[Avodah] Minhag Yisroel Mor on Rav Shachter and Masorah

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, October 17, 2007 10:16 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: On 10/17/07, Richard Wolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com> wrote:
:> Rav Herschel Schachter states:
[<http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2003/rsch_masorah.html> -mi]
:> . A matter of *halacha* which has been accepted for centuries can
:> not be overturned, unless one can demonstrate that there simply was
:> an error involved from the very outset.
: Given:
:
:    1. Rif Rambam paskened 2 matzos at the Seder as per simple read of
: the    Talmud.

More than that... They held that 3 matzos was soseir the whole concept
of lekhem oni. How is it oni to have MORE than on other holidays?

And so yes -- the Gra concluded that that every one else was wrong.

This has huge implications WRT the Gra's beliefs in eilu va'eilu.
Every pesaq he overturned, the Gra implicitly said that the one that
drove the minhag wasn't even a "va'eilu".

On Wed, October 17, 2007 10:05 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: And now by extension may kohanim use an innovation such as a box to
: visit
: the Rebb's Ohel?
:    1. Does that constitute a Shinuy of Halachah?

First, L isn't the first to do it.

Second, it's ridiculous to project such a blatantly Brisker model of
halakhah onto L. Of course it won't jibe. Why would you expect it to?

On Wed, October 17, 2007 11:18 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:> Nevertheless, we still assume that a centuries-old *halachic*
:> position,
:> accepted and observed universally by all of *Klal Yisroel*, does not
:> lend
:> itself to reversal. The tradition makes room for, and even
:> encourages, *
:> chiddush*, but not for *shinui* (see Nefesh Harav pg. 64). According
:> to
:> Rambam, the binding force of the Talmud is precisely due to the fact
:> that it
:> was universally accepted by all of *Klal Yisroel*.

: #1  Arvis
: OK one day Arivs is a reshus.  People do it.  Later it becomes a
: Minhag Yisroel.

:    1. At what time does it become normative

When people do it.

:    2. is this conversion from optional to normative a Hiddush? A
: Shinuy?

Chiddush, as the reasons are internal to the halachic process.

: #2 Birkas Kohanim
: OK there are at least 3 positions on saying Birksa kohanim
:    1. Every Day
:    2. Every Yom Tov
:    3. Every Yom Tov but NO on Shabbos
...
: re: #3 - deapite it being a minhag in manycongregations, RYBS has
: insisted that it is a minhag ta'us and MSUT be changed....

And the Gra, keshitaso, insisted that #2 is also ta'us, and his
talmidmi brought that ruling to EY.

The question is whether "not like the gemara" is sufficient to declare
a minhag beta'us. The Gra was very textual. And contrary to RHS's
theory of chiddush and shinnui, was willing to do some Machasheves
Yisrael to make sure he had authoritative texts -- this was critical
since he relied on them so heavily! (As opposed to RYBS, who insisted
on using a "real Rambam" even when first given a Frankel one.)

Others have higher thresholds, acknowledging non-textual traditions
(or those of other, perhaps lost, texts) that date back to Chazal. Or,
requiring an actual prohibition being violated rather than simply
following something the gemara considered inferior.

The MB applies the Gra's reasoning, with the added feature of
including the rishonim and early acharonim as authoritative texts. The
AhS championed the higher threshold before ammending minhag (in their
case, minhag Litta).

Which means that in RHS-speak, the AhS would say that the MB made
shinuyim.

However, the more relevant point to our original discussion is that in
RHS's philsophy, which in Nefesh haRav he attributes to RYBS (see pg
52-54, or at least
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n073.shtml#12> where I relate
his notion in support of a post of RRW's), that science has NO role in
changing halakhah. A position I find myself unable to fully embrace.

On Wed, October 17, 2007 10:41 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: On 10/17/07, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:
:> On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 09:42:41PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:> Mah inyan shemittah eitzel har Sinai? We're talking about whether
:> tum'ah is inherently bad, and you ask about the Gra's authority to
:> pasqen differently than accepted norm....

: You were showing how the advent Zohar overturned normative Talmudic
: Halachah...

Not at all. Halakhah isn't that someone MUST wait. The gemara has no
requirement, leaving the time between waking up and davening an open
period in which washing is required. The Zohar gives a reason why it
should be ASAP. Therefore, it's a hanhagah atop the gemara, not
overturning it.

Frankly, I don't get the gemara anyway. But this is tangential -- what
about zerizim maqdimin or being prepared for the unexpected? Wouldn't
they be enough to motivate washing as early as possible regardless of
the tum'ah issue?

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha at aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv