Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 018

Tuesday, April 17 2001

• Re: Who and What is a Rishon
• hallel/tfillin
• Re:Chumros on Pesach
• chanifah
• Re: hallel/tfillin
• CI and Shem HaShem
• havarah
• Havarah, minhag, Christianity
• achilas kodshim
• naming conventions
• Re: hallel/tfillin
• Re: Chumros on Pesach
• RE: Chumros on Pesach
• Re: Chumros on Pesach - Hotels
• RE: Kula shopping
• Re: Kula shopping
• adnut
• Re: Some Questions About Havoroh
• agrippa
• am hasefer
• Az Yashir
• Bein Hashemoshot
• RE: am hasefer
• RE: Kula shopping
• RE: Kula shopping
• Re: Kula shopping
• RE: Kula shopping

>Look at the mavo of the Yam Shel Shlomo on Bava kamma, 2nd page, 1st
>column, 2/3 of the way down and see how the Ibn Ezra is described:
>"min v'apikorsus". Look at how he is ridiculed by the Baalei Tosfot"
>Rosh Hashana 13a d"h d'akrivu; Taanit 20b d"h b'hachinto; Kiddushin
>37b d"h Mi'mocharat hashabbat.

                                                                 Bs"d
OTOH, the Ramban, in the intro to his peirush al haTorah, is respectful. As 
for Tosfos, I didn't see any disrespect. Adaraba - it seems to me that the 
fact that Tosfos was machsiv him enough to mention him in the first place 
shows that he was held in high regard. Why would Tosfos mention someone 
they thought a fool!?

R Mechy Frankel:
>  t'rumas had'deshen, are already acharonim.

That's funny - my rebbaim in yeshivah always referred to him as a Rishon, 
albeit one of the last ones.

Eli

The Ezrat Torah Luach brings down that on chol hamoed pesach the chazan
keeps tfillin on for hallel (if he wears them before :-)) due to tircha
dtzibura however by sukkot it says he takes them off before hallel.
Does aanyone know where the sources for these minhagim are and why the
difference? I guessed ntilat lulav but...........

ml
Joel

The comment was made that  there is "a minhag amoung many chassidim to
not eat anywhere except in 
their own house."

This minhag (or, in deference to RYGB's query, this hanhaga) was not
restricted to chassidim; it was apparently the norm in Lita as well.  My
father z"l taught me to take nothing in another house on Pesach, and
indicated that it was the accepted practice.  Ylch"t, HaRav Michel
Feinstein told us of the time Reb Chaim Brisker visited the Chofetz Chaim
on Chol Hamoed Pesach, and the CC did not offer a cup of tea, so as not
to embarrass RCB by making him refuse.

Elazar M. Teitz

I'm preparing my tikun lail shavuot on this topic.  

Other than R' Moshe's tshuva concerning giving an honor to a doctor who 
married a non-jew, are there any other tshuvot relating specifically to this 
subject?

ml & ss
Joel

On 13 Apr 01, at 8:42, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> The Ezrat Torah Luach brings down that on chol hamoed pesach the chazan
> keeps tfillin on for hallel (if he wears them before :-)) due to tircha
> dtzibura however by sukkot it says he takes them off before hallel.
> Does aanyone know where the sources for these minhagim are and why the
> difference? I guessed ntilat lulav but...........

Yup. The tfillin would be considered a chatzitza for Lulav and Esrog. 

When I was a kid, I can remember everyone keeping their tfillin on Chol
HaMoed Pesach until before Mussaf, just like on Rosh Chodesh. But I
haven't seen that in years and I'm not sure there are still Kehillos
that are noheg that way.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

On 5 Apr 01, at 22:59, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
> The Chazon Ish held that no matter what Hashem'sname should be pronounced
> in one's own nusach.

See Aleho Lo Yibol first chelek in beginning (O"C) (I do not have it in
front of me).

RSZA did not agree with this deyah and doubted that this was the opinion
of the CI.

We know someone in Jerusalem who says that he davened by the amud in the
CI's minyan saying the Shem in havhara sefaradit (he is Ashcanazi) and was
not corrected by the CI (and he says that the CI would have corrected
him).

> that even Sefaradim
> should pronounce the shem adnus like Ashkenazim. He brought a Rabbeinu
> Bachya as a proof.

The Rabbeinu Bachya is Breishis 18:3

It seems to me that Rabbeinu Bachaya is saying that a komotz is not
a pasach. This seems pretty basic with no possibility of machlokes.
Does Rabbeinu Bachaya say that he is commenting AT ALL about
havara(pronunciation)?

