[Avodah] The Scope of the "7 Mitzvos d'Rabbanan"

[rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com]

R Zev Sero:
> A ballebatishe answer is that men don't make the bracha, so it wasn't
> on their minds. Perhaps they didn't even know their wives were making
> it and teaching their daughters to make it; or perhaps they knew but it
> didn't need to be written down because it wasn't relevant to the
> expected readership, who would never make it.

And the brachah on hafrashas hallah they DID know?  ;-)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Perhaps Before any of us Jump to premature conclusions it would be wise
to consult sources such as BeHaG and Hareidim ;-)

See Hareidim 48:3,4
[P. 173] ... Divrei Sof'rim tluyyim b'Veishet

«3 Shumanu shell gid»

Background:
see the Bavli in Hullin on this issu This is apparently a basic bottom-up
Minhag - "yisroel am qakdoshim"started it and it made the Rav Ashi cutoff
and is treated iirc even by Rambam as a full-fledged issur d'rabbanan,
and not a mere "minhag" or Humra Even though Rav Ashi himself suggests
just that. [The stama digmarah iirc does treat it as a d'rabbanan.]

It "begs" the question, what if it was a Minhag only during the Talmudic
era, what would have been its subsequent status if it became universally
accepted?

And what if that Minhag itself originated during the post Talmudic era -
which leads us to
4 «Bassar sheshahah shloshah yamim b'li m'licha...»

Apparently Rivash [see Beis Yoseph] has dismissed this as a mere "minhag
hamaqom" but Hareidim counts it as a lav midivrei sofrim[mamash]


Now I'm neither endorsing Sefer Hareidim's approach nor opposing it. But
do we tolerate it as Ev"E or dimiss it for going "over-the-top"?

Or IOW
- Does Hareidim have an invalid sheeta
or
- a valid sheeta we should consider
Or
- a valid sheeta that simply makes us too incomfortable to accept so we
  choose to ignore it? ;-)

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile