Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 128

Sunday, March 16 2003

• Re: RYBS view
• Re: Hora'as Sha'ah
• Re: Mishleiach manos
• RE: Toras Purim -11,12,13,14,15
• Kodshim (was Re: Who is a posek?)
• RE: Toras Purim -11,12,13,14,15
• Re: Hora'as Sha'ah
• RE: Toras Purim - Sefas Emes
• Re: REED and spirituality
• Re: Emuna/Bitachon - serenity or dialectic tension?
• eruvin in Brooklyn
• Re: Hora'as Sha'ah
• RE: Toras Purim -11,12,13,14,15
• Question on today's haftorah
• Re: Piskei Ramo
• Re: Who is a posek?
• Re: Minhag hamaqom

Thank you for probing this deeper. 

One of the tools that religion provides is a sense of optimism, of
overarching meaning and the conviction that purpose and destiny is
more important that one individual's frustration with unresolvable
questions. As Rashi says by Bris Ben Habsarim, it lifts one above the
stars to get an overview of one life within the framework of the total
Divine purpose. Avrohom could even surmount his childlessness once raised
to this degree of awareness.

M. Levin

At 04:14 PM 3/14/03 +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
>Is it correct to say that the halacha changed by Chanuka? Here, where
>there is no sakanah from the surrounding goyim, many people (most who
>can) do light outside.

I can only tell you that the Rogatchover says so - and the Mikroei Kodesh
on Chanukah discusses the sevarah too. I do not think it necessarily
eliminates the prior benchmark but rather lowers the bar.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> A.A. Butshash (not sure who this is) at the end of 695.

Aishel Avrohom ....not to be confused with the Aishel Avrohom segment
of the Pri Megodim

Both in back of the Shulchan Oruch

Simcha Goldstein

[RCM topquoted, leaving in RCB's entire post. I chose to whittle it
down and just leave enough to remind people what we're discussing. Why
did I leave the Ikkarim? Because it would be interesting if RYAlbo
disagreed with his rebbe, the Ran. -mi]

From: Brown, Charles.F [mailto:charlesf.brown@gs.com]
>No, that was the issue.  You originally wrote >>>Mattan Torah in the Midbar
>was bechinas yiras ha'onesh, wile Purm is bechinas yiras ho'romemus<<<.  We
>objected that the kabbalah was mitoch ahavah, as the N.E. wrote, and you
>pressed for sources in chazal, which led to Rashi in Shabbos 88 who says the
>kabbalah worked because it was done m'ahavah - not yirah. Left off with a
>question for you on your sources in chazal to back up your original
>statement?
...
>Sefer haIkkrim (III:36) - "Ahavah for Hashem 't'aneg hanefeh
>**u'tisamcha**', even though love for something that is unattainable or
>difficult to attain troubles the soul...and those who love/choshek are
>filled with worry and pain...nontheless love of Hashem...does not dismay or
>cause discourage [the soul] because even if only a little [of G-d's love] is
>attained, '**tismach hanefesh** v'tagil v'tisaneg ta'anug nifla'."

While I agree with Chaim in regards to Purim, the idea of simcha and yirah
is discussed inteh Drashos HaRan on the possuk "Ivdu es Hashme B'Yirah
V'gilu Birada". The obvious question is how does yirah lead to a sense of
joy. The Ran answers that it is referring to yiras haromimus and when I
person achieves that level he realizes he is in a state of shlaimus and this
leads to a level of simcha.

I also seem to recall that he discuss Ahvah vs Yirah and says that the
highest level is Ahavas Hashem from understanding that Hashem is always
there and giving (similar to ahavah bet man and wife) while 2nd highest
level is yiras haromimus. It could be the Ran doesn't say this but I recall
seeing it somewhere.

On 13 Mar 2003 at 20:39, Dovid S & Avital Lipsett wrote:
> I already brought the CI who says the MB has a din of sanhedrin. There
> is also a famous story with the Chafitz Chaim. The CC told a cohen
> that he felt he should focus his time learning kadshim so that he
> would know what to do in the bais shilishi. The cohen replied that how
> would he know what to do in orach chaim to which the CC replied learn
> my sefer on OC and you'll KNOW what to do.

