Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 226

Wed, 11 Nov 2009

• 1. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Micha Berger)
• 3. Why avraham did not receive the torah (chide...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Micha Berger)
• 6. seclusion (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Why avraham did not receive the torah (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: What is a minhag? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Ani Maamin... (Steven J Scher)
• 10. Re: Ani Maamin... (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 13. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: dinosaurs (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 05:05:41PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> : >I was under the impression that during the time that YT sheni was a 
> : >gezeirah, as opposed to minhag avos, that is, before the fixed calendar
> : 
> : You have that backwards.  Before the fixed calendar it was a practise
> : (minhag, if you like) based on the existence of a safek de'oraisa.
> 
> Not a minhag, a din mishum safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. I'm butting in
> more because of the "what is a minhag?" thread than anything here.

Except that the letter "mitam" explicitly called it a "minhag".  One
can say that they didn't use the term in the same sense we use it.


> The question which I still feel wasn't fully resolved from a month or two
> back was when the first version of the fixed calendar was introduced. Are
> we sure it was after churban bayis, or was there a period of time in
> which they were told to follow minhag avos AND were olim laregel?

Of course it was well after the churban; during the entire time of
the 2nd bayis there was a functioning beis din that was mekadesh
every month, so how could there *not* be a sfeka deyoma in Bavel?
"Shalchu mitam" can only have taken place after Hillel's calendar
was introduced.


> IOW, the question is: Then they were gozerim to continue the practice, was
> it based on who is during Yom Tov where the safeiq would have been (CT),
> or a taqanah on the community one lives in (what most of us do lemaaseh).

The letter was addressed to the Bnei Bavel, and they were commanded to
continue their fathers' minhag.  Surely that means to do whatever it
was that their fathers did.


> The fact that it's not minhag avos trumping minhag hamaqom is
> interesting, since that's the way the taqnah was explained to begin
> with.

Except that "minhag avos" was not the *reason* for the gezeira; the
letter gave an explicit reason for keeping their fathers' minhag,
that had nothing to do with the importance of tradition.  This at
least strongly implies that if not for that reason the Sanhedrin
would have told the Bnei Bavel to start keeping one day.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 08:38:32PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
:> Not a minhag, a din mishum safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. I'm butting in
:> more because of the "what is a minhag?" thread than anything here.

: Except that the letter "mitam" explicitly called it a "minhag".  One
: can say that they didn't use the term in the same sense we use it.

One has to, since safeiq deOraisa would make any technical minhag
redundant.

:> The question which I still feel wasn't fully resolved from a month or two
:> back was when the first version of the fixed calendar was introduced. Are
:> we sure it was after churban bayis, or was there a period of time in
:> which they were told to follow minhag avos AND were olim laregel?

: Of course it was well after the churban; during the entire time of
: the 2nd bayis there was a functioning beis din that was mekadesh
: every month, so how could there *not* be a sfeka deyoma in Bavel?

Simply that they knew in advance which day they would accept eidim and
be meqadeish. Elul was set to 29 days before then; and lo bd"u Pesach
velo ad"u rosh were argued a generation earlier.

The eidim are eidei qiyum, not necessarily eidei birur.

:> IOW, the question is: Then they were gozerim to continue the practice, was
:> it based on who is during Yom Tov where the safeiq would have been (CT),
:> or a taqanah on the community one lives in (what most of us do lemaaseh).

: The letter was addressed to the Bnei Bavel, and they were commanded to
: continue their fathers' minhag.  Surely that means to do whatever it
: was that their fathers did.

