Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 012

Wednesday, September 22 1999

• Re: Ashkenaz and Israel
• re: Midas Harachamim
• Re: Avodah V4 #11-zecher in Ashrei
• Re: Midas Harachamim
• Women angels; appropriate reading matter
• Amitz Koach
• Sukkah under tree
• Ashkenaz and Eretz Yisrael
• RE: Avodah V4 #11
• re: Selichot
• Rashi also Paskened by Posookim
• Women can be Angels (Sarah)
• Carl and I agree (HW on Succoth)
• Hendels Fan:Definitions of FIXING, USAGE
• Re: Women can be Angels (Sarah)
• Rashi, Bavli

Rabbenu Gershom ben Yehuda Me'Or haGolah was the disciple of both Rav Hai
Gaon (Bavel) and R. Yehuda haZaken b"r Meir haKohen (Leontin) [ashkenaz].
The talmididm of Rabbenu Gershom included: R. Yaakov ben Yakkar,  R. Shimon
haZaken (uncle of Rashi), and R. Yitzchak haLevi (and all the above plus
R. Moshe HaDarshan taught Rashi).

So Rashi must have received both the halacha of Eretz Yisrael (Ashkenaz) as
well as the tradition of Bavel (Sfarad).

In addtition, Sefer Hayashar of Rabbenu Tam mentions that sfardim from Spain
also came to learn under Rabbenu Gershom.

Thus it seems that there both anshei ashkenaz and sfarad learned of each others
traditions.

Josh

I did not want to get into this debate, of course there has been (AND STILL
IS) a legitimate debate of the propriety of "midas harachamim" et. al. for
centuries.  I was just asking if we should decide like those who say not to
say it, is there something similar we could put in its place?  (My personal
issue is that as a shaliach tzibbur, if I had a similar worded phrase to
use, I would use it, and those who are unaware of the issue would not
notice, and in the absence of such a phrase, I say it, even though I would
not as a yachid).

The piyut "na col mida nechona" was also originally worded as praying to the
13 middos, most contemporary slichot have a rewritten version, changing:
	na col mida nechona chali na penai

to 
	na col mida nechona achaleh na ...
etc.

I believe the mosad harav kook selichot has the original version, and the
artscroll selichot refers to the original version in the footnotes.

So how come that piyut is reworded, and the phrase midas horachamim remains
the way it was?

It seems that this debate has raged on in different communities and times,
and each side has had its share of victories and losses, both reflected in
our current nusach

Moshe

> From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> Perhaps it might be instructive to consider the Paytan's rationale for
> actually phrasing the piyut the way he did. The odds are he was no slouch
> :-). See the Otzar Ha'Tefillos' Hakdomo.
> 
> 

a student of the Rov (R.Soloveitchel zt'l)  told me that he always daid tge 
vers of Zecher in ashrei Ashrei twice-once with a tzere and once with a segel.

In a message dated 9/22/99 10:05:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
mrayman@lehman.com writes:

<< 
 I did not want to get into this debate, of course there has been (AND STILL
 IS) a legitimate debate of the propriety of "midas harachamim" et. al. for
 centuries.  I was just asking if we should decide like those who say not to
 say it, is there something similar we could put in its place?  (My personal
 issue is that as a shaliach tzibbur, if I had a similar worded phrase to
 use, I would use it, and those who are unaware of the issue would not
 notice, and in the absence of such a phrase, I say it, even though I would
 not as a yachid). >>

My personal "resolution" is to say it the way it appears in the standard 
slichot we use and "have in mind" that the mida is not an independent agent 
but acts in some function in HKB"H's process. BTW I think there's a much 
bigger problem with at least some individuals who pray at the bet hakvarot to 
rather than in zchut of the niftarim.

Gmar Tov,
Joel Rich

Debby Baker (via Jonathan) asked about women-as-angels.

I saw a post on another list (Mail-Jewish) asking for sources on that
subject.

I have another question.