Shouldn't Sfardi poskim be the ones to pasken for a change in Sfardi
custom?

Shlomo Goldstein

1) On shem haShem: Shu"t Har Tzvi, Orach Chaim no. 4 brought proof from
Rabeinu Bechayei in Shemot 18:2 that one should distinguish between
shem haShem with a kamatz and an ordinary adonai with a patach. Yabia
Omer vol. 6, Orach Chayim no. 11 (end) countered that there is no proof
from Rabeinu Bechayei to pronounuce it with a cholam as the Ashkenazim
do. In Bnei Banim vol. 2 no. 1 (p. 11) I wrote that although this is so,
since Rabeinu Bechayei wrote that one has to distinguish between them it
is better to pronounce shem haShem with an Ashkenazic cholam than with
a patach as in everday Sephardit. I also wrote that only the Espaniolic
(Spanish) Sephardit pronounciation that everyday Hebrew is based on
does not distinguish between kamtatz and patach. The pronounciations
of other Eidot Hamizrach do distinguish between the two, and these are
what my grandfather ztza"l was referring to in Eidut leYisrael no. 60
when he detailed how Sehpardic pronounciation is preferable to Ashkenazic.

2) On what does not constitute a minhag, see the recently published
Aruch haShulchan on Hilchot Nedarim, Yoreh Deah 214: 22-23.

3) Most Rishonim (probably including the Meiri, who while he writes
explicitly that Islam is not idolatry, never says so about Christianity)
hold that Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christianity is avoda zarah,
even if the average adherent is not personally an idolator. See at length
in Bnei Banim, vol. 3 no. 35.

RMF:
> on a practical level, Achilas kodshim requires just a k'zayis. Eating a
> lot of meat to avoid nosar would be unhealthy, and therefore, I claim,
> not required.

It was earlier noted that a doctor is on-call in mikdash for stomach aches.
Why a doctor if practically one need not be sick?

Unlike pesach where eating is a chiyuv gavra, by other kodshim eating is a
mitzva of the cheftza.  Therefore there is a mitzva to eat even more than a
kazayis.  For instance a chatas requires achilas cohanim.  Conceivably a
small number of cohanim would be obligated to eat a large number of chataos.
See Tos Yeshonim Yoma 39a if there is also a mitzva of at least kazayis by
kodshim.

Shlomo Goldstein

Does anyone know when the "convention" of calling Rabbis by the name
of their sefer (eg "the bais halevi")began? The reason? Do any other
cultures have this convention?

KT
Joel

From: Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il>
>      The tfillin would be considered a chatzitza for Lulav and Esrog. 

> When I was a kid, I can remember everyone keeping their tfillin on Chol
> HaMoed Pesach until before Mussaf, just like on Rosh Chodesh. But I
> haven't seen that in years and I'm not sure there are still Kehillos
> that are noheg that way.

In Elizabeth, we kept our tefillin on until Musaf the first day of chol
hamoed, presumably because the Torah reading mentioned tefillin.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

REM Teitz wrote:
> Ylch"t, HaRav Michel Feinstein told us of the time Reb Chaim Brisker visited 
> the Chofetz Chaim on Chol Hamoed Pesach, and the CC did not offer a cup of 
> tea, so as not to embarrass RCB by making him refuse.

Interesting, and not contradictory, is a story I heard in the name of
RYBS that the Brisker Rav once visited R. Chaim Ozer Grodzenski on Pesach
and RCOG offered the Brisker Rav tea and sugar cubes. The BR accepted
even though he was choshesh that sugar cubes might be chametzdik.

Perhaps the lesson here is not to eat outside of one's home but to be
more makpid in one's host's honor than this hanhagah.

Gil Student

From: Elazar M Teitz [mailto:remt@juno.com]
> This minhag (or, in deference to RYGB's query, this hanhaga) was not
> restricted to chassidim; it was apparently the norm in Lita as well.  My
> father z"l taught me to take nothing in another house on Pesach, and
> indicated that it was the accepted practice.  

I wonder how far back this minhag goes.  After all, the haggadah states,
"kol dichfin yeisay v'yeichol."  Also, during the time of the Bais
Hamikdash, did olei rigalim staying in Yerushalyim eat only their own food,
or did they eat from the locals?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>> This ignores a minhag amoung many chassidim to not eat anywhere except
>> in their own house (or their parents or inlaws.)

