Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 011

Tuesday, April 2 2002

• shabbat clocks
• Re: Reading the nesi'im
• wine vs grape juice
• wine vs grape juice and RYDS
• [none]
• avdus
• calendar
• double request for Sholom at end of Kaddish
• gut moed
• Re: double request for Sholom at end of Kaddish
• taking off tfillin before hallel on chol hamoed
• Re: Mah Nishtanah
• Re: Some Pesach Yom Kippur Parallels
• Re: Mah Nishtanah
• Re: 'Hazal's wine
• Re: segulos
• Re: omer and haircuts
• Re: omer and haircuts
• Re: Tikkun Soferim
• Re: When did Mosheh write the Torah?
• Re: Chochom is superior to a prophet

I was recently asked a question about the use of a shabat clock for a
stove. Does anyone know something about the issues. In particular can
one change the clock on shabbat so that cooking goes on for longer just
as one can change a shabbat clock to keep the lights on longer.

Also RMF didn't seem to like shabbat clocks for anything other than
lights. I was once told that he changed his mind later in life because
of the prevelance of shabbat clocks and so maarit ayin would not be a
problem. Does anyone know more about this?

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 3/27/2002

Someone raised a question a few weeks ago. I don't remember if it was
answered ,and I cannot find it in the archives, so I'd like to ask
it again:

If it okay to to take the Torah from the aron to read the nesi'im in
Nisan, why is there a problem with taking it out to read Parshas Zachor
for women?

Akiva Miller

The question was asked does any Posek prefer wine over grape juice for
the 4 cups besides RMF.

See Mikraei Kodesh where Rav Zvi Pesach Frank quotes the Pri Chadash
that wine is lichatchila for 4 cups and grape juice is not.

See Harrerei Kodesh where Rav Yosef Cohen claims that Rashbam, Tosafos
and the Mordechai all on Pesachim 108b rule that one must use wine
and not grape juice. These Rishonim all say that the hava amina of the
Gemara was that the mitzva of simchas Yom Tov to drink wine and not grape
juice must be done with the 4 cups on leil seder. The maskanas hagemara
is that simcha is a separate mitzva and may be fulfilled even without
fulfilling the din of 4 cups. Rav Cohen learns that we see from the
hava amina that the 4 cups are always wine and therefore always could
satisfy the requirement of simcha. The maskana simply adds that the
extra wine for the requirement of 4 cups is not also needed to satisfy
the obligation of simcha.

See also Rashbam on Pesachim 108b where the 'taam' of wine that is
required for 4 cups is its alcoholic content.

Shlomo Goldstein

PS See also Mordechai there who asks how physically can one have grape
juice Pesach time when its season is later. He answers one saved grapes.
See Hararei Kodesh that this is NOT a proof in favor of grape juice for
4 cups.

RYDS was quoted as allowing/requiring grape juice due to the Rambam's
explanation of the Talmudic requirement to dilute wine with water as
being a means of flavor enhancement. Therefore those who prefer grape
juice should drink this way.

This seems hard to accept as his vort.

The first question should be 'is grape juice considered wine?'. See
Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 29:17, grape juice is considered wine for kiddush
on Shabbos and Yom Tov. That being so, the only remaining question
would be 'is the din of 4 cups different than kiddush?'. Since the
Rambam does not seem to say that the 4 cups are different, presumably
they have the same din as kiddush.

Yet, if one wishes to complain that the Rambam does not specifically
allow grape juice and therefore, for some reason, it is not acceptable
for the 4 cups; it seems hard to disprove this assumption from the din
of dilution of wine.

On the other hand, if grape juice is equally acceptable as wine like in
kiddush, there seems to be no reason for the Rambam to require grape
juice from the din of dilution. Grape juice is not diluted wine.
Is this a new global interpretation of the din of dilution? Is there
a requirement to pick one's favorite type of wine?

What did RYDS say?