It happened that we received in the mail from a yeshiva, along with a
request for funds, a "free sample" consisting of a small booklet with
selected items from the Metsuda Kitzur Shulchan Aruch.  The booklet
included, among other useful information, the women-are-not-angels item
and also an item detailing in more explicit language than I am interested
in reading, never mind repeating, what a man should do if he had a wet
dream.

This information may be interesting and important in its place.  What I
find difficult to understand is why, in a publication obviously aimed at
baalei teshuva (a linear translation), this material which is incredibly
off-putting, in the first instance to women and in the second instance to
practically anybody brought up in the secular world today, had to be the
material chosen to include in a sample selection.  I suppose I should
write the yeshiva a letter.  Does anyone here have any insight into the
thought process that goes on here?

Freda Birnbaum, fbb6@columbia.edu
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks"

>>
Date: Tue,  21 Sep 1999 14:33 +0200
From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
Subject: Why do we say  AMITZ KOACH/ATA KONNANTA ?

A few months ago we learned YOMA in daf yomi so when we recited the Avoda piyut 
(Amitz Koach or Ata Konnanta) in Musaf yesterday I was surprised to note 
differences between the gemara's vesion and the piyut. On a gut feeling I 
checked in the TUR (Orach Chaim taf resh kaf, and taf resh kaf aleph) and
was amazed at how the Bet Yosef found so many factual mistakes in the Piyut.

If it's so *wrong*, why is it still in Musaf unchanged or unmodified ??

Josh<<

Question was Meshulem bel Kalonymos - author of Amitz Koach - an am ho-oretz? Do
you think that as a Rishon he was less aware of Yoma than we?  (ok true they 
didn't have daf yomi yet <smile>)

)BTW, FWIW I heard the Rav quoted that he rejected the Amitz Koach and favored 
Ato Konanto.)

IMHO Amitz Koach reflects the "Minhag Ashkenaz" version which is simlar but not 
identical to the TB.  (I would guess the Rav's son might agree.)

There is an apparently popular "myth" or premise that" "if it ain't in the TB it
ain't so!"  WADR to the TB, you can see that Ashkenazic liturgy in particular, 
and certain other minhgim in general - do not neatly conform to the TB.  And 
that is how the Rav gets SO puzzled with various minhoggim that seem "wrong". (I
guess this premiseimplies that we discard the machzor, Minhag Ashkenaz etc. and 
to reformulate our liturgy in accordance with the TB...)

If Minhag Ashkenazc minhog had been committed to writing early on, would that 
have provide the kind of textual support necessay so that we textualists would 
be confrotable weith the deviations form the TB?  Well guess what
they DIDd commit the minhog to writing, they did it in the form of piyyutim!

There is an apparent viscous circular reasoning going on: 
1) The TB is correct
2) The Ashkenaz minhog deviates from the TB 
3) The Ashkenaz Minhog has no textual support
4) Well there is early textual support (EG Kalir) but since this are piyyutim 
and not poskim let's ignore them anyway!

Of course the simple, straightforward apporach is to realize that there WERE 
valid parallel mesoros upon which upright rishonim -  who while not talmudists 
- were nevertheless reliable.  The question I would counter is, why SHOULD our 
minhog conform to Minhog Bovel? 


Gmar Tov
Rich Wolpoe   

Succah under tree is pasul if tree shade is greater than s'chach shade.
Does bittul apply without mixing the branches, i.e. can  we say that only a
fraction of the sukkah is shaded by the tree so in a sukkah gdola the
majority has s'chach kasher and therefore the remainder (if properly
mesukach?) is also kasher?

