 
legitimate case for patrilineal descent based upon Pre-talmudic criteria.  Or we
could start reviving hefker beis din hefer and afkinu kiddushin - should 
wechoose to ignore the way it's been practices the last 1500 years or so.

The case of Hallel on 5 Iyyar might indeed be different since there is a dearth 
of precedent in any case.  

Rich Wolpoe

<<
If the Rambam changed his shito legabei Tefillin based upon aracheaological 
evidence, then can we halachcially incorporate historical data as recorded in 
Maccabees, Josephus, etc. to mitgiate or modify our halachic parameters 
legabei 
Channuko, too?  And by inference Yom ha'atzmout, etc.

IOW, once you say halacho can be "trumped" by indepedent research outside the 
realm of Mesorah, where does one draw the line?

....

Or do we assume at some point in time, that a halacho as paskend is binding 
even
if we subseqently demonstrate that it was based upon a historical 
mis-understanding or mis-application?
>>

It might simply have to do with acceptance.  The ordering of the parshios of 
t'fillin seems to not have been a unified custom.  And the archaeological 
evidence shows that the disagreement goes back quite a while, maybe even 
showing that there was never concensus.

The questions about Amoni and Shavu'os were decided definitively.  Even if we 
found the minutes of Sanhedrin, it would not change the conclusion that was 
reached.  And with regard to Sanhedrin, we follow their decisions, not their 
deliberations.

As for Chanuka and Yom HaAtzma'ut, there is also no concensus.  An argument 
was brought contrasting the two, and a counter-argument comparing them.  The 
use of evidence here is to try and show whether they are similar or 
different.  That is not the same as contradictory evidence in the case of 
Amoni or Shavu'os.

Maybe the best way to put it is that t'fillin (to Rambam) and Yom HaAtzma'ut 
are situations of safek that we are trying to resolve.  The others are 
decisions weare trying to overturn.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

Before the hag, I quoted a Rambam scholar (Menachem Kellner) to the
effect that, according to Rambam, one who does not subscribe to the
Ikkarim, even inadvertently, will not have olam ha-ba.  In other words,
there is no dispensation for shegagah in these matters.  RYGB asked for
sources.

Rambam's clearest statement on the issue appears in the Moreh I:36 near
the end, where he writes: If you think one can be melamed zekhut on
those who believe in corporeality, [for instance,] that they were
educated that way or are simply ignorant or lacking in intelligence, one
can have the same opinion of idolaters.

In his perush to Sanhedrin 10:2, he explains that the individuals
mentioned did not properly subscribe to the ikkarim and "hayu lahem
sefekot be-miktzatam" and therefore lost their olam ha-ba.  Cf. his
perush to Sanhedrin 11:3.

Similarly, the famous hasagah of the Ra'avad on this issue indicates
that he read Rambam this way.

Kellner argues that Rambam probably applied this rule only to the first
five ikkarim.  As proof, he cites Rambam's classification of Karaites as
tinokot she-nishbu; the Karaites rejected Torah she-be'al peh (Ikkar no.
8), but accepted all of the ikkarim about Hashem's attributes.,

Rich Wolpoe raised the issue of why Rambam wrote the ikkarim.  There are
many opinions on this issue.

In his Ma'amar Tehiyyat ha-Metim, Rambam writes that he found that many
people, even "hakhmei ha-Torah" believed in the corporeality of God.
Therefore, he decided to set down the principles of faith in declaratory
statements, rather than analytical ones, because to understand these
principles analytically requires expertise in many disciplines that
hakhmei ha-Torah do not have.

In a similar vein, Abravanel writes that Rambam wrote for the benefit of
those who were not able to comprehend and grasp all the doctrines and
disciplines embraced by philosophy.  Contemporary scholars have
suggested that Rambam was responding to Islam (Schecher, Neumark), was
trying to pacify the masses for political reasons (Hyman, following
Berman), was trying to assure the masses have olam ha-ba (Hyman), was
trying to assure that the shemirat ha-mitzvot of the masses was based on
proper beliefs.

<<
The rationale in the latter case is that the therapist doesn't believe the 
truth of the matter, only that his patient thinks that (and for the 
therapist, all he needs to
understand is the mind of his patient); therefore provided that there is 
to'elet, such speech is permitted.  Similarly, in the case of a husband and 
wife, the wife doesn't necessarily have to believe the truth of the matter 
(for all she knows, her husband is a schlemiel and the boss had every right 
to yell at him); she merely intends to provide the therapeutic benefit of 
letting her husband vent.  Has anyone heard anything else on this topic?
>>

I see a difference, not that I disagree with the conclusion (I'm not sure yet 
what I think on the issue).  The therapist is not interested in the accuracy 
of the story, only in the effect the percieved events are having on his 
patient.  Also, the therapist is professionally forbidden to spread the 
story, so there is no concern for rachil.  A wife, however, will defend her 
husband, not offer therapy.  That means she will believe the story, believe 
that her husband was wronged.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

JJBaker:>>
The LOR is Lubavitch, so he's likely to incline towards the SABh"T. 
The tzibur is 90% Ashkenaz.  Still, many Lubavitch rabbis serve 
non-Lubavitch congregations.  Surely there must be precedents.  But 
at present, I don't see any graceful way out of the stirah.<<

FYI:
I am aware of 2 Chabad Chazzonim, 1 fomerly of Riverdale and 1 curretnly in 
Washington Heights who both daven(ed) the local Nusach, i.e. Ashkenaz.