Shlomo Goldstein

<<I bought one of my children "The Little Medrash Says" Haggadah this year
- they should've let him write the Haggadah! Tons of Midrashim that are
not in the Haggadah - why could the Ba'al Haggadah not included all this
stuff (and, I might add, there are a lot of pesukim that are missing
from the Haggadah as well)? It seems that the Haggadah is primarily
written as zemiros v'sishbochos to HKB"H.>>

RYBS points out that the Hagadah centers around Arami Oved Avi. He says
(similar to the above) that had he made the hagadah he would have
centered it around the pesukin in shemot that talk about the Jews in
Eygpt. Hence, he also comes to the conclusion that the hagadah is not
meant to tell us the miracles that happened.

It is also known historically that the one section that talks about the
miracles in Eygpy versus the more miracles in the splitting of Yam Suf
is a late addition to the hagadah

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 03/29/2002

R' Daniel Eidensohn asked <<< Can a person be free from G-d? ... is
slavery the opposite of cheirus or can they exist at the same time? >>>

see the latest email from Rapps with a lengthy dvar Torah from RYBS
about avdus and cherus

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 03/29/2002

Someone asked me the following question:

In hilchot niddah there is a veset that follows the day in the Hebrew
month, i.e. if the woman sees blood on the 5th of every Hebrew month
she has a veset kavua.

However, in most parts of the country the woman would not know when the
5th of the month was due to the distance from Jerusalem. In Bavel the
problem is worse since the shelichim were not sent every month it could
be several months until the woman knew which day of the month see saw.

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 03/29/2002

A while ago R. Gershon Dubin raised the question as to what is the
difference between yihei shilomo rabbo min shimaya and oseh sholom
bimromov....at the end of kaddish......why the seemingly duplicate
request.....

Explanations were offered, but I believe R. GD was not totally satisfied
with them.

I have recently come across an additional thought relevant to the inyan
in 'pirushei siddur hatefilloh liRoqeach'. In cheilek alpeh, p. 253,
it states re 'yihei shlomo rabbo...' 'HKB"H shehu adon haolom viadon
haSholom, ten lonu Sholom.........dizehu hashevuoh shenishba Hakodosh
boruch hu shelo yovinu hamalochim hadovor viyivalbilu tefilloson.

Derech agav, kaddish is explicated upon about three different times in
the sefer, so it should be a good source for such queries.

Mordechai

1. The M"B 235:8(OC) is fairly clear about the "bdeieved(my words)"
common practice of davening mincha btzibbur just before shkia and maariv
right after before tzeit hakochavim.
   A) Is anyone aware of any communities that are large enough so
that there will be a later maariv minyan(even though reduced in size)
where the early maariv has been disbanded or discouraged?
   B) Assuming both exist, is anyone aware of any sources which deal
with how much tircha AN INDIVIDUAL who is aware of this issue must
undergo in order to daven mariv bzman?

2) Is anyone aware of any sources which state a preference that the shatz
on chol hamoed (assuming a community that has both tfillin wearers and
abstainers) not be a tfillin wearer?

3) Any sources on the inappropriateness of replacing the shatz (e.g. at
Yishtabach) without a good reason?

Moed tov,
Joel Rich

On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:39:03 EST Phyllostac@aol.com writes:
<<Explanations were offered, but I believe R. GD was not totally 
 satisfied with them.>>

Until R' Yitzchok Zirkind sent the Rokeach.  Thank you as well.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

The M"B(OC 31:7) discusses this issue and use a (to me) a strange language
- after stating the above he says (emphasis mine) "VACHSHAV NAHAGU EIZEH
ANASHIM lsalkamn achar kedusha shel tfilat yud chet umikol makom tzrichin
lizaher lkaven lshmoa chazarat hatfila"

1. Does this imply the universal practice (which seems more logical to
me) prior to these "anashim" was to have a brief break between chazarat
hashatz and hallel(as we do on rosh chodesh prior to musaf)?

2.If yes, why was the new "minhag" allowed to displace the old and what
was the process that allowed it?

3. Do any shuls allow for such a break to accommodate those who would
like to concentrate on chazarat hashatz?

4. Any written or unwritten shut on the above?

Moadim Lsimcha
Joel Rich

[This first quote is from me. -mi]
> We were discussing on Areivim the notion of "Mah Nishtanah", and I
> commented that having your kids sing a well memorized prepared text
> doesn't really qualify as a them asking question. Then I added:
>> Actually, it's unclear that the Mah Nishtanah even is a question.
>> Grammatically, the smoothest translation is: How different this night is
>> from all other nights! For on all other nights...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:34:25 EST Myronw2@aol.com writes:
> Someone pointed the following to me in private email:
> : Aruch HaShulchan 473:21.