Different question (still looking for heter in the above circumstance): what
if the tree is so high that as a practical matter it never/rarely actually
provides shade at the very area where the sukkah is located? (Concedely this
is because the zenith is never over the sukkah due to high latitude,
certainly not in the autumn.) This overhanging branches condition could
(does+ACE-)happen when the sukkah is a great distacne from the tree but the over
hang of branches extends to some portion of where I want my sukkah.  Put
differently, is the test of get your flashlight shine it up at night at the
tree and you will know whether it's good or not necessarily the determinant
for avoiding sukkah under tree (al pi din) or might there be someo ther
determinant?  The svarah in this paragraph is not my own.  This person
states that in Bnei Brak there are sukkah porches built under othrer
porches, but the higher ones are so many stories high and that therefore it
is not sukkah psulah (for whatever reason one would otherwise pasul.)

If someone knows or can find a rishon, acharon, posek, teshuva that supports
this argument please let me know.

Our esteemed listowner writes:

>I noticed that Ta-Shma's theory about Ashkenazi tradition being more Israeli
>than based on the Bavli tradition (as represented in Shas) has been basically
>accepted as "true" amongst our chevrah.

In the interest of being mekarev the geulah, I think we should clarify
our attributions regarding the analysis of the provenence of minhag
Ashkenaz.

Prof. Yisrael Ta-Shema, luminary that he is, did not originate this
analysis.  The very earliest practitioners of Wissenschaft in the mid
19th century already noticed that certain aspects of Ashkenazic practice
that conflicted with the Talmud Bavli had sources in the Yerushalmi.
Moreover, it is known that Jews from Eretz Yisrael migrated through
Italy and finally to Northern France/Germany, arriving there in
increasing numbers in the seventh and eighth centuries.  Also, with the
opening of the Cairo Geniza documents to research, we have been able to
construct a much clearer picture of Palestinian practices.

However, it is an overstatement (and somewhat anachronistic) to say that
Ashkenazic mesorah is based "more" on the Palestinian tradition than the
Babylonian.  In many areas, the Babylonian mesorah was accepted
universally.  The siddur is perhaps the best example of that.  And the
adoption of the Talmud Bavli as the definitive text for study led
inexorably to a homogenization of practice, undergirded intellectually
by the monumental efforts of the Ba'alei ha-Tosafot to harmonize text
and practice.  This trend was also advanced by the 12th century
migration of much of Sephardic Jewry in the wake of the incursion into
Spain of the fanatical Almohades.

Of course, Ashkenazic practice still maintained its individuality, but
the distinctively Palestinian aspects waned considerably during the
course of the Middle Ages.

kol tuv,

Eli Clark

"Shlomo Godick" <shlomog@mehish.co.il> asks:

>Does anybody know why the Ashkenazic nuschaot of the siddur
>(and machzor) are referred to as "nusach Ashkenaz" and "nusach Sfarad",
>while the nuschaot of the Selichot are called "minhag Lita" and "minhag
>Polin"?  Are there communities that daven nusach Ashkenaz but use
>Minhag Polin for selichot?   Do the Yekkes use minhag Lita, or do they
>have there own separate nusach for selichot?   Are there any other
>"minhagim" (i.e., nuschaot) for selichot?

Both Minhag Lita and Minhag Polin are variations within Ashkenaz.
Indeed, it is far more complicated than that.  One of the hallmarks of
Minhag Ashkenaz is its preservation of local variations and this is
nowhere more pronounced than in tefillah.  While the basic siddur was
finalized by the Geonim, each community within Ashkenaz developed local
variations.  To oversimplify, minhag Ashkenaz was sometimes divided into
western and eastern divisions, the former known as minhag Ashkenaz and
the later as minhag Austerreich (Austria).  The latter minhag was
carried further east and is now known as Minhag Polin.  In reality,
there are many more local minhagim, including Minhag Frankfurt, Minhag
AF"M, Minhag Alsace, Minhag Roma, and more.  It was publishers who
decided that Ashkenazic selihot shold be published in two forms, Minhag
Polin and Minhag Lita, even though the variations between them are
small, relatively speaking.

kol tuv,

Eli Clark

In a separate communication, Perets Mett sent me a highly informative
response to my questions about the nuschaot of Selichot.
I am posting it to this list with his kind permission.

