[Avodah] Is having a good time ossur

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Yitzhak Grossman <celejar at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The prohibition against giluah on Hol Ha'Moed is "kdei shelo yecansu
> l'regel k'shehen m'nuvalin" (Moed Katan 14a); is that reason applicable
> to Sefirah?
>
> Yitzhak
> --
>

Nope
This is AISI a Gaonic custom  based upon a model of a  quasi  hulo shel
Mo'ed.
Remember, this is all Ga'onic - there is no Talmudic imperative to observe
aveilus here at all.

[FWIW In that sense it is like Ta'anis Esther which is acknowledged to be
the least stringent of all fast days]

The 3 original aspects were:

   1. Taspores
   2. Nissu'in
   3. Limited Melacha

 [actually it was iirc just 2 taspores came later]
The specifics of limitted melacha are vastly different than those of hulo
shel mo'ed BUT the concept is similar. It would be onerous to have  a 6-week
HHM after Passover w/o SOME relaxation of restrictions.

AIS, the aveilus aspects selected were those that would co-incide with the
pre-existing restrictions - hence miktzas aveilus

And Arizal was makpid NOT to cut hair until erev Shavuos mamash [not EVEN
Lag BA'omer! AIUI]

Now even if the hulo shel mo'ed theory is all wet, we can still identify
that the ORIGINAL restrictions as constituted were quite limited. What is
interesting is that the Tur and th Kitzur SA use virtually the same language
on the matter.

Now it is mistaver to say the at the Crusades would have increasedthe
intensity of the Restrictions. But as per Tur and AFAIK general Ashkenazic
Rishonim, there is no evidence of this. It is NOT mistaver to say that form
the era of  Magen Avraham forward this restrictions started mushrooming!

I don't have any major objection to saying

> event X triggered humra Y,

but this  just does not fit the facts of the case here.

Waht DOES seem obvious is that Ashkenzim [unlike Sephardim] chose to observe
the "back -half" off sefira because of the events on and about Rosh Hodesh
Sivan.

Clarification: I am not denying that we have a minhag/Masroah to observe
Aveilus during this period. My point is simple, the original scope and
parameters of aveilus were quite specific and additional models
super-imposed upon the original are imho shinuyyim to the accepted practice.

Lemashal, what would you say if ashkenazim started saying not only are
kitniyyos assur eat on Pesach but they are subject to bal yei'ra'eh and bal
Yimatzei and they must be destroyed or sold. You would immediately realize
that his humra was not rooted in the original g'zeira.

I am saying the same about the restrictions of Sefira, that about 200-300
years ago, the restrictions morphed, and  AISI for no particular reason than
to impose general Aveilus on a more restricted g'zeira



-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080429/b6b8807b/attachment-0002.htm>