The S.O.Y. hagaddah translates "Mah Nishtanah" as a declarative sentence
    How different this night is
    from all other nights!
I mentioned it at our seder this year. It's the first time that I read
the S.O.Y. English of the Mah Nishtanah.

Chag Sameach,
Saul

On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 01:51:50PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
>: in a related matter there are a set of parallels between Yom Kippur and
>: Seder Night

In a message dated 3/22/02 11:51:53am EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> In addition to the 5 in RRW's list: 6) Concluding with "leshanah haba'ah
> biYrushalayim habenuyah".

Indeed. I meant to continue the list. FWIW, the German minhag is NOT
to say leshana haba'ah on YK, yet I do I concuer with this parallel..

To continue 
6B) Both Holidays call for the resotration of the Mikdash 
and 
6C) both have recitatipons that are more truly re-enactments of service
in the Mikdash

Thus the Seder is not only a re-enacment of Yitzias Mitzrayim but also
of the Seder in the Mikdash - {e.g. zecher lemikdash, Pesach Matzah,
Matzah Marro, no tzli etc.}

AND

The Avodah on YK is more than a recitation it is a re-enactment of the
Avodah in the Mikdash. Hence on both days a call for the reconstruction.
This is strongly articulated in Adir Hu. True - te end of the Avodah
on YK laments th absence of the Mikdash more than calling for its
re-construction nevertheless leshana hab'ah above does seem to cover
that point too.

Regards and Kol Tuv, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 03/26/2002 8:43:18pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Grammatically, the smoothest translation is: How different this night is
> from all other nights! For on all other nights...

FWIW I feel this is correct
EXCEPT 
that the Mishna states kan habein sho'el
Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Reb Jordan Hirsch quoted me: << .... The Biblical Archaeology Review
[it was the Economist, not BAR - arie] ran an article during the past
year about Roman wines, how they were brewed and how they tasted,
and that article explains the whole issue of mezigat hayayin/kos very
well. Essentially, Roman wine was dry and sour and would be spiced up
and mixed with honey to make it sweeter. It did not have a high alcohol
content, but its taste was so strong because of the concoction, that it
would require dilution....>>

RJH: << Based on the discussions in the Gemara about Yayin Chai, why
would we assume that the wine was highly alchoholic and fortified.>>

It had to be sufficiently alcoholic so that after dilution there would
still be some alcohol to talk of in their wine.

RJH: << If anything, the preferred approach in the gemara in Pesachim
is not to use the undiluted wine, thus lowering the alchohol content. Is
this Roman wine what is meant by Yayin Chai?>>

That was the impression I got when I read the article originally, and
which why I remember it; the whole issue of mezigah then and not nows
suddenly made sense. (especially mezigah then, as I fully understand
and agree that nowadays it doesn't really make sense)

RDF: << Natural, unfortified low-alcohol wine made from native Middle
Eastern grapes would've tasted just horrible. Why would such stuff have
been cherished by the Jews of that period for symbolic and celebratory
uses? We have to assume the wine was made in a way that made it
desirable. >>

It was the drink of the aristocracy and had some antiseptic quality
(remember those who sold whisky as medecine ;-)) to boot. Furthermore,
why would you think it must have tasted badly? Dry wine is tasty, and
so is mead. Now imagine a wine that is not quite Cabernet Sauvignon,
but has a flavour situated between those two, wouldn't that taste right?