GCT,
Shlomo Godick

>
>Does anybody know why the Ashkenazic nuschaot of the siddur
>(and machzor) are referred to as "nusach Ashkenaz" and "nusach Sfarad",
>while the nuschaot of the Selichot are called "minhag Lita" and "minhag
>Polin"?
A lot of questions here. Indeed the different minhogim for the slichos
which exist nowadays bear no relationship to the 'nusach' of the tefilo.
Traditionally (going back many hundreds of years) there were many diverse
minhogei tfilo in different communities across Europe. However there was a
great measure of uniformity in Western Northern and Eastern Europe  who all
davened what we now call Nusach Ashkenaz.  Within this nusach there were
regional minhogim. Modern Nusach ashkenaz is largely based on Minhag Polin,
but there are certainly known variations e.g Minhag Lite does not say Shir
Hamaalos before weekday maariv. Sadly many of the regional variations were
wiped out in the last War.  Nusach Sfard is a collective word used to
describe the innovations in tfilo borrowed by Khasidim from the Oriental
siddurim esp. Nusach Ari. Sometimes these changes in Nusach coexisted with
the local minhag for tfilo.

The Sfard version of slichos has never been borrowed by any Ashkenazic
community, so we all really say slichos Nusach Ashkenaz. If you compare all
the Ashkenazi forms of slichos, yoiu will see that the basic pattern is
common; they are quite different from the Oriental nusach of slichos.
However the variations in Minhag between Ashkenazim are much more
noticeable in slichos than in the siddur. This is explained by the fact
that slichos did not become standardized until much later than the siddur,
maybe 400 years ago.  Before then, within the stabdard apttern the sha"tz
chose his own daily selection of slichos. Eventually, with the introduction
of printing, some standard collections of slichos began to prevail. The
three which prevailed are Minhag Polin, Minhag Lite (now almost extinct in
Europe) and the German Minhag (also known as Minhag Estreich or Minhag
Ungarn) which is still widely used in Western Europe.

>Are there communities that daven nusach Ashkenaz but use
>Minhag Polin for selichot?

Yes. Before the War all the shuls in Poland davened Nusach Ashkenaz but
their order of slichos was Minhag Polin. In England there are still a
significant number of communities which continue this practice. I am told
that in Manchester hardly any communities use the German slichos, although
many use the Nusach Ashkenaz siddur.

In London, the United Synagogue - which still describes its Nusach Ashkenaz
siddur as Minhag Polin - nevertheless uses the German order of slichos.
There is an edition with an English translation  by R. Abraham Rosenfeld

>Do the Yekkes use minhag Lita, or do they
>have there own separate nusach for selichot?

As stated above, they use the German (or Central European) version of
slichos.

  Are there any other
>"minhagim" (i.e., nuschaot) for selichot?

I don't know. The Lubavitsher khasidim use  a version of slichos Minhag
Lite.
.....

Gmar Chasimo Toivo un a gut kvitl

Perets Mett

Moshe cited Rabbi Chaiim Soloveitchick

>In fact, Dr. Hayim Soloveitchik noted (in class) that Rashi was the
>first to systematically compare the Bavli to accepted halacha and to
>try to eradicate non-Bavli halacha.  Rabbeinu Gershom, in contrast,
>(according to Dr. S.) often paskened from psukim or midrashim, often
>ignoring Talmud Bavli.

But Rashi knew Posookim.

More importantly the Talmud Bavli knew posookim

Can Moshe kindly give me 3-6 examples of psaks where
Rabaynu Gayshorm followed Posookim, the Bavli disagreed
AND the Bavli ignored posookim

I find it hard to take what Moshe said at face value

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

A quick answer to Debra Fran Baker

1) Sarah had a higher level of prophecy than Abraham
(Rashi on >listen to everything Sarah tells you< in
VaYayRah).

2) Since Abraham had the status of an angel (i assume)
Sarah did also.