Which doesn't rule out either.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

R Folger, in response to my post that there exist piyutim for Shavuot
going through why previous generations did not receive the Torah, and
that some piyutim say that Avraham did not because he did not challenge
Hashem over the akeda, responded:

As rav of a community that stil says piyutim, he said that the type of
piyut I cited - but does not say what I said existed, but that Avraham's
fault wa bamah edah

I don't think he read the original post. There, I said that there
was this type of piyut - but there many different piyutim, some said
by different minhagim, others available in manuscript. The version he
cites has the more common explanation for avraham. However, there are
piyutim, including one by Elazar Hakallir and by Yosef Tov Elem that
have the version I described about the akeda. I suggest looking at the
Goldscmidt Frankel edition of the machzor for Shavuot, where he brings
different piyutim said by different communities, and at the introduction.

Meir Shinnar
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Micha Berger wrote:

> : Of course it was well after the churban; during the entire time of
> : the 2nd bayis there was a functioning beis din that was mekadesh
> : every month, so how could there *not* be a sfeka deyoma in Bavel?
> 
> Simply that they knew in advance which day they would accept eidim and
> be meqadeish. Elul was set to 29 days before then; and lo bd"u Pesach
> velo ad"u rosh were argued a generation earlier.

They couldn't accept eidim if none showed up.  The fact that in all
that time lo matzinu Elul me'ubar is surely a miracle; but not one
they could ever count on happening.   "Lo ADU Rosh" was not only
unheard of bizman habayis, it was equally unheard of when Rebbi
composed the mishneh; it's a much later development, long after
there was no more aliyah laregel.



-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:59:10AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: They couldn't accept eidim if none showed up.  The fact that in all
: that time lo matzinu Elul me'ubar is surely a miracle; but not one
: they could ever count on happening.   "Lo ADU Rosh" was not only
: unheard of bizman habayis, it was equally unheard of when Rebbi
: composed the mishneh; it's a much later development, long after
: there was no more aliyah laregel.

My point is just that if we see they did manipulate the months, and
Rabban Gamliel insisted on a particular date for Yom Kippur, how do we
know how fluid or fixed the decision of Rosh Chodesh was? We already
ruled out al pi re'iyah as proof that it was ad hoc. So, could it have
been algorithmically determined that far back? What's the proof it
wasn't?

Everyone else's calendar was formulaic, not just the local nachriim,
but the Tzeduqim and Qumronim as well. The Tzeduqim trying to force
their algorithm is what they sent false eidim about, no?

R' Hillel's Sanhedrin effectively were pre-meqadeish the chodesh until
the next Sanhedrin, thus eliminating the need for eidei *qiyum* when
that was impossible. And they're credited with finalizing the current
calendar algorithm (minus the issue in which machloqes erupted in R'
Saadia Gaaon's day). Does that necesitate their being the first to use
an algorithm? Other than "everyone says" how do we actually know that
Yavneh gave themselves leeway for decisions made at that time as opposed
to using a fixed algorithm? I want to know if there is a raayah, because
to me it seems the question really remains open.

Notice I'm ascerting we do not know when al pi re'iyah became pro forma.
Not that it happened at some time. My position isn't provable, because I
think there is no provable position. If, however, you have an example
where the decisions were made in Yavneh (at al) at the time the month
was being declared, it could be DISproven.

While trying to find an answer, BTW, I found that R' Tam holds that yom
tov sheini is actually minhag (in the technical sense), not a taqanah.
He uses this on Beitzah 4b as an example of making berakhos on minhagim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

T6...@aol.com wrote:
> Avraham kept himself away from the evils of the big city and refused to
> associate with reshaim -- it was Lot, not Avraham, who settled in Sedom,
> while Avraham lived a rural life, in a tent.

Avraham lived in Hevron and Beer Sheva. I have no reason to think they were
any smaller than Sodom. He went to Gerar and also to Egypt.
I would venture most of his life in Canaan was in big cities

-- 
Eli Turkel

RMShinnar wrote:
> I don't think he read the original post. ?There, I said that there was
> this type of piyut - but there many different piyutim, some said by
> differentminhagim, others available in manuscript. ?The version he
> cites has the more common explanation foor avraham. ?However, there
> are piyutim, including one by Elazar Hakallir and by yosef tov elem
> that have the version I described about the akeda. ?I suggest looking
> at the goldscmidt frankel edition of the machzor for shavuot, where he
> brings different piyutim said by different communitied, and at the
> introduction.