RST: << Is there place to argue that concord grapes may not be
halachically grapes at all, in which case there wine would be pasul
(besides as chamar medina)? it would be preferable for everyone. But
what about Rama 272:5 that prefers not mozug? Or was that just a matter
of taste?>>

Evidently Concord grape products must be avoided. To quote, as did some
Oveid before me, rav Gusman (who was he, BTW), when asked whether one
can make a hagafen on grape juice, in a shehakol kon men oif dem yoh
makhen? ;-) ;-) ;-)

Git yom tev,
Arie Folger

RMB: <<My question would then become about the need to create this
spectrum, since the need for causality can be satisfied by the teva
end without introducing evidence of higher existance.>>

There is no need to create a spectrum, and indeed, those who believe
in segulot do not question whether there is a need for such a
continuum. Indeed, to the pre-scientific revolution Jew, just as for
his gentile neighbour, there was no question that the paranormal was
real. One didn't need scientific proof for the existence of spirits,
ghosts and Ashmedai; their presence was felt around every corner. It
seemed perfectly harmonious to have a world where the continuum included
paranormal forces of both good and evil, of holiness and defilement.

What the authors you allude to in this thread were writing about,
is, given the - by their contemporaries - well accepted notion of the
paranormal, how did the paranormal interact with the normal and how
did it all fit into a strictly monotheistic theology that refuted the
dualism of Christianity.

In light of the above, we must first separate those statements that
attest to the reality of the paranormal from those that function with
the assumption of its existence. My guess is that once this distinction
is drawn, you will not find too much support for worrying whether segulot
enhance or lessen emunah. Either you live in a world full of paranormal
where segulot are harmless to be'hirah, or you live in a world of science
where segulot don't exist. To quote RAS, "sheidim ... are germs".

A final point, RDR claims that Rambam has a continuum based cosmogony:

RDR: <<(for example, early on I suggested that segulos are related to
the mechanism that the Ramban suggested for kishuf)>>

Where did Rambam express belief in the supernatural, except for the rare
nissim, namely those in the Torah? Even about those, he writes that our
ancestors didn't buy into the Torah because of nissim, but because of
their personal prophecy. That passage, of which I left out part, also
gives the impression that for Rambam, ness was neither spectacular, nor
important, and that he wouldn't mind a convincing argument that places
them firmly within teva', א la Ralbag & Malbim at kritat mei haYarden,
or rabbenu Yonah on mass. Avot at 'assarah nissim na'assu laavotenu 'al
hayam. RDR mentioned Rambam in sefer haMitzvot to support the claim that
Rambam believed in a continuum. Where? To the best of my knoledge the
SM is, if anything, a proof that in hil. Akum ch. 11 he did not express
the full extent of his rationalism, something he made up for in SM, where
he explicitly explains kishuf as self induced halucinations. Bystanders
would get impressed, but not Rambam, who saw through the system.

In conclusion, I suggest that when discussing matters which in the
worldview of certain authorities are didactic at best, and outright
silly at worst, that we refrain from including those authorities in a
dialectic asher lo she'arum heim vetalmideihem.

And as far as the supporters of segulot are concerned, I humbly suggest
that we accord them the same respect and try to find out their worldview,
rather than force them to think according to our modern patterns. I will
post more on this last point after yom tov, BEH.

A gitten moi'ed, a gitten yom tev,
Arie Folger.

On 26 Mar 2002 at 13:47, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Sholom and I were recently discussing a further column in my
>> redaction of R' Akiva Miller's list of shitos for which days of
>> the omer to observe...
>> If anyone can find a m"m for the L shitah for me, I'd greatly appreciate
>> it.

In a message dated 3/26/02 8:42:00pm EST, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> SA HaRav OH 493:7.

BEH I will post {riposte :-)} on this...
It sems to me that the Chabad Minhag of all 49 days - minus special days -
makes the most sense - at least originally

Hypothesis:
The Halachos of mourning on sfira area related to thos of Chol Hamoed
therefore
1) no Taspores
2) no Nisu'in - erusin is OK
3) limited work {sheva shabbasos}

{FWIW this lists occurs unembelished in both KSA and the Tur..} 

I am guessing that ORIGINALLY all 49 days were treated like a quasi chol
Hamoed.
The Mourning came later {especially in Europe/Ashkenaz due to Crusades -
which puts the mourning around Rosh Chodesh Sivan! However I am told
that the first source is Gaonic - Rav Hai Gaon IIRC?}

AISI the Death of Talmidim of R. Akiva were not the orignal impetus,
but a post facto asmachta.