The CC's son-in-law put out a sefer called "Avodas HaKorbanos - Shiur
Yomi l'Kohanim," which has haskomos from R. Chaim Ozer and R. Chaim
Brisker (among others), and a hakdama by the CC himself. The CC's son-
in-law was named R. Aharon Cohen, and yes, he was a Cohen....

-- 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.

>>>Of course ahavah is essential to a true kabboloh, that is not an
issue.<<<

No, that was the issue. You originally wrote >>>Mattan Torah in
the Midbar was bechinas yiras ha'onesh, wile Purm is bechinas yiras
ho'romemus<<<. We objected that the kabbalah was mitoch ahavah, as the
N.E. wrote, and you pressed for sources in chazal, which led to Rashi in
Shabbos 88 who says the kabbalah worked because it was done m'ahavah -
not yirah. Left off with a question for you on your sources in chazal
to back up your original statement?

You now redirect to a second entirely different question - can this
state of ahavah be the makor of simcha? You wrote:

>>>However, the state of ahavah is, to my mind, not associated with
simchah, but with oneg "menuchas ahavah u'nedavah." On the contrary,
ahavah is often associated with ache and pain "ki cholas ahavah ani."<<<

Sefer haIkkrim (III:36) - "Ahavah for Hashem 't'aneg hanefeh
**u'tisamcha**', even though love for something that is unattainable
or difficult to attain troubles the soul...and those who love/choshek
are filled with worry and pain...nontheless love of Hashem...does not
dismay or cause discourage [the soul] because even if only a little
[of G-d's love] is attained, '**tismach hanefesh** v'tagil v'tisaneg
ta'anug nifla'."

And even the famous Rambam in Tshuva ch 10 who describes an ohev Hashem
as being consumed "k'ailu cholei ha'ahavah" has to be seen in light
of Rambam lulav ch 8, "**vhasimcha** sh'yimach adam b'asiyas hamitzvos
**v'ahavas ha'Keil** sh'tzivah bahem avodah gedolah..."

No stirah between the two ideas: there is the choli of seeking love which
is of yet unfufilled, but there is a level of having attained some aspect
of G-d's love, which brings complete simcha.

Ba'al haTanya in Iggeres haKodesh (18) has a similar (though not
identical) distinction between "ahavah b'ta'anugim, d'haynu sh'misaneg
al Hashem oneg nifla **b'simcha rabbah v'atzuma simchas hanefesh**",
attainable only on a high madreiga, and the ahavah to seek G-d that we
all have, "v'al kosef zeh sh'giluy rav ksiv tzamah nafshi k'adam hatzamay
l'mayim **v'ain lo ta'anug adayin klal**".

So when Rashi writes "ahavas hanes", and the N.E. writes "ratzon shel
ahavah", they don't mean the pain of unfufilled G-dly love. They mean
Purim is when that fufilled G-dly love normally attainable only for those
on a high madreiga was manifest and attained derech nes by all, which,
as the Ikkrim writes, leads the nefesh to the highest madreiga of simcha.

R' Dessler writes: "zehu inyan sh'yom kippurim hu k-purim, for yom
kippur is to cleanse us from sin and timtum through /bechinas hayirah/
(yiras haonesh, yiras hacheit, yiras haromimus - hakolleles kulan b'aimas
hadin), but this geder is tafel to the limud of Purim which is /binyan
ha'ahavah/, through /simcha/ of kiddush Hashem of nekamaha, hakaras hatov,
and hisnadvus hanefesh".

More to come on the Sefas Emes.

-Chaim

On 13 Mar 2003 at 9:18, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:
>>> Hor'as Sho'a is not really an excpetion, rather it is a temporary
>>> suspension in a limited circumstance. The ikkar hadin remains intact

> Not always - such as halachos that changed because of she'as sakkanah
> (e.g., Ner Chanukah).

