[Avodah] : Re: Brisker Chumeros and Shammuti Chumeros

[Chana Luntz]

I wrote:
> > Problem I am having with all of this is the explicit Rema in Orech
> > Chaim siman 596 si'if 1 "there are places which have the custom to
return
> and to
> > blow thirty blasts ... and after one has been yotze with this *shuv
> ain
> > l'tokeia od bechinam* 

...

And RZS replied:

> IMHO the "thirty extra kolot" doesn't mean davka thirty, but whatever
> the minhag is. 

The problem with that is that the Magen Avraham understands it as being
davka 30 "so as to make up the 100 blasts" something he quotes in the name
of the shla, as does the Mishna Brura.  In addition, the Darchei Moshe gives
a fuller explanation of the minhag yeshanim which is the source of the Rema,
and there he explicitly states that these are blowing are כל הסדר קשר"ק ג'
פעמים קש"ק ג' פעמים וקר"ק ג' פעמים, וכן נוהגין בכל המקומות שהייתי:
 
Ie it seems to me that the Rema etc have fixed the minhag at 30 (or in the
case of the Sephardim 31, given the extra teruah gedola that is mentioned in
the Shulchan Aruch there, but which the Mishna Brura rejects as not the
Ashkenazi minhag (note, it is on this one that the explanation is given
regarding confusing the Satan)).

But even were there to be a community where the minhag was some extra, that
is not what RMB and others on this list are describing.  What they are
describing is the baal tokeah doing extra blowings, that everybody agrees
have not been done except recently (ie minhag avoseinu they aren't) but
which are done to fulfil all possible rejected shitos, not to mention some
new Brisker combinations to combine shitos.

> Only after the local minhag has been fulfilled, and
> there are no more tekiot shel mitzvah, and now someone wants to blow
> just stam because he likes blowing, or because it's a seasonal sound,
> shelo leshem mitzvah klal, that is not allowed.

Part of the reason that I struggle with this as an explanation, is the
discussion of this shvus in rabbinic literature.  You see, the major place
this shvus is discussed is in relation to women.  And the classic
understanding, as per Tosphos, is the only reason why one is able to blow
for (or women can blow) on Rosh Hashana, is because of nachas ruach
d'nashim. And indeed, as I mentioned previously on this list the Baal HaItur
holds that men can't in fact blow for women after they have fulfilled their
obligation, and therefore they have to go and blow for eg sick women
*before* they hear in the shul.  The Rosh and the Tur disagree, but that is
either because they hold that nachas ruach d'nashim is enough to override
the shvus, or because they hold that, although women are patur from mitzvas
aseh shehazman graman, there is in essence a form of mitzvah if they do in
fact perform the mitzvah, and this is enough to overrule the shvus.  Note
that the distinction between these two opinions appears in the machlokus
between the Shagas Arieh and Rav Moshe Feinstein as to whether one is
permitted to take a shofar through a reshus harabbim d'orisa on Rosh Hashana
(obviously which is not shabbas) solely in order to blow for a woman.  The
Shagas Arieh holds no, it is one thing for nachas ruach d'nashim to push
aside a rabbinical shvus, as per Tosphos, but it is not enough to push aside
carrying through a reshus harabbim d'orisa.  RMF however holds that indeed
one can carry a shofar through reshus harabbim d'orisa (eg to a hospital)
just to blow for a woman, and that the minhag has always been this way, and
that the reason allowing this is that there is really a form of mitzvah
involved in performing mitzvos aseh shehazman graman for/by women even
though they are ptur from the Torah.

But nobody says, oh well, the minhag is for women to hear, therefore,
without other important concepts like nachas ruach d'nashim, or a genuine
form of mitzvah, we would just gaily ignore the shvus - despite the minhag
being widespread and very ancient, nothing like a mere local shul minhag.
> --
> Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment

Regards

Chana