Rich Wolpoe   

--- EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:
> 
> I see a difference, not that I disagree with the conclusion (I'm
> not sure yet 
> what I think on the issue).  The therapist is not interested in the
> accuracy 
> of the story, only in the effect the percieved events are having on
> his 
> patient.  Also, the therapist is professionally forbidden to spread
> the 
> story, so there is no concern for rachil.  A wife, however, will
> defend her 
> husband, not offer therapy.  That means she will believe the story,
> believe 
> that her husband was wronged.
> 
Provided that the wife realizes that (1) she is forbidden to spread
the story (which is the din for all cases of to'elet--in cases of
to'elet we do not require the recipient of the information to be
*professionally* forbidden to spread it) and (2) that she does not
necessarily believe the veracity of the information (as I pointed
out, wives *ought* to know that information presented to them by
their husbands may be biased in their husband's favor), a wife should
be similar to a therapist.  
(Don't worry, this Shabbat I won't call your wife your therapist!)

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

>Therefore, we must  go back in history and
>understand what went on in Chazal's minds when they instituted
>Chanukah.  Considering that the only Talmudic sources on this matter
>were written hundreds of years after the Maccabees (and under the
>influence of the post-Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai view of Judaism,
>which denigrated nationalistic aspirations, in contradistinction to
>the Maccabee point of view; see also Rav Kook in Orot dealing with
>how integral to Judaism nationalism was prior to the Churban; perhaps
>R. Shalom Carmy could provide the source in R. Kook on this issue
>since I learned this in 1985 and forgot the sources), it is possible
>that even one who normally follows CI would be willing to allow
>outside sources to inform us as to what really happened.

I think one should distinguish between two very different issues: one is
the historical question: what really happened?  On this issue, the
sources in Hazal have little to say, and one may derive much benefit
from consulting Jospehus (keeping in mind his own biases) and the first
two books of Maccabbees (the later books were not written as soon after
the events and are not as reliable).

The second issue, however, is what was Hazal's motivation in instituting
Hanukkah.  On this question, I think that the sources in Hazal, though
written much later, ought to be decisive.  Moshe Feldman suggests that
the holiday may have had a more nationalistic character that was toned
during the Yavnean period.  This is speculation, but let us assume, for
the sake of argument, that it is true.  So what?  The halakhic community
does not observe Hanukkah because the Hasmoneans instituted a holiday
celebrating a military victory.  We observe Hanukkah because Hazal
instituted the holiday; if they chose to emphasize the miracle of the
oil, then that is the relevant emphasis for us in our celebrations.

The same is true, of course, with respect to Purim.  Ultimately, it is
irrelevant why Esther and Mordekhai instituted Purim; we observe Purim
because Hazal made a takkanah to that effect.

Of course, all of this arose in the context of an analysis of R. Ovadya
Yosef's discussion about Yom ha-Atzma'ut.  I think Moshe has
demonstrated that R. Ovadyah's historical arguments are subject to
question.  But R. Ovadyah's assertion that Hanukkah is a celebration of
a supernatural miracle is not, I think, open to question.  The Hanukkah
that we observe celebrates just such a miracle, even if that miracle
does not appear in the historical sources where one might expect to find
it.  I repeat, if the issue is Hazal's motivation (and I agree with
Moshe that it is), then I think we should be guided by the sources in
Hazal, not by sources in the Apocrypha or Josephus.

As a side point: historians of Halakhah agree that the Hasmonean revolt
brought with it an intense religious revival.  Hence, it is not
revisionism to celebrate Hanukkah as a religious holiday, as opposed to
a nationalistic one.  Of course, this is not offered as a justification
for Hazal's actions; obviously, they don't need my retroactive haskamah.
 But it does lend some historical substance to the halakhic construct.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark 

--- "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> wrote:
> I think one should distinguish between two very different issues:
> one is
> the historical question: what really happened?  On this issue, the
> sources in Hazal have little to say, and one may derive much
> benefit
> from consulting Jospehus (keeping in mind his own biases) and the
> first
> two books of Maccabbees (the later books were not written as soon
> after
> the events and are not as reliable).
> 
> The second issue, however, is what was Hazal's motivation in
> instituting
> Hanukkah.  On this question, I think that the sources in Hazal,
> though
> written much later, ought to be decisive.  Moshe Feldman suggests
> that
> the holiday may have had a more nationalistic character that was
> toned
> during the Yavnean period.  This is speculation, but let us assume,
> for
> the sake of argument, that it is true.  So what?  The halakhic
> community
> does not observe Hanukkah because the Hasmoneans instituted a
> holiday
> celebrating a military victory.  We observe Hanukkah because Hazal
> instituted the holiday; if they chose to emphasize the miracle of
> the
> oil, then that is the relevant emphasis for us in our celebrations.
> 

I agree with Eli with respect to our current celebration of Chanukah,
which should be understood by us based upon post-Yavne Chazal's
explanations.  However, if it is clear from the sources that the
original celebration of Chanukah -- as instituted by Chazal in
Hasmonean times-- was more nationalistic in character, then that
original celebration might be useful in analyzing whether we should
institute Hallel today with respect to Yom Ha'atzma'ut.