Is it correct to say that the halacha changed by Chanuka? Here, where 
there is no sakanah from the surrounding goyim, many people (most who 
can) do light outside.

-- Carl

>>>See the Sefas Emes Purim 5643, that Al ha'Nisim is in Modim because
it is a ceri'ah we received because "Mordechai lo yichra." <<<

S.E. certainly says this. But strange makor for you to cite because
he never actually talks about yiras haromimus, though you add >>Ceri'ah
is associated with Yiras Ha'Romemus, as in the first part of Aleynu.<<
I don't think your extension is consistant with his approach, see below.

You continue: >>>And, of course, Amalek comes when "v'lo yarei
Elokim." The tikkun to that is Purim.<<<

Sefas Emes (5661) addresses this gufa, and davka reiterates the connection
between ahavah, simcha and purim: "Rashi - m'ahavas hanes, meaning,
through the nes was aroused the /love/ which in the hearts of BN"Y for
Torah, and this was through mapalas Haman and Amalek, for amalek and its
minions stand only /lavatel es ha'ahavah/ from the hearts of bn"y...and
in the days of Purim there are 2 yeshu'os, mapalas amalek and kabbalas
hatorah, v'yesh /lismoach/ in both..."

Amelek=bittul ahavah. Kabbalas hatorah (tikkun) of purim=ahavah.
Both cause simcha.

He writes as well (5631) that chodesh elul is the tikkun of tshuvah
m'yirah, 'u'kmo kein b'chodesh adar *m'ahavah v'simcha* zochin l'tshuvah'.
(See the R' Dessler in previous mail).

He also quotes the Rashi in Shabbos 'ahavas hanes' every other page.

>>Yomim Tovim - which are intimately associated with Morah Mikdash -
are times of simchah.<<

Maybe we can discuss this closer to Y"T, but suffice it for now to
say that if you contrast the Rambam in Y"T ch 6 where he describes the
simcha of Y"T (there were literally police officers of B"D going around
to make sure people did not get drunk!) with the Rambam in meg 2 where he
describes simchas Purim, you will see 2 completely different gedarim.
RYBS explains simcha of Y"T in the Torah is always connected with
usemchatem *lifnei Hashem*, also tos shita is that the chiyuv simcha
d'oraysa is only in mikdash. If there is a din simcha outside mikdash
b'zman galus, its got to be a different sort of animal. The Lubavitcher
Rebbe in a few places I found also has a hesber of the 2 gedarim in
Rambam, but enough for now.

-Chaim

P.S. I think it is easier m'sevara (as Chaim M already said) to connect
ahavah and simcha and Purim, esp. in light of N.E., S.E., R' Dessler,
and I'm sure there might be other mekoros who spell it out, but for
intellectual honesty's sake see the Radomsker on shoshanas ya'akov for
a different approach.

> I dunno. I get the impression from Michtav Me'Eliyahu that REED
> believed that ideally man should withdraw from this olam ha'sheker
> (which is really a mirage) and concentrate just on spiritual matters,
> which (I get the impression) REED viewed as more straightforward.

This is exactly the difference between RYBS and REED ( interaction vs
withdrawl from the world)

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

In a message dated 3/14/2003 1:16:08 PM EST, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> From the following quotes I see a clear dichotomy between the quietistic
> attitude of the rishonim and most of Chazal verus the conduct of the major
> figures in Tanach. Rav Soleveitchik fits in with Moshe Rabbeinu but not
> Chovas HaLevavos, Rambam, Ramban etc. It is not just in relationship to
> physical issues but also spiritual.
> 
> Rashi[1](Sotah 48a): Men of faith: They trust in G-d and rely on Him to
> do good and they have no worries that they will lack anything.
> 
> Berachos[1](60a): Hillel was traveling and heard screaming of distress
> in the city. He said: I am totally confident that this is not in my
> house. Concerning him the verse said "He will not be afraid of bad news
> because his heart is steadfast in his trust of G-d"... Ran[1](Derasha 6):
...

Yasher koach.

