[Avodah] Minhag Avos and Minhag haMaqom

[Michael Poppers]

In Avodah Digest V23#64, Micha wrote:
> A yekke living in Elizabeth probably still waits only
three hours after meat, washes his hands before qiddush, etc...
> As pointed out on Areivim, this is mutar. The typical town is like the
talmudic case of one with two batei din. Although in Elizabeth, with 
REMT's
say in the running of every facet of the kehillah, I find that a stretch. 
<
I can think of two different ways of looking at this:
(a)
My following minhag avos in private apparently doesn't create a "lo 
sisgod'du" [LS]-violating agudah; as I'm sure Micha knows, whether 
violations of minhag in general are a LS problem has been debated by 
pos'qim (e.g. see MA 493:6; also see 
http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5760/kiseitzei.html), but 
even assuming they are, it would seem that public vs. private is a valid 
distinction (consider how an adherent to YT Sheini handles the situation 
when that day is publicly not YT).  Apparently (REMT may want to respond 
;-)), not wearing t'filin at an Elizabeth, NJ minyan during Chol haMoeid 
also doesn't create an agudah, while not adhering to the minhagei aveilus 
of the "second [set of] days" of y'mei S'firah (the minhag hamaqom in 
Elizabeth) does (as per RMA 493:3) create an agudah -- among many 
possibilities, perhaps the nafqa mina is abstaining from an activity (even 
a mitzvas asei) vs. actively violating a standard (even if only a minhag 
hamaqom).
(b)
If the minhag hamaqom in Elizabeth was to wait six hours or to wash only 
after making Qiddush, my waiting three hours or washing before making 
Qiddush might very well be a violation of LS; as there is no such minhag 
hamaqom, my following minhag avos, even when less stringent than what is 
practiced by most of the community, is not a violation.  Similarly, there 
is no minhag Elizabeth with regard to wearing t'filin on ChM (although the 
gabboim are instructed to only allow t'filin wearers to be ba'alei 
t'filah).  When there's no minhag hamaqom, the next Q may be whether "al 
y'shaneh adam mip'nei hamachloqes" is applicable -- here too, public 
activity vs. private activity may be a valid distinction.  (Q: does the 
mandate of "m'rutzeh laqahal" for a ba'al t'filah get its halachic force 
from "al y'shaneh"?)

All the best from
Michael "Yekke" Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070327/c132e3be/attachment-0002.htm>