From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
>What defines a practice as minhag? Common and widespread as a practice
>might be, I do not think that necessarily grants it "kedushas minhag".

This particular one was practiced in Europe, and is mentioned by many of 
the tzaddikim.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
moshe shulman mshulman@NOSPAMix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh       http://www.chassidus.net

From: Zeliglaw@aol.com [mailto:Zeliglaw@aol.com]
>> No.  But I would say that there is no reason to be machmir beyond what our
>> forebears in Europe did 100 years ago

> OTOH, how can we be so sure that by solely following our forebears that their 
> positions were correct? What about the notion of "sweating the details" or 
> being mkayem a mitzva bslemusa? IOW, if we know that we all can't wear 
> tefillin with Ksav Ari or Ksav BY or we can wear tzitis with Techeles or use 
> the proper shiur, why not?

There is nothing wrong with being mekayem a mitzvah b'shleimusah.  There is
something wrong in thinking that only through being machmir can one do so.

Moreover, spending *all* of one's energies in being mekayem as many mitzvos
as possible b'shleimusan may (but not necessarily) come at the expense of
expending one's energies in understanding the p'nimiyus of the mitzvos.

A weak comparison: I heard that RYBS preferred to learn the classic rishonim
(which were available to Rav Chaim) rather than the "new-fangled" recently
discovered rishonim.  IIRC part of his reasoning was (or some people have
speculated) that that allowed him to spend more time in analyzing and
klering chakiros, rather than going through lots of material.

The nimshal: Nowadays, we have more access to seforim galore, telling us the
ins and outs of the kiyum of every mitzvah.  Studying all that material to
the exclusion of machshavah, etc. might be deleterious to one's avodas
Hashem.  And even if one is able to study zeh v'zeh, the question is whether
l'maaseh focusing on kiyum hamitzvos b'shleimusan tends to cause one to be
m'siach daas regarding the pnimiyus hamitzvos.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 09:48:01AM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: Yiras shamayim should never compel one to be machmir where the halacha is
: clearly lkula.

I'll side with the Ramchal (already quoted) on this one.

The first kind of chumrah that I find troublesome, RMF describes below:
:                                                                when there is
: a machlokes haposkim and it is clear that we follow one side, there is no
: reason to be choshesh for the minority view--the Amoraim weren't choshesh
: for shitos which were nidcheh l'halacha. ...
:                We are not taking chances that maybe the halacha is really
: like X rather than like Y.

: Only in recent times have people started to be machmir in this way....

What is occuring is a reluctance to pasken. Since the rules of pesak
aren't being applied, one is left with a safeik as to what to do -- and
therefore one ends up applying the rules of birur sefeikos instead. Not
even, safeik dirabbanan lekulah wouldn't accomodate such cheshashos. But
in either case, it's a birur mentality, not a one of pesak.

To tie this into another recent thread, perhaps we are seeing in this the
post-acharonic shift, the birth of a new halachic era. Rather than "the
end of hora'ah" that the Rambam sets at the end of the amoraim or savoraim,
or that was placed fter the S"A, or Bach and Taz, all of which were bilashon
guzmah. Here we actually find an increasing reluctance to provide hora'ah.
Perhaps hora'ah really is ending.

Or perhaps this is a short-term trend, just signs that the kehillah's
post-WWII reconstruction is incomplete.

A second motivation of chumrah that I find to be a less-than-wholesome
statement about contemporary frumkeit is the religious vacuum.

The standard contemporary chinuch is weak on machshavah, promoting
hislahavus, the fundamentals (including Tanach), and focusses almost
entirely on halachah and its process. When we focus on Shas, we do so
because (as Tosafos puts it), "hakol balul bah". However, how many of
us were taught to actually look up the pesukim to find the context --
both within the perek and within history as the Nevi'im present it?
How many of us habitually open the Maharshah and Maharal to find the
nimshalim to the aggadita, the machshavah the gemara conveys, rather
than feeling that just mastering the harder Aramaic of those naaratives
was an accomplishment?

So, there is what I just called a "religious vacuum" -- frum Jews who
aren't having their religious needs met. And since observance is the key
to religiosity in yahadus, they seek more and more things to observe, so
as to feel religious. However, they lack the tools to connect observance
to their search for redemption. When the novelty of the new hanhagah
wears off, one has to seek a new one.