The Kuzari notes that people with a Massorah have less to be conerned
with as opposed to Kara'im - who by lacking a Masorah - need to examine
every issue from a fresh perspective every time.

W/O impugning any disrespect, RYBS was creative and not the kind of
Talmid Chacham who was satisfied with answers like "well thats just the
way it's done."

I can tell you that it appears to me there is a psychologial dimension
to Traditionalists versus "Mechadshim" or innovators. Traditionalists
accept things as they are ore and have less cognitive dissoncace, the
mechadhsim are always in a state of tension.

Personally, I have chosen a bit of both to be more of a MeChaddeish
in the areas of lamdus and machshava and to stick to long-standing,
teim-tested Norms in the areas of Minhag and Halachah.

Sometimes you need to pick your battles and to channel your creative
juices in a more focused way than by spreading them out all over.
Of course RYBS could do that. I don't think most of us can.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

[Bouncing from Areivim. -mi]

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> On 13 Mar 2003 at 15:59, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> > I'm talking about disagreeing with RMFeinstein's rejection of the
> > Flatbush eruv.  I am told (can RYGB confirm?) that many metropolitan
> > eruvin in major cities (I was specifically told about Los Angeles and
> > the new Upper West Side eruv) suffer from the same problem involved in
> > the Flatbush eruv but other poskim are more mekil.  
> 
> I recall hearing that the problem in Flatbush was Ocean Parkway and 
> that the problem in LA was Wilshire Boulevard - in each case a street 
> that was more than 16 amos wide and had shishim ribo each day (the 
> "new Upper West Side" eruv was after I left the US :-). I was also 
> told that it was a problem according to "everyone." 

That's hard to credit, since Ocean Parkway has a daily traffic flow of
about 50-70,000 vehicles <http://www.uctc.net/access/access17lite.pdf>.
Very few buses, either, to boost the capacity. (the B-9 runs on Ocean
Parkway for a block). Or do you count buses that cross it as well?
Certainly you don't have 60 myriads at one time on the road. The road
I've heard as problematic is Flatbush Avenue, which is also 6 lanes (or
4 lanes in parts), and has lots of buses. Nor is it really mefulash,
since it passes under the Belt at one end and Ft. Hamilton Pkwy at the
other - don't the bridges count as tzuras hapesach?

Thus, none of the Brooklyn eruvs (Flatbush, Park Slope) cross Flatbush
Avenue.

 From what I've seen, R' Moshe relied on a new concept of 60 ribu,
so-many people in the street over the course of a day, within an area
12 miles on a side. It's been a while since I looked at this in IM,
so the specifics may be wrong, but suffice it to say the measurement
was his own chidush. It was his final sticking point against approving
an eruv in Brooklyn. The same argument would have worked against the
eruvs in Park Slope and Boro Park, but they were built nonetheless -
the Park Slope one approved by R' Herschel Schachter the first time,
and R' Avrohom Blumenkrantz for the redesign/expansion.

In a message dated 3/14/2003 1:15:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

I believe *I* RRW said this
> On 13 Mar 2003 at 9:18, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:
> >>>Hor'as Sho'a is not really an excpetion, rather it is a temporary
> >>>suspension in a limited circumstance. The ikkar hadin remains intact
> 
> >Not always - such as halachos that changed because of she'as sakkanah
> >(e.g., Ner Chanukah).
> 
> Is it correct to say that the halacha changed by Chanuka? Here, where 
> there is no sakanah from the surrounding goyim, many people (most who 
> can) do light outside.

There is a longer term of hora'as sh'oah -such as an es la'asos, etc.

But there are other events in the evolution of Minhaggim or Halachos.

Remeber this: many takkanos and/or gzeiros are started for ONE reason
and are continue for other reasons

EG: I don't follow Kitniyos because I am chosheis that I might mix up
legumes with grains, rather, because this is Minhag avos :Chayei Adam
calls this al titosh Toras imecha"

Simlarly we do 2nd day YomTov in the Golah because of Minhag Avoseinu
Beyadeinu - although the original reason was sfaika deyoma

Once things get instituted, sometimes they take on a life of their own.