3) The standing during Shmoneh esray is at best a
resemblance to the class of angels known as SRFIM
which are a higher level than Angels. At any rate
the REAL reason for standing with feet together
is to show respect for God (Since this is the way
you stand for Kings). (The association with Angels
is an afterthought brought in afterwards, not the
real reason)

4) The basic reason of wearing a Kittle is NOT to
resemble angels but rather the resemblance of
angels is an intermediate step to non emphasis
of ones physical being. This certainly applies to
women (That is we want women to be aware of
their non physical side).

Bottom line: Women should wear a kittle.

In passing I find it ironic that women are always
put down; the Torah clearly entrusts the status
of family purity to women--in fact we learn that
one witness is sufficient in matters of ISSUR from
the case of the Niddah.

Therefore the Torah very much wants women to
be aware of their non physical sides and they
should wear a kittle.

I hope the above dispels any doubt on the
subject.

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

Carl
1st-- a happy New Year with health to your WHOLE
family.

2nd---I just got my neice(the one I mentioned a few
issues ago) to join your humor group...she likes what she
gets (Needless to say she is a member of rashi is simple also)

3rd--You are correct---I meant to Say Ex 16 not Ex 21---thank you
for reading my postings BIYUN.

4th--Thank you for a good question. You are correct that if I
can't explainthe SUCCOTH = 3 walls then I lose my position that
Chazal never play word games. I will get on it and post to here
(and to Rashi Is Simple if Rashi is involved).

On the other hand IF I do explain this so called DRASH as simple
pshat I assume you will either change your position or give me
further questions (Either way ok)

5th--Thank you for agreeing with me that 3 meals is Drabbonon
and the posook is Asmachtha

6ht--Allow me to clarify my arithmetic

RBNN: Hold 1 meal by night + 2 by Sat = 3 meals.
The 1 meal Friday night = the 2nd meal from Friday.

So RBNN hold that
>3 meals = Non poverty = Basic meals


RABBI CHIDKAH?: Holds 1 meal by night + 3 meals Sat = 4 meals
So Rabbi Chidkah holds that 

>2 meals = non poverty
>3 meals = extra (ONG??)

RE: The SHulchan Aruch's statement of 3 meals for Shabbath. Let us 
consder a poor person who came on Friday morning.

Do we give him 4 meals (1 Fri morning 1 Fri eve + 2 shabath day = 4)

Or do you hold that we give him 5 meals (2 for Friday + 1 fri night
+ 2 shabbath day=5).

My position is that we just give him non poverty.

I will get working on Succoth..(PS You can have a happy succoth
whether or not I answer the question by then)

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

David and I are not going around in Circles (Well maybe we 
went around in 1 circle). Let me therefore address his
latest comments

SPARKING
==========
1) I had forgotten that small fans spark when turned on
(Spark plug principle). I fall back on Micah's implicit
suggestion that this whole discussion of permitting a
fan is only valid according to the opinion tha a CUT HEAD
DON"T DIE WITH NO BENEFIT is not prohibited.

PSAK vs LIMUD
==============
2) I am not interested in PSAK. I simply don't turn on fans
I am reviewing the situation for purposes of LIMUD. But
I am not interested in PSAK LIMMUD--who said what.
I am interested in LEARNING LIMMUD. I wish to
examine what COMPREHENSIVE TOTAL THEORIES
there are. It is that simple. I am onlyquoting people for
purposes of recognition.

USAGE-COMPLETION-FIXING
========================
It seems to me that BOTH David and myself must
give criteria for whatever claims they are making.
My criteria is whether the man in the street regards
an object as NEW, or as NEEDING FIXING. Let
me review the 3-5 examples so far. Then 

 to avoid going around in circles David
can either tell me that
---he does not know a definition to prohibit fans
on sabbath

--or give me such a definition that will also cover
other cases.