Therefore when RSZA was mattir music for a Bar Mitavah {See Avodah about
2-3 years ago} it is IMHO because the FIRST source to forbid music is
AFAIK the Magan Avraham. IOW, it is easy to be mattir music for even
the slightest reason. EG 5 Iyyar for those who hold by it. This is
because Music is a late extension {Chumra perhaps} added on.

BTW, the entire subject of aveilus as it relates to chol Hamoed is an
interesting one. Both are rooted in Moed Katan

OTOH the aveilus during the 3 weeks is indeed rooted in more traditional
aveilus and music would be more problematic, etc. IMHO the 2 have been
easily conflated, but are rooted in very different Halachic histories.
 
Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 01:58:25PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: I am guessing that ORIGINALLY all 49 days were treated like a quasi chol
: Hamoed.
: The Mourning came later {especially in Europe/Ashkenaz due to Crusades -
: which puts the mourning around Rosh Chodesh Sivan! However I am told
: that the first source is Gaonic - Rav Hai Gaon IIRC?}

I suggested in the post that this discussion was spawned to enhance
that the AhS implies this occured in two steps:

1- With the loss of R' Akiva's talmidim people stopped making weddings
during those days; (se'if 1)
2- After the crusades the minhag became one of full aveilus (se'if 2).

At least, the two historical events and the two enactments are grouped
in this way.

I also opined that the loss of R' Akiva's talmidim due to a lack of mutual
kavod drove home the feeling that the churban bayis and the sin'as chinam
that caused it weren't going to quickly be healed.

And since of all the yemei simechah, omer alone has no /chiyuv/ of simchah,
it became a time of mourning the lost qarbanos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 5th day
micha@aishdas.org            in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Hod sheb'Chesed: What kind of Chesed take away
Fax: (413) 403-9905                           my independence

In a message dated 3/20/02 2:15:58pm EST, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
> R. Moshe Bernstein (who I cc'ed on the original post) responded that
> it is not clear that the Samaritan Torah originates from before Ezra.
> He directed me to the Anchor Bible Dictionary...

Interesting.

I had assumed - perhaps incorrectly - that the Samaritan Torah proved
the unlikelihood of a Major redaction by Ezra and supported onlyh a
minor redaction. In academse, this would support Lower-Criticism and
reject Higher Criticism. If Professor Beranstein is correct, then this
affords us no evidence of same

FWIW - My earlier assumption was based upon the tremendous enmity the
Samartians had for Ezra. Thus having a smilar document on both sides
of a hostile debate would tend to support a common underlying document,
thereby rejeting the notion that Exra poasted together the Torah from a
piecemeal document, but would still allow for many, many scribal errors
and omitions.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 3/20/02 2:20:55pm EST, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com writes:
> Tanegential
> When was Parhas Vayikra said?
> In 1 Nissan at the 8th day of Mliuim? 
> at the first day of Milu'im - whenever?
> 
> Before Milu'im and in the Ohel Moed referred to in Parshas Ki Sissa?
> 
> If after Nissan 1, how were karbanos brought for Hanukkas Hamizbeyach? 

In researching this a bit it seems that much of Tzav WAS miSinai and
not Mei'ohel Moed

If so the karbanos as articualted in Tzav were EARLIER than those of
Vayikra and therefore Vayikra COULD have been as late as the Miuli'm
and there still would have been at least SOME of the karbanos in place -
especially the Millu'im themselves...

I have not yet seen the Ramban on this chronology. Lefi Rashi it is
quite feasible
 
Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 3/22/02 11:51:24am EST, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> I am working my way through a thought provoking Lubavitsh sefer (Emunas
> Chochomim by R Eliyahu Bakobza)discussing the nature of emunas chochomim...

> There is an apparent contradiction between the gemora in Yevamos 49b
> which said only Moshe saw with the "clear lens" and the gemora Succah
> (45b) which states that in each generation there are 36 tzadikim who see
> with the "clear lens". The Maharsha (Succah 45b) reconciles the two ...

> It would seem from this tiny sample that in fact through chochma of
> kabbala that the Rashbi and Arizal held that they could reach higher
> levels than Moshe. I seem to recall that the Ramchal claimed that he in
> fact had surpassed them.