So the original need to light Menoros inside might have been due to
hor'as Sha'ah but the reason this is continued might be for completely
different reasons than the original reason.

This is closely related to the concept that we often know WHAT To do
but not WHY.

EG: A very scrupulous Yekke I know does not mezamien on Wine on Friday
night.
That's because "it's his minhag". If you look trough Halachic sefarim,
there is really no reason NOT To be mezamein on wine on a Friday night.
AISI, kosher wine was very expensive in Europe and they suspended with
making people bench on wine for a mezuman. But now where this same ba'al
habos typically puts out 2 bottles of wine to drinkg DURING the meal
after kiddush, his minhag makes no sense to me.

However, I can exmpathizse because I uinderstand how attached yekkes
are to Minhaggim and Mutav sheyihyu shoggegim is at least in play here.

Anotehr Yeeek freind lsitend to me enought at least ot removed the wine
from the table before becnhing so as not to be mevaeysh the wine when
not using it on Shabbos. But Yekke #1 is not chosheish at all.

AIS, it is a classic hora'as sho'oh that has taken on a life of its own.
I might be wrong, but I can see no reason NOT to bench on a glass of
wine especially when we are casually drinking wine throughout the meal.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

At 10:01 AM 3/14/03 -0500, Brown, Charles.F wrote:
> >>>Of course ahavah is essential to a true kabboloh, that is not an
>issue.<<<
>
>No, that was the issue.  You originally wrote >>>Mattan Torah in the Midbar
>was bechinas yiras ha'onesh, wile Purm is bechinas yiras ho'romemus<<<.  We
>objected that the kabbalah was mitoch ahavah, as the N.E. wrote, and you
>pressed for sources in chazal, which led to Rashi in Shabbos 88 who says the
>kabbalah worked because it was done m'ahavah - not yirah.  Left off with a
>question for you on your sources in chazal to back up your original
>statement?

That Mattan Torah in the Midbar had some measure of ahavah is indicated
by the concept of "nafshi yatza'ah b'dabro" (Rav Hutner interprets "Kam
Rava v'shachtei l'Rav Zeira" similarly, and, of course, the entire Shir
HaShirim. Nevertheless, the yirah was one that is reflected as kefiyah.
That is why they were later "k'tinok ha'borei'ach me'beis ha'sefer." This
is not a contradiction. A human being can sense multiple emotions
simultaneously.

As regards Purim, there is no definite reflection of its character of
Ahavas Hashem in Chazal or the Rishonim. I would contend that Ahavas
Ha'Nes would lead to Yiras Ha'Romemus.

>You now redirect to a second entirely different question - can this state of
>ahavah be the makor of simcha?  You wrote:
>
> >>>However, the state of ahavah is, to my mind, not associated with simchah,
>but with oneg "menuchas ahavah u'nedavah."  On the contrary, ahavah is often
>associated with ache and pain "ki cholas
>ahavah ani."<<<
>
>Sefer haIkkrim (III:36) - "Ahavah for Hashem 't'aneg hanefeh
>**u'tisamcha**', even though love for something that is unattainable or
>difficult to attain troubles the soul...and those who love/choshek are
>filled with worry and pain...nontheless love of Hashem...does not dismay or
>cause discourage [the soul] because even if only a little [of G-d's love] is
>attained, '**tismach hanefesh** v'tagil v'tisaneg ta'anug nifla'."

I submit that the Ahavah that the Ikkarim is addressing is inseparable
from Yiras Ha'Romemus. This is because there is no way that true
ahavah can exist without yirah. As the Zohar says "trein gadfin d'lo
misparshin." The simchah that inheres in Ahavas Hashem, which the Ikkarim
admits is different than other Ahavos, is because of the Yirah in which
it is wrapped.

Again, I would like to stress, as it seems at least to a certain extent
from the Ikkarim, if his lashon is medukdak, that fulfilled ahavah is oneg
(bechinas Shabbos) while fulfilled yirah is simchah (bechinas Yom Tov).