The third problematic source of "chumros" (in this case, quotes are
warranted) is simply yuharah. Keeping up with the Cohens.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

>>                                  R. Moshe Shternbuch in his peirush al
>> haTorah (IIRC Tuv Ta'am VaDa'as) says the above, that even Sefaradim
>> should pronounce the shem adnus like Ashkenazim. He brought 
>a Rabbeinu Bachya as a proof.

> The Rabbeinu Bachya is Breishis 18:3

As I previously brought down R. Ovadiah Yosef disagrees very strongly
and insists on the standard sefardi pronunciation which has a slight
difference between kamatz and patach nothing like the ashkenazi kametz.

Eli Turkel

gil.student@citicorp.com wrote in Avodah V7 #15:
:> There is nothing wrong with davening in another language.

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:59:27PM +0200, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
: Come again?!?  I think the halakha here relates to someone who *cannot* 
: daven in Hebrew and hence may daven in the vernacular, provided that the 
: congregation understands.

Perhaps you have found another justification for R' AY Kook's pesak. RAYK
holds that lechatchilah an Ashkenazi ought daven in traditional havarah.
However, for someone raised on Israeli Hebrew and could not be consistant if
he tried to daven in Ashkenazis, Israeli havarah is better than inconsistancy.

This comes up lima'aseh in the US: many people with Galitzianishe minhag
but are products of American yeshivos end up being very inconsistant in
their davening.

In any case, that is my suggested parallel (to paraphrase RILJ's sentence
above): it is someone who can not daven in traditional havarah, and hence
may daven in the vernacular havarah, since the congregation understands.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> The mishna on 41a in sotah discusses the famous case of agrippa and
> "achinu atah" Rashi states his mother was Jewish. IIRC Agrippas was the
> son of aristoblus and bernice(herod's niece by his sister) so it can't
> be him. IIrc agrippa had a son also called agrippa and I assume this is
> Rashi's reference.

It is very unclear which Agrippa the mishna is talking about. Most people
assume it is the first one since he was very pro-Jewish and "achinu atah"
makes sense. Agrippa II was very pro-Roman and it is unlikely that anyone
would call him "achinu atah". Most explanations explain his problematic
heritage as coming from his descendant through Herod's family. As you
point out Rashi is difficult.

Eli Turkel

Does anyone know the origin of this term as a reference to klal yisrael?  
Assumedly the sefer is the torah but I've heard it used as well in more of 
the people of books rather than of "the" book.(I found that ironic since it 
seems we were meant to have one book and the rest baal peh)

KT
Joel

Little known fact.  Comments?

Kol tuv,
Moshe
===========

Rosenfeld's Kinot p. 64 footnote 1 says: AY was chanted by the Leviim on
Shabbat, when the Minchah offering was brought towards the evening (R Hash.
31a).  After the churban, it was chanted on Shabbat in Israel, but not in
Babylon.  Afterwards it was recited every day in Israel, and in some parts
of Italy.  Cites Manhig, and Rambam Hil Tefillah 7:13, which says "there are
places which have the custom to read every day shirat hayam after
Yishtabach."

The following is an attempt to stimulate ideas and observations
regarding the following conundrums:

The principal discussion of the various views of tanna'im and amora'im
on bein ha'shemoshot is to be found in Bavli in Shabbat 34b-35b.  In
particular, 34b details the views of Rabbi Yehudah, "Mi'she'tishka
ha'chama, kall zeman she'pinei mizrach madimim - hichsif ha'tachton
ve'lo hichsif ha'elyon (zeh) bein hashemoshot;  hichsif ha'elyon
ve'hishva le'tachton - ze'hu lailah".  The ambiguous first part of the
memra of Rabbi Yehudah is debated by Rabbah and Rav Yosef - both in the
name of Shmuel via Rav Yehudah (the amora).  Rabbah states that both the
periods of pinei mizrach madimim and hichsif ha'tachton are counted
towards bein hashemoshot, while Rav Yosef maintains that the period of
pinei mizrach madimim is still day.  The gemara also relates the above
difference to the different durations of bein ha'shemoshot given by
these two amora'im.  Rabbah gives a shi'ur of 3 parts of a mil - taken
by the gemara as 3/4 mil, while Rav Yosef gives a shi'ur of 2 parts of a
mil - taken as 2/3 mil.  The difference in these two measures of
twilight duration according to Rabbi Yehudah is 1/12 mil, or less than 2
minutes.