Yasher koach for this precise reference. In my excitement at seeing
the post and intending to read the piyut, I missed on the small but oh
so relevant factoid that you were talking about a manuscript version.

Yasher koach,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* UK Commander Challenges Goldstone Report
* On the Stereotypical Jew
* Wieso ?ruhte? G?tt?
* Wir sind f?r die Evolution!

Clarification re: Selichos of RH 

If the hypothesis that Selichos of RH was indeed a genuine Gaonic
institution -
Then how can the Shaarei Teshuva [681:4] Pasqen that Tiqqun Hatzos
trumps Selichos?

Ela Mai? The Gaonic Selichos previously referred to must be the Selichos
of Taanis tzibbur which is never in conflict with Tiqqun Hatzos. This is
because Rav Amram Gaon has it embedded in birkas "s'lach lanu"

Note: Our minhag to allow selichos as early as hatzos [except for first
night] after hanetz, is a kulla. AFAIK in the old days it was done
[only] as originally designed - viz. in the "ashmores habboqer"

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

I was wondering what we are obligated to believe, in re: the coming of 
Moshiach...

Really, my thinking revolved around distinctions between hope, optimism, 
& pessimism.


We hope for Moshiach to come; but, can we be pessimistic that that coming 
will arrive any time soon?


Thanks for your thoughts on this...

- SJS


***************************************************************************
Steven J. Scher              sjsc...@eiu.edu         Listen to WEFT 90.1FM
Department of Psychology     217-581-7269            www.weft.org
Eastern Illinois University
Charleston, IL 61920            "V'od shehaya efshar lehem b'lo basar"
USA                             "Furthermore, they could have gone without
                                 meat [altogether]" -- Rashi to Exodus 16:8

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 06:30:33AM -0600, Steven J Scher wrote:
: We hope for Moshiach to come; but, can we be pessimistic that that coming 
: will arrive any time soon?

See the thread
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=M#MOSHIACH>
Starting from my hijack (it begins "On a totally different note")
in v8n84.

The pasuq is "im tismahmeiha, chaqei lo", and the author of Ani Maamin
felt this was central enough to include (reconjugated) in his formulation.
So clearly he thought it was okay to entertain the possibility of "if he
tarries".

The Rambam (Peirush haMishnayos, intro to Cheileq, ikkar #12) writes
    ... ve'ein lomar shenis'acheir -- "im tismahmeiha, chaqei lo" --
    ve'ein liqvoa' lo zeman...

Both RSRH and RYBS are quoted as saying (nth hand, therefore don't take
as Torah miSinai) that they rarely if ever discussed mashiach because
they thought the possibility was to remote for their generations.

So then what does "chaqei lo" mean? A bride, a month before her wedding,
might be ansiouly counting the days and awaiting the event. It doesn't
mean she thinks the wedding is eminent. Here we can't count the days,
but even if you believe it couldn't possibly be today, we can still
anxiously anticipate and prepare toward that day.

On the other hand the CC famously had everything ready, in case mashiach
came that day. Although he also raised funds for a mosad in Radun, that
even if he believed would literally fly as a building intact to EY,
would not require that hishtadlus if that were to happen the day he was
raising funds.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:59:10AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> : They couldn't accept eidim if none showed up.  The fact that in all
> : that time lo matzinu Elul me'ubar is surely a miracle; but not one
> : they could ever count on happening.   "Lo ADU Rosh" was not only
> : unheard of bizman habayis, it was equally unheard of when Rebbi
> : composed the mishneh; it's a much later development, long after
> : there was no more aliyah laregel.

> My point is just that if we see they did manipulate the months, and
> Rabban Gamliel insisted on a particular date for Yom Kippur

No, he didn't.  Where do you get the idea that he had any preference
for one date over another?  He was mekadesh the month according to
the eidim that came before him, because he believed they were telling
the truth.  R Yehoshua thought they were blatantly lying, and he
should have rejected them and made a 30-day Elul.  What has any of
this to do with manipulation?