>And even the famous Rambam in Tshuva ch 10 who describes an ohev Hashem as
>being consumed "k'ailu cholei ha'ahavah" has to be seen in light of Rambam
>lulav ch 8, "**vhasimcha** sh'yimach adam b'asiyas hamitzvos **v'ahavas
>ha'Keil** sh'tzivah bahem avodah gedolah..."
>
>No stirah between the two ideas: there is the choli of seeking love which is
>of yet unfufilled, but there is a level of having attained some aspect of
>G-d's love, which brings complete simcha.

I do not see it as a setirah either; you will note in the Rambam that
the simchah and the ahavah are, however, tzvei dinim.

That a combination of yirah and ahavah lead to simchah (and oneg) is
evident from Reb Tzadok:

"Ha'simchah v'ha'avahavah davar echad, ki al yedei ha'simchah misorer
ha'ahavah." (Machshevos Charutz 80b)

but:

"Ikkar ha'simchah hu me'sitrah d'gevurah, kemo she'kasuv b'leidas
Yitzchok... Simchas Bnei Yisroel hu rak ha'ba'ah me'toch ha'yirah"
(Divrei Sofrim 18b)

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

Why did Shemuel tell Agag "ka'asher shikla nashim charbecha..."? Why did
he need to give a reason and not just kill him because of the mitzva of
mechiyas Amalek? And particularly to explain it to Agag?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 3/14/2003 8:29:05 AM EST, ydamy@hotmail.com writes:
> There seems to me to be a rather disturbing vein through this and similar
> comments.

Good you are getting out of your comfort zone, Yaasher koach for growing
in Torah and getting some of that Tension that RYBS discussed! --smile --

> The assumption is that the Remo woke up one morning with a
> stack on Rishonim, and paskened according to which ever way he pleased,
> as long as both opinions were acceptable.
...
> It is worthwhile reading the Remo's introduction to Darkei Moshe, and
> to Toras Chatos where he spells out clearly that the reason he paskens
> not like the Beis Yosef is because of minhogei Ashkenaz. Their were long
> standing minhogim (mesorah) in specific psokim, and in general to give
> greater weight to specific poskim.

> With regards to why the MB paskens with weight towards Ashkenazi poskim
> and the Ramo, that should be obvious. He was an Ashkenazi posek in an
> Ashkenazi town paskening for Ashkenazi people in Ashkenazi countries. Why
> would he do otherwise?

Well how do you explain Asheknazim faovring Sehpardic shittos,. EG
RYBS and the Brisker fasination with the Rambam which is frequently
diametrically opposed to the Tosafistic school

Regardless of how you frame it, the Rema favored some Rishonim over others
NOT becasue he though they had more emese, or learned the sugya better,
or has a better psaht but precisely due to Masorah.

This can be shown in the Aruch Hashulchan who agrees with the RASBA IIRC
that al nekkiyus yadayim is not a good idea as a brachah but laments -
what can I do, the Rosh and the Tur already paskened.

I can also point out to you that Many Sefarim are largely ignorant of
Msoraos that are outside their own "box" so to speak.

The point I am making is ein hachi name, Masorah is biasing factor in
coming to a conclusion

But it is NOT the only factor. If RYBS explains the Gmara the way the
Rambam learned it is not because Ashkenazim bichlal did that, just the
Briskers etc.

Furthermoe, you can se the opposite trhead in Hassisidism which davka
rejected the minhaggim and traditions of Ashkenaz in favor of the
Arivzal's take on Daveving etc.

How do you explain that?

Also I ask you, how many poskim in Tshuvos say the minhag is X and despite
my pshat in the Gmara which says Y - let's follow X nayway because of
Masorah? Aderabba, The Meharshal and others felt that they could go back
to the Gmara and come up with brand new pshat w/o any particualr Masorah.
Now there are those who aregue with Meharshal {E.G. ME!} but many poskim
actualyl use that method.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

> I already brought the CI who says the MB has a din of sanhedrin.

This issue was much discussed in the past in this forum.