><snip> Of course, all of this arose in the context of an analysis of
R.
> Ovadya
> Yosef's discussion about Yom ha-Atzma'ut.  I think Moshe has
> demonstrated that R. Ovadyah's historical arguments are subject to
> question.  But R. Ovadyah's assertion that Hanukkah is a
> celebration of
> a supernatural miracle is not, I think, open to question.  

However, R. Ovadyah's assertion that it is necessary that there be a
miracle in order that we say Hallel is open to question.  R. Ovadyah
explains that in the case of Purim there truly was a nes nigleh not a
nes nistar--after all, "the [official] documents of the king were
overturned, which is the opposite of minhag ha'olam; and, in
addition, [Achashveirosh] killed close to 80,000 of his own people
because of his love of one woman, and this is not minhag ha'olam."  I
believe that this characterization of Purim as a nes nigleh is open
to question, especially since Chazal make a point of noting that
HaShem's name is not once mentioned in the Megillah.  In addition,
even if R. Ovadyah's assertion is correct, shouldn't the miracles of
the Milchemet HaShichrur (e.g., U.S. and Soviet Union both agreeing
to a state; other "coincidences") be considered open miracles no less
than the miracle of Purim?

>The
> Hanukkah
> that we observe celebrates just such a miracle, even if that
> miracle
> does not appear in the historical sources where one might expect to
> find
> it.

I do not deny the miracle.  Rather the issue is whether Chazal in
Hasmonean times instituted Hallel on Chanukah *primarily* because of
the miracle or primarily because of the military victory.

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

Shalom,

In the light of the elections, I want to submit a debate subject to
have, if someone can help me, the positions of the guedolim on this
subject : is it an obligation of involvment ot may a jew stay on "parve"
positions ?

shlomo ouaknine, paris - FRANCE

J. Baker writes:
"Yet the Shulchan Aruch of the Baal haTanya says that minhag
avoteichem is paramount, such that one shouldn't deviate from his
own nusach."

The reference may be to when one davens for onesself.  The last Lubavitcher
Rebbe in Volume 20 of his Iggaros states at least twice, apparently in
response to questions, that when a Chabadnik is at the Amud he davens the
lcoal nusach, not Ari.

N. Witty

In a message dated 5/25/99 9:59:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 
 My point is this: that one may not go back in time and leapfrog 2,000 yars 
of 
 halachic precedents.  If one were allowed to do so, and therby to ignore 
 principles of mesoarh, basro'i, etc. then, for example, one could make a 
 legitimate case for patrilineal descent based upon Pre-talmudic criteria.  
Or we
 could start reviving hefker beis din hefer and afkinu kiddushin - should 
 wechoose to ignore the way it's been practices the last 1500 years or so.
  >>
How then do you understand Baba Bathra(74a) where the Rabbanan excoriated 
Rabba Bar Bar Chana for not counting the chutin and the chuliot of the tzizit 
of the meti midbar in order to determine if the Halacha was like bet Hillel 
or bet shammai?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

On Tue, 25 May 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> Rambam's clearest statement on the issue appears in the Moreh I:36 near
> the end, where he writes: If you think one can be melamed zekhut on
> those who believe in corporeality, [for instance,] that they were
> educated that way or are simply ignorant or lacking in intelligence, one
> can have the same opinion of idolaters. 
> 

Now, now, don't you go trusting those academic types - didn't I warn you
about them? :-)


The Rambam there simply says there is no excuse ("hitnatzlus") for those
who believe in hagshama - he does not state anything about their Olam
Ha'Ba.

> In his perush to Sanhedrin 10:2, he explains that the individuals
> mentioned did not properly subscribe to the ikkarim and "hayu lahem
> sefekot be-miktzatam" and therefore lost their olam ha-ba.  Cf. his
> perush to Sanhedrin 11:3. 
> 

If anything, "ma'aseh listor" - the Rambam directs those harsh words
specifically at the short list of candidates named by name Reish Perek
Chelek - no shogegin there!

> Similarly, the famous hasagah of the Ra'avad on this issue indicates
> that he read Rambam this way.
> 

Ra'avad's are made to farenfer - the famous R' Chaim ad loc cit comes to
mind...

> Kellner argues that Rambam probably applied this rule only to the first
> five ikkarim.  As proof, he cites Rambam's classification of Karaites as
> tinokot she-nishbu; the Karaites rejected Torah she-be'al peh (Ikkar no.
> 8), but accepted all of the ikkarim about Hashem's attributes.,
> 

Bechhofer argues that the Rambam probably applies the same rule to all
thirteen ikkarim...

YGB

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

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


[ 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         ]