> how do we
> know how fluid or fixed the decision of Rosh Chodesh was? We already
> ruled out al pi re'iyah as proof that it was ad hoc. So, could it have
> been algorithmically determined that far back? What's the proof it
> wasn't?

Because it would have been *impossible* to assure a 29-day month.
If eidim don't show up they don't show up.  If the sky was cloudy
then any eidim that do show up are liars.  All you can do is make
sure that Av has 30 days (and if you really want to put a thumb on
the scales you can force Tamuz to have 30 days as well), and hope.

 
> Everyone else's calendar was formulaic, not just the local nachriim,
> but the Tzeduqim and Qumronim as well. The Tzeduqim trying to force
> their algorithm is what they sent false eidim about, no?

Was it?  I've never heard that, or any other suggestion as to their
motive, beyond simple wickedness.  Is it your own idea?  Where do we
see that the Tzedukim had a formula?

 

> Notice I'm ascerting we do not know when al pi re'iyah became pro forma.
> Not that it happened at some time. My position isn't provable, because I
> think there is no provable position. If, however, you have an example
> where the decisions were made in Yavneh (at al) at the time the month
> was being declared, it could be DISproven.

The very story you quoted, of R Gamliel and R Yehoshua.


> 
> While trying to find an answer, BTW, I found that R' Tam holds that yom
> tov sheini is actually minhag (in the technical sense), not a taqanah.
> He uses this on Beitzah 4b as an example of making berakhos on minhagim.

Where did you see this?  It's not on that page.  RT's opinion that one
makes brochos on things that are *said* because of minhag (but *not* on 
actions of minhag) is on Taanit 28b dh "shma minah", and he doesn't
mention anything about yom tov sheni there.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Micha
> While trying to find an answer, BTW, I found that R' Tam holds that yom
> ov sheini is actually minhag (in the technical sense), not a taqanah.
> e uses this on Beitzah 4b as an example of making berakhos on minhagim.

Correct this is a big machloqes RT and Rambam

A lot of Sephardic hardliners think RT manufactured bracha levatala based
upon leveraging this "bracha on a minhag" to allow bracha on Hallel of
Rosh Hodesh etc.

Both Chabad and AhS make compromises by having ONLY ShatZ say that
brachah.

And aiui RT would learn that YT Sheini in the early days was really a
Minhag of sorts, not a true s'feqi d'oraisso necessity.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Micha
>> While trying to find an answer, BTW, I found that R' Tam holds that yom
>> ov sheini is actually minhag (in the technical sense), not a taqanah.
>> e uses this on Beitzah 4b as an example of making berakhos on minhagim.
> 
> Correct this is a big machloqes RT and Rambam
> 
> A lot of Sephardic hardliners think RT manufactured bracha levatala

"Manufactured"?  He proves from the gemara that they did say a bracha
on Hallel of Rosh Chodesh.


> based
> upon leveraging this "bracha on a minhag" to allow bracha on Hallel of
> Rosh Hodesh etc.

You have it backwards.  RT doesn't start with a premise that one can
say a bracha on a minhag, and "leverage" that to allow the bracha on
Hallel.  He *starts* with the gemara about Hallel, which strongly
implies that they did say a bracha on it, and *concludes* that one
says a bracha on something that is said because of a minhag, but not
on an action that is done because of minhag.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Joys of thread drift.... Someday someone is going to hit the archives
and wonder why a thread about the nature of machloqes and eilu va'eilu
is titled "dinosaurs".

On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 02:39:47PM -0500, hankman wrote:
: R' Micha, for the most part, I hear what you are saying, and it is
: as good an attempt at explaining EvE as I have seen (though I have not
: seen much on this)...

