[Avodah] Minhag Yisroel Mor on Rav Shachter and Masorah

[Richard Wolpoe]

On 10/18/07, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> 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".


It is far more ranging simply eilu v'eilu.  When Rabbi Eliezer argued
against the majority regarding kira it was in HIS generation.  What the GRA
in effect does can easily be contrued as zilusa debei Dina, The BY
considered both options and paskened like Minhag Yisrael.  The Gra HAD the
option to say the BY shouldn't have gone there becasue the Gmara says
otherwise.  Fine.  He can DISAGREE with BY. But by altering a p'sak founded
on universal minhag now you can posit that  EVERY p'sak can be called into
question!  If the GRA is greater than the BY; and he questions the BY, so
now every p'sak in Shulchan Aruch is suspect as flawed!   ein ledavar sof.
You might as wel las toos out all hibburim and do like the Rosh, pasken form
the G'mara directly.



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.


and who was/is?

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?


I don't get this one. What's Brisk go to do with it?

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.


But we see fro mMatza that "PEOPLE DOING IT" is not in itself normative.
The Gmar asays Rehus. But people doing it they create a Hiyyuv. This is not
congruent with the G'mara. If Minhag  can  over-ride halachah then fine.
Then the GRA should have stuck with 3 matzos. Since he DID  NOT, then text
supercedes Minhag and  there is  NO hova, but reverts to the textual reshus.
You cannot have it both ways unless you posti no systme accept what the
posiek "FEELS LIKE' on any given issue.

To quote a brilliant Friend of mine:

Hineh Hahalach beyad haposeik -
> Birtzoso mechazek uvitrtzoso mochek!
>



:
>
> : #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
> talmidim brought that ruling to EY.


Waht dose that say about Minhag Ashkenaz is MA a Shinuy?  is restoring daily
bircahs kohaim shinuy?

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.)


They had Frankel Rambam's In the days of the Rav?

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.


I agree on this

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).


The Darchie Moshe [I have the citation somewhere] elimnated a minhag based
upon research and concensus  Later on he found a source for teh abolished
Minhag and He had harata and did Teshuva And  from then on hew was most
careful about  abolosihing questionable minhaggim.   I have rarely found a
minhag that has been questioned by GRA, RYBS, MB etc. that did not have SOME
justification, if you looked hard enough. See the wonderful book on this
called Minhag Avoseinu Beyadeinu who discusses BOTH sides of nearly every
major controversial Minhag re: the Holidays!



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


I would agree. I think based upon RHS criteria so did RMF at times.


> 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.


It negates the Gemara's requirement of doing several Brachos before washing
including Elokai neshama immediately upon rising.  Despite  what you write,
the models are not really that compatible. And they are certainly operating
upon different premises

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
>


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071018/622fd69c/attachment-0002.htm>