> In contrast the Gra held that the Arizal was not in those leagues nor
> was the Ramchal. ..

> Question: Is this issue of the literal understanding of the superiority of
> a chochom compared to a prophet - even Moshe rabbeinu - a differentiating
> princple between chassidus and misnagdim? Was it ever? Sources would
> be appreciated.

As to Post Sinai Revelation
Rambam Marim 1:1
Beis Din Hagaold is the Ikkar Torah Sheb'al Peh

R. Eliezer Hagadol brought rayos min hashamayimn BUT Chazal rejected
those rayos

BUT

it seems that bas kol WAS ratified re: Bes Hillel over Bes Shammai!

A possbile difference

A Bes Din CAN renew Halachah - BY CONSENSUS - but NOT by individuals.
So R. Eliezer failed because he was after all a Da'as Yachid. A Da'as
Yachid - even on a HIS madreiga is NOT normative.

{TW, that is part of my thesis that Consensus NOT Genius - should be
the arbiter of what is normative. Genius OTOH is useful for Lamdus -
to getting at the EMES of an issue. Think of how R. Meir seems often to
see deeper into an issue, but the Halachah nevertheless is usually with
his bar plugta. Same with R. Eliezer, and possibly with Shammai, too.
See the thread on le'assid lavio Halachah kvais Shammai. That is because
in practial Halachah consensus counts but on theoretical level greater
insight may count more.

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

In another post I suggested that jsut as Adas Yisrael is constued As
Sanhedrin when there IS a Shanhedrin so too is the converse.

I cited a GRA who cites a Yerushalmi that MINHAG is OKEIR HALACHAh

IMHO this is because a Consenus of Adas Yisrael -- whatever that is
preceisely -- CAN innovatge in a sense
BUT
No one Gadol or Poseik - no matter how inspired - has that authority
nowadays.

So if a rebbe is on the madreiga of Moshiach - but is rejected by Klal
Yiasrael he is rejected. Think about all of the so-called "Messiahs"
in history.

Hypothetically: If ALL of Adas Yisrael had accepted Shabtai Zvi as
Moshiach THAT would have been noramitve - at least until that Sheggagah
was revealed and the matter reversed.

HOW can ADas Yisrael over-ride the Amito shel Torah?

Yisrael v'roaisso vKusha Brich Hu Chad Hu. The ability of Adas Yisrael
to at least INFLUENCE Halachah -- if not override it on occasion --
is a built in factor - at least AISI

Nevertheless, we must not shy away from seeing that it is possible that
the tzibbur is ne'elam and not understanding the Halachah as intended.
So it is important to see the emes on the theortiecal level

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

FWIW, the Maharitz chayes makes this distinction between Halachah and
Halachah lemaa'se I will BEH address this more later.

This is why when RYDS/Brisk makes a pshat in the Gmara according to
the Rambam, I do not feel it impacts how Ashkenazim PASEN since by and
large we follow Tosapfos etc. and not the Rambam for Halachah lema'aseh.
In fact AISI, the pshat in a given sugay in Bavli might not be the
ultimate source for use because Ashkenaz relied upon either
A) pilpulistically resolviing sugous
B) relying upon other sources at times {e.g Yerushalmi} That's why
Ashkenazim wear Tfillin on Chol Hamoed BTW.

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

This lamdus/pshat vs. lemaaseh dichotomy is somewhat supported by the
Chayei Adam - who while a Talmid of the GRA - usually did not change
the normative Halachah from what was accepted. If Brain-power -or even
Tzidukus - were THE criteria, then clearly the Chayei Adam would have
felt more compelled to follow the GRA more often.

Following an individual charismatic genius over the the accepted Masorah
and/or consensus is IMHO a Hassidic/Kabblistic phenomenum and not truly
mainstream Ashkenazic/Misnagdic hashkafah.

After all - if following inspiration were the criteria, then how can
the Rema argue with the Bes Yoseph who learned with a Maggid? {BTW,
BY himself does not overrule Esential Talmud/Psokim in favor of Zohar
very often}

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

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


[ 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         ]