The blog entries I pointed to earlier refer to two articles:
Moshe Halbertal, Controversy in Halacha
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/Gruss/halbert.html
and R' Michael Rosensweig, Elu Va-Elu Divre Elokim Hayyim: Halakhic
    Pluralism And Theories Of Controversy
    http://www.lookstein.org/articles/elu_ve_elu.htm

And then of course there is RZL's "The Dynamics of Dispute", or whatever
the next edition is going to be titled <plug, plug>.

: Let me try and paint a picture that includes (and perhaps elaborates)
: I think much of what you wrote. correct me if I am wrong or you disagree
: with my summary.

You may be demonstrating that I was very far from clear. I didn't
provide a single explanation.

0- There are rishonim, IMHO including the Rambam, who believe that
there is one truth. Machloqes comes from attempts to retrieve forgotten
truths. EvE has to do with the value of the search for truth, even an
unsuccessful one. RMF appears to support the opinion in his haqdamah,
but there is a teshuvah that indicates otherwise. I invite RDE to explain
at more length.

But I didn't mention position #0, since that's not an approach to
halachic plurality. I'm just giving it now for completeness sake.

1- Halahah is built analytically from what was given, or that the power
to define halakhah is given to the poseiq. RMHalbertal lists these two
as separate, but I don't see how the difference is relevent to us. Or
even if the "constitutive" approach (my seifa) isn't an implication of the 
"acccumulative" one allowing for analysis producing differing
conclusions. Between the two, we have the opinion of the Rambam, Ramban,
Ritva and Ran.

2- Since each soul was at Sinai, each has its own perspective on Emes.
This is the Maharshal's approach. The Maharal appears to say similarly,
that there is an ideal pesaq as manifest in heaven, and the pesaq that
fits within this world.

This is not a nebich situation, that people can't grasp the whole Torah
and our limitations force imperfect understanding. Rather, the Torah was
written to be used this way, as a means of communicating Divine Thought
to finite minds.

Notice that these two aren't mutually exclusive.

3- R' Tzadoq (Resisei Lailah 17) writes (I'm quoting my translation,
   since you found it problematic):
    Whenever a new thing found about the Torah by any wise person,
    simultaneously arises its opposite.... When it comes to the realm of
    action (po'al) it can not be that two things true simultaneously.
    In the realm of the mind (machshavah), on the other hand, it is
    impossible for a man to think about one thing without considering
    the opposite.

This contradicts the Maharal, which says that plurality is a consequence
of our using models, not a consequence of the intellectual ability to
contemplate conflicting premises. But it too could fit the rishonim's
discussion of extrapolating or constructing law from what already was
established. (Compare to the Netziv's aish+das in the introduction to
Haameq She'eilah, also mentioned in RMRosensweig's article.)

I'm advocating the Maharshal and Maharal's position, as that's the one
I best understand, perhaps as an explanation why Hashem gave a law from
which a poseiq can derive/construct different pesaqim. I do not "get" R'
Tzadoq's stance any more than you do, although I believe we do consider
man's ability to entertain conflicting possibilities when it comes to
safeiq and laws of birur...

: 1) There is but one reality, it is the existence of G-d and his
: "boundless self-knowledge" which is one and inseparable from him. (If
: I knew him, I would be him). Since "ain od milvado" then in a real
: sense there is no other knowledge, it is all a reflection of some truth
: about G-d.

This last sentence is more Chabad than Maharal. I therefore have little
to say about it. And in general, my speculations on Qabbalah topics
aren't worth the electrons they're written with.

...
: 3) I may be on shaky ground here in my assumptions: In a real sense
: (G-d's perspective), Torah is the "boundless self-knowledge"...

I would argue, as per the introduction to the Qetzos, that Torah is the
path to truth, not the truth. "Emes mei'eretz tatzmiach", or as R' Chaim
notes, "vechayei olam *nata* besocheinu" -- the Torah is the seed, not
the chayei olam itself. See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/04/geulah.shtml>.

:          I presume this is in some way expressed in a finite TSBK and a
: limitless TSBP?