Rabbenu Tam (Trei tilsi mil, 35a) alleges an inconsistency in the views
of Rabbi Yehudah as detailed above, and the citation in his name in
Pesachim 94a, "The thickness of the raki'a is 1/10 the daytime solar
path.  To demonstrate;  how far can a person walk in a day - 10 parsa'ot
(40 mil), and from alot ha'shachar to netz ha'chama - 4 mil, from
shekiat ha'chama to zet ha'kochavim -4 mil".   How, asks R' Tam can 2/3
or 3/4 in Shabbat be reconciled with 4 in Pesachim?  He concludes that
the shekiah in Shabbat does not refer to sunset, but to a later time
(10/3 or 13/4 mil after sunset).  According to this view, all the
disputants in Shabbat would agree that it is still day until 13/4 mil
after sunset.  In tosfot Zevachim 56a (Mi'nayin le'dam she'nifsal
be'sheki'at ha'chama) and in Menachot 20b (Nifsal be'sheki'at ha'chama)
the thesis is expanded and further justified.  It is claimed that there
is a generally consistent difference in language in talmud when
referring to "conventional" sunset (sheki'at ha'chama) vs. the "end of
sunset" (mi'shetishka ha'chama).  Furthermore, if sheki'ah always meant
sunset, then why are nerot chanukah to be lit "mi'shetishka ha'chama
(Shabbat 21b).  Is it not too light then for candles to be easily seen
by the passersby?  Moreover,  we have learned (Ta'anit 12a), "ta'anit
shelo shakah olov chama, lo shemay ta'anit".  Yet the ancient tradition
is that a fast lasts until the stars appear.  Thus, on the basis of
Pesachim 94a  and the arguments from Chanukah and ta'ani'ot, Rabbenu Tam
created a rather revolutionary way of understanding shekiah and the
start of bein ha'shemoshot.   I don't know whether he actually put his
views into practice, but it was so done in European communities
generations later.

The conundrum consists of the fact that Rabbenu Tam and the tosfot, as
far as I am aware, have made no attempt to fit the above views into the
words of the sugiya in Shabbat about the appearance of the sky that were
cited above.  They do not even mention the one amora, Rava, whose
interpretation of "penei mizrach madimim" as the western sky that
reddens the east appears closest to their view (35a).  How can one
innovate a totally new peshat in the gemara without even attempting to
show how the gemara can be read according to their peshat?   If they
left that as an exercise for students, then why has no one, to my
knowledge, filled in the missing elements needed to justify R' Tam's
viewpoint?  If they did not rely on sky appearance since they lived far
to the north of the lattitude of Eretz Yisrael and Bavel, then how did
they reckon the start and duration of bein hashemoshot at their
lattitudes?   These are not minor issues; they go to the heart of
shemirat shabbat.  Even if Rabbenu Tam followed the advice of Rava on
friday, "You who are not expert in the shiurim of the rabbanan, light
candles  when the sun is at the tops of the palm trees" - how long after
sunset did he wait on motza'ei shabbat?

Moreover, why is Pesachim 94a  with its 4 mil between sunset and
appearance of stars considered possibly inconsistent with Shabbat 34b?
Rabbi Yehuda in Pesachim deals with the thickness of the rakiah using as
a model the sun travelling through a semi opaque firmament at dawn and
dusk.  During the day, the sun travels under the rakiah from east to
west, and at night, Rabbi Yehuda, following the view of the chachmei
yisrael, believes that the sun travels west to east above the rakiah
(Pesachim 94b).  Once the sun completes its travel through the rakiah
after sunset and starts its eastward travel above the rakiah, then its
influence on the appearance of the sky is complete gone, and the sky
should appear filled with stars.   A sky filled with stars does not
match the star criteria for the beginning of night mentioned in Shabbat
which specifies 3 "medium" stars (35b).   His 4 mil after sunset, does
not correspond, then, to the start of night - but to the time it takes
for the sun's influence to be completely gone in the western sky.  In
modern terms this is called astronomical twilight whose time and
duration can be found tabulated as a function of lattitude (and
longitude) together with times of sunrise and sunset, and civil twilight
(appearance of 2nd magnitude stars).  This time is much later than the
time for the appearance of 3 "medium" stars - and their is no
contradiction between Rabbi Yehuda in Shabbat and in Pesachim.  A very
similar argument is used by the Gaon and by the Ba'al Ha'tanya (in his
siddur).  The conundrum consists, then, of understanding why Rabbenu Tam
overlooked, or rejected, this understanding of Pesachim 94a, which
leaves intact the evident peshat in Shabbat 34b, in favor of a novel
approach to understanding shekia and bein hashemoshot.