David HAS already cited Teshuvoth and I 
thank him for it but I am not interested in
PSAKS only in LIMUD=COMPREHENSIVE
THEORIES 
 

HOUSE: A house with a window open cannot keep
cold out while with the window close it can. Nevertheless
we don't consider CLOSING A WINDOW to be an
act of transforming a non winter house to a winter 
house.

The man in the street considers CLOSING THE WINDOW
a USAGE of the house. Hence it is permissable to begin
with.

WINDOW: If however the house did not have windows then
the man in the street would not perceive this as a HOUSE
but as a HOUSE NEEDING FIXING. Hence to install
the window would be Biblically prohibited.

SHOES: Furthermore a shoe without shoelaces would also
be considereda SHOE THAT NEEDS FIXING. Hence even
though the component parts (SHOE, SHOELACE, HOUSE
WINDOW) are all there---nevertheless the man on the
street calls a shoe without shoelaces as NEEDING FIXING
while a house with an open window does NOT NEED FIXING
(Maybe it needs the window closed but it does not need
fixing). Hence one could argue that putting shoelaces in is
prohibited (biblically). YEs yes I know there are more 
lenient opinions...but I am just looking for LIMUD not
for psaks.

FANS: No person in their right mind would possibly call
a fan that is not on as a FAN THAT NEEDED FIXING.

The fan that is not on is no different (with respect to
FIXING having a USEFUL STATUS) then a house
with an open window.

Hence it is permissable to open a fan on shabbath(It
might be rabinically prohibited because of NOLAD but
I am ignoring that now).

I am NOT stating the above for PSAK but rather for
purposes of LMD with a unifying theme. My unifying
theme is how the man in the street calls something. Is
it BROKEN, NEEDING FIXING, or JUST IN A STATE
OF USAGE.

Both the FAN and WINDOW are made to be opened
and closed. The SHOE is not. Hence I prohibit shoelacing
but permit openning FANS and WINDOWS>

I am not disputing some POSAYKS say otherwise..I
am disputing having any understanding of their view
IN OPERATIONAL TERMS (Davids attempt at using
CREATIVITY was a nice try but CREATIVITY is not
an operational term)

I hope the above clarifies my position. I haven't even
brought in the water wheel. This has nothing to
do with 1st or 2nd force. It has to do with the fact
that FANS are MADE that way.

If some POSAYK disagrees I would like to know why

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

In a message dated 9/22/99 7:47:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
rjhendel@juno.com writes:

> The basic reason of wearing a Kittle is NOT to
>  resemble angels but rather the resemblance of
>  angels is an intermediate step to non emphasis
>  of ones physical being. This certainly applies to
>  women (That is we want women to be aware of
>  their non physical side).

There are 2 basic reasons for the Kittel one being that it is white and is 
included in the custom of wearing white clothes on Yom Kippur to compare to 
the Malachai Hashoreis, this does NOT apply to women. the second basic reason 
is as this is a garment put on the dead and it is to soften the heart, this 
CAN apply to women, it is therefore that women MAY were a Kittel but not 
other garmnets of white to compare to angels. See S"A Horav 510:9

>  
>  Bottom line: Women should wear a kittle.

Bottom line: women should follow the Shulchan Oruch and the Minhag Hamokom.

GT

Yitzchok Zirkind
  

 From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> Subject: 
 Re: Ashkenaz and Israel

- --- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> I noticed that Ta-Shma's theory about Ashkenazi tradition being > more Israeli
> than based on the Bavli tradition (as represented in Shas) has been > 
basically
> accepted as "true" amongst our chevrah. > 
> What about the chain from R' Saadia Gaon to R' Gershom to R. Yaakov > ben 
> Yakkar, R. Yitzchak haLevi and R. Moshe HaDarshan, the 3 of whom in > turn 
> taught Rashi?
> 
> Are we arguing that Ashkenazi halachah (in particular, according to > the 
Baalei
> haTosafos) doesn't owe heritage to Rabbeinu Gershom and Rashi? > 

Certainly it "owes heritage."  However, it doesn't own "its heritage."  My 
point: there was influence from the Bavli (which was learned), but the 
minhag/halacha originated in Eretz Yisrael, as the migration pattern from Israel
-> Italy -> Germany.