There are obvious problems with understanding this literally.

1) The CI who often disagreed with MB would then have the status of
   zakein mamre c.v.
2) Where did the CI get the authority to give the MB this authority
3) The CI writes that the Shulchan Aruch itself is a fall back position
4) The Aruch HaShulchan was used in the Radin yeshiva rather than the MB
5) Perhaps more important is that the CI did not say that "MB has a din
   of sanhedrin"

The letters is vol II #41 page 47.
"...There is no difference whether it is arguing on Rashi and the Rambam
or Rashi alone, because in truth the Mishna Berura writes that we rule
like Rabbein Tam l'chumra not lhakeil. This machmir position has spread
throughout all of klall Yisroel. If the latter gaon wrote to be melamed
zchus on those being lenient this is not the basis of paskening like
those being lenient... Bottom line that hora'ah which has been accepted
- from our sages from whose mouth we live such as the Beis Yosef, Magen
Avraham and the Mishna Berura and we don't find anyone whose says not to
be choshesh for the view of Rabbeinu Tam - is the established halacha
as if it was from the Sanhedrin and their is no basis to be lenient in
this matter."

In sum CI is simply stating that any particular halacha which has
been universally accepted from an established gadol should be viewed as
equivalent to that of the Sanhedrin. He is definitely not stating that all
that these gedolim said is to be viewed as authoritative as the Sanhedrin.
It would also follow if there is a change in the universal acceptance -
which is the actual source of authority - than the halacha would also
lose its binding status.

> My rebbe has also told me that there are kilalim how to pasken from the
> MB( i.e. the last daya he brings).

It is an open question when there are kilalim of the MB. R' Yisroel
Belsky told me that as far as he knows there are no kilalim but that
yeshiva trained individuals tend to come to the same conclusion when
learning the MB.

> the CI in Igros is saying we NOW have no right not
> to go like the MB as an individual.

This is an incorrect understanding of the CI as is obvious from the
letter itself.

> I was told that R' Hutner said you can follow your Rebbe's psakim but
> only if you follow ALL his psakim.

I was told by R' Yosef Rabinowitz - a talmid of R' Hutner - that you
should consider the MB as binding only if you accept everything said
in the MB. Otherwise it is one amongst many important sources to
consider. It makes no sense to say that one can not follow the pask of
one's rebbe - see the Introduction to the Igros Moshe.

> To sum it up The MB is for the hamon am who hasno rebbe or minhagim
> which now a days is basically everyone.

As the CI said regarding the Shulchan Aruch - if you don't have a clear
basis for deciding what to do you can always rely on the Shulchan Aruch.
There are still other authorities e.g., Chazon Ish, Igros Moshe, R' SZ
Auerbach etc, that can be used - even today and even if they disagree
with the Mishna Berura. Obviously, however, a psak of the MB which has
become universal or even widespread must be seriously entertained and
not lightly dismissed even with the support of other authorities.

                                                        Daniel Eidensohn

RRWh wrote:
> Makes sense when starting a new kehilla to pick a poseik as the default
> of the Makkom. The problem I have seen is where a shul starts out with
> say for example a Hungarian Minhag and a Litvak follows as the new mora
> d'asra and he is unaquainted with the minhag0 hamakkom.
>
> In Teaneck, our new Rav has great respect for minhag hamakkom but he
> is simply not aware of all the situations yet, and so there are subtle
> problems

Happens to me all the time. I constantly find myself checking things
with oldtimers and with minhaggim books, which is what happens when a
Brisk influenced Galitzianer becomes the rav of a purebread yekkische
shul which BTW still does have a real minhag hamaqom.

The shammash is my saviour in these matters (but he is recuperating from
some surgery, so I am left guessing ;-)).

BTW, RRW, do you know where the minhag comes from that the rav reads
the entire last passuq of shm'a every sha'harit & ma'ariv, except Fri
night when he recites from lema'an yirbu till the end, with trop?

Arie
--
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future
generations, and to be stringent out of one's own accord, unless he shall
bring clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabby Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

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


[ 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         ]