Finally, the arguments from lighting Chanukah candles and the end time
of a fast are answerable.  In olden times, people would stop work in the
fields near sunset in order to reach home while there was still some
light to guide their footsteps.   At the lattitude of the sages of the
talmud, darkness fell about 1/2 hour after sunset, even in the winter.
At that point, particularly at Chanukah time which comes at the end of
the month, only the stars and a crescent moon provide a minimal amount
of illumination - which is insufficient in the absence of artificial
light to see how to walk.  Therefore lighting Chanukah candles outside
the house (the practice then) at sunset was appropriate and noticed by
passersby since it helped light their way.  The gemara in Ta'anit which
declares invalid a fast that did not extend to shekiah could be
considered a minimal definition of a fast, that is, a fast that lasted
until it was a safek lailah (the fast being of "Rabbinic" origin).  The
custom from ancient times, however, was to fast until it was definitely
night, that is, to the appearance of stars.  In other words the custom
was to be machmir on fasting as if it were a din min ha'torah - possibly
due to the fact that the quintessential ta'anit, Yom Kippur, had to be
observed until definite nightfall (a lo plug argument).

Yitzchok Zlochower

> Does anyone know the origin of this term as a reference to
> klal yisrael?

It certainly can be traced back to Muhammad, who refered to Jews and
Christians by that term in the Koran.

Akiva

I wrote:
>> There is, of course, the saying 'yirah shemayom yotzei yidei 
>> shteyam' (One who is G-d fearing tries to fulfil both views.)  
> That sounds remarkably similar to Kohelet 7:18.

Moshe Feldman wrote:
> Close, but no cigar.  Koheles is talking about that fact that there are 
> downsides to being too much of a tzadik and too much of a rasha, and therefore
> one should be makayim both aspects of tzidkus and rishus!  (See Rashi ad loc.)

That may be one peshat, but the Koheles Rabbah does not understand it
that way. It sees this verse as a source, or a hint, to R. Abbahu's
instituting blowing the shofar according to all the shitos. Before you
say that R. Hai Gaon says that R. Abbahu was only doing that to unite
people because really one can be yotzei like any of the shitos, this
midrash is brought as a proof against R. Hai Gaon.

Gil Student

From: gil.student@citicorp.com [mailto:gil.student@citicorp.com]
> That may be one peshat, but the Koheles Rabbah does not 
> understand it that way. 
> It sees this verse as a source, or a hint, to R. Abbahu's 
> instituting blowing the shofar according to all the shitos.  

It is clearly not the *pshat*, just drash (as is the case for most
midrashim)--it does not fit into the context of the psukim.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 11:24:46AM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
:> It sees this verse as a source, or a hint, to R. Abbahu's 
:> instituting blowing the shofar according to all the shitos.  

: It is clearly not the *pshat*, just drash (as is the case for most
: midrashim)--it does not fit into the context of the psukim.

Nit: I object to your use of the word "just". Derashah has more bearing
on halachah than does peshat. Since the case in question impacts how
one blows the shofar, the fact that it's a derash actually adds weight.

-mi

From: Moshe Shulman [mailto:mshulman@ix.netcom.com]
>> But we aren't talking about such clear-cut cases -- we are talking about
>> areas where poskim *today* disagree. When you have basic halachot where RMF
>> is matir, and RSZA assurs, would you require a person to follow RMF?

> There is, of course, the saying 'yirah shemayom yotzei yidei 
> shteyam' (One who is G-d fearing tries to fulfil both views.)

Interestingly, my Bar Ilan CD Rom (version 8) search yields the following
data:

1. The phrase appears exactly twice in the Gemara--Berachos 39b and
Shabbos 61a. Both times, the Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says that Mar
b'rei d'Ravina fulfilled "Yirei Shamayim yotzei yidei shneihem/shteihem."
I contend that this was the practice of one person and stands in marked
contrast to the rest of the Talmud, where halacha is paskened, and once it
is, nobody looks back. Also, in both cases, no substantial extra effort
is involved--in Berachos: "Manee'ach proosa b'toch shleimah u'votzai'a";
in Shabbos: put on your right shoe w/o tying, put on your left shoe,
tie left, tie right.

2. There seem to be about 6 cases in Rishonim (that is, Shu"tim, mostly
not mefarshei haShas) and 3 in Achronim (aside from quotations of prior
sources) mentioning the phrase. The most famous is wearing both tefillin
Rashi & Rabbeinu Tam.

So it's not as ubiquitous as may seem.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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


[ 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         ]