Perhaps the combintation of Maharal and Qetzos that I find most to my
taste would say that TSBP is potentially limitless, in that it could in
theory get as close to limitless as the minds who think it can. But you
can't actually reach infinity.

: 4) Olam Haba, the ultimate gemul, is greater attachment to G-d through
: more understanding of greater (but still limited) parts of the supraset
: of our Torah, that we could not grasp within the more limiting structure
: of olam hazeh.

Understanding? I'm not sure redemption is through understanding.

: 6) My issues begin here. If men are fungibly equal, then our appropriate
: and correct view should be the same (we should all see the same shadow)
: for every individual and if we do not, it is only due to error. Thus
: we are not all fungible, and this fits well with the notion that the
: shoresh of our neshama for each individual comes from a different part
: of the overall whole, so they are not fungible and therefore might
: logically and naturally view a different shadow...

Pretty much what the Maharshal says, above. However, people from similar
cultures and backgrounds would have similar views.

:                                    If this is correct, then there should
: be a whole spectrum of pesak (and EvE) appropriate to each individual,
: why are we all shoehorned into the views of only BH and BS as there
: should be as many perspectives as there are individuals? ...

Because creating a unity of perspective across a kehillah, and potentially
across kelal Yisrael, is a good thing.

...
: 7) Along the same lines of thought, I would imagine from mathematical
: analogy, just as in mathematical analysis in a well behaved function,
: a small change in x will produce a small change in y, why are we
: getting diametrically opposed results (eg., tamei or tahor)? Why are
: the shadows we see so different? ...

However, our mashal wasn't a well behaved function, it's a 3D object
and its shadow. If you look at a cube side-on, it's a square. If you
look at it corner-on, it's a hexagon. Both are looking at cubes.

Also, the permissability of a beitzah shenaleda beYT may be 180deg apart
between the two schools, but how big of a difference is that WRT looking
at the Torah as a whole? The entire topic is tiny.

One of the roles of pesaq, such as when Sanhedrin nimnu vegamru (like
BH and BS) is to get people to look at the cube from closer to the
same direction.

So the way I see it, Torah is our means to reach Emes, or to get ever
closer since the goal is infinite. We are where we are, and thus we see
the emes from different angles, thus giving us different pesaqim. The
need for unity pulls us together, trying to make the differences between
those angles smaller; at least in cases where our differences divide us
socially. Therefore at times pesaq is standardized, thereby forcing those
of us further away from the norm to assume stances closer to the rest.

BTW, about the goal being infinite... OhB is lehanos miziv haShechinah,
more removed unity with Her.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

RZS:
> You have it backwards.  RT doesn't start with a premise that one can
> say a bracha on a minhag, and "leverage" that to allow the bracha on
> Hallel.  He *starts* with the gemara about Hallel, which strongly
> implies that they did say a bracha on it, and *concludes* that one
> says a bracha on something that is said because of a minhag, but not
> on an action that is done because of minhag.

Actually Rashi specifically argues
"NO brachah on minhag!"

His source?
Shas says minhag nevi'im does NOT trigger a bracha! It's quoted iirc
in Sefer Haprdes etc. RT is mechaddesh otherwise. Not mechaddesh the
brachah per se, but the general principle.

FWIW RT and Tosafos proof is weak re: Hallel on Rosh Hodesh because the
brachah on Hallel probably came later than Rav in the aforementioned
story. Tosafos pre-supposes the brachah existed during Rav's time.
This is speculative.

This weakness in RT's argument is the source for Minhag chabad to have
ONLY the Shatz say the brachah, and even Rema hedges on this Minhag. See
the AhS for more.

And from the Sephardic hardliners this is "manufactured". It's an opinion
I've heard from several Hachamim, but one I personally don't share.

Zev: don't shoot the messenger! I'm reporting THEIR position. Go argue
with them NOT me. I'll gladly supply 4-5 Names in private if you wish.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 226
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."