In fact, Dr. Hayim Soloveitchik noted (in class) that Rashi was the first to 
systematically compare the Bavli to accepted halacha and to try to eradicate 
non-Bavli halacha.  Rabbeinu Gershom, in contrast, (according to Dr. S.) often 
paskened from psukim or midrashim, often ignoring Talmud Bavli.

Kol tuv,
Moshe,<<

My best recollection of Dr. Agus's theory is thusly:
Rashi (and Tosfos!) conceded that THE textbook of TSBP was the Bavli, that it 
was THE most definitive work period.  AND they ackonwledged that Ashkenaz had 
other traditions, sources, etc. that occasionally clashed.  And there was no 
"catechism" to teach TSBP as seen by Ashkenazim.  (The TY was a book that was 
not quite a finished product - probably "rushed" to completion due to the 
Byznatine perseuctions -  never quite preserved as carefully as the Bavli, and 
certainly not as robust either). 

Solution?  LEARN the Bavli and modify it to be closer to Ashkenaz tradition.  So
in a sense, Rashi and Tosfos were kind of like the Remo's Mappo on the Shulchan 
Aruch, a set of glosses to bring in the Ashkenaz side of the ledger... (that is 
ashkenaz, tzorfat, minhog EY, etc.)

So Dr. Agus is one of several people who advocated a distinciont between 
textbook learning (in which the Bavli is THE book par excellencet) and practical
hanhogo (which was a smattering of oral and written fragments amongst ahskenzim)
This is quite analogous to my point that books such as Kitzur (and even MB) are 
GREAT textbooks to LEARN halacho, but might not be the definitive psak in the 
case of a "real" sheilo in which Teshuvos fro example, would be more heavily 
weighted.

(Note: that there is a parallel trend in Chabad.  They ahve editions of both 
the MB and the KSA with glosses reconciling those wroks to the SA hoRav)

Now this also explains the source of Tosfos's pilpulism, his "hidden agenda" 
was how best to reconcile the great Bavli with the less documented minhag 
Ashkenaz.  This implies that pilpul is not an aribtrary exercise, rather it was 
a necessity for Tosfos to see the TB as conforming to what he already knew to 
be the correct halocho or peshat.

Ad kahn Dr. Agus.

Dr. E. Kanarfogel has pointed out to me that Rashi and Tosfos not only brought 
an Ashkenzic slant to the TB, but they also "Babylonized" (my coinage) the 
Minhag Ashekenaz by making the TB THE authoritative text for TSBP.  The problem 
I keep on kvetching is that the pednulum has swung so far, that we have 
forgotten that there are actually valid Ashkenaz POV's that are independent of 
the Bavli. Ad kahn Dr. Kanarfogel

So the {false?} premise is that the TB is THE all-encompassing text of TSBP or a
corollary that Tosfos reconciled every last discrepancy.  Neither premise is 
true. Here is how I would summiarize the condition:
1) While the Bavli is THE best text, it is not THE only text.
2) The Bavli is always valid lomdus-wise. (IOW you cannot learn lomdues w/o the 
Bavli, we all concede THAT point)
3) The Bavli is by default THE defintive source for halocho BUT
4) There are SOME indpendent traditions (including Ashkenaz and TY, etc.) that 
can override Bavli. (esepcially in the minhoggim invovled with  the litrugy).
5) While it is NICE to reconcile the minhog with the TB, it's sometimes a futile
exercise.
6)  Minhag Ashkenaz was never really commited to a comprehensive text, it was 
primarily oral, but we see its implications in the payyeonim.  (Including Kalir 
who was most definitely in EY!).

The distinction between lomdus and practice deserves a thread of its own, let's 
start one.

Gmar Tov,
Rich Wolpoe

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


[ 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         ]