[Avodah] Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise!

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 07:45:10PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 21/06/2011 1:17 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>> Be this as it may, I have wondered more than once how the ARI could
>> come along and change so many things and have these changes accepted
>> by many communities. It is all the more surprising to me given that he
>> lived for only 38 years according to many sources.

> It's because he didn't make anything up himself; everything he taught
> came from his rebbe, Eliyohu Hanovi.  He revealed secrets that had not
> been known before him, so it's logical that people changed their
> minhogim to bring them into line with these new revelations, just as
> the medical discoveries of the past 200 years have caused everyone to
> change their lifestyles.

This raises two questions:

1- How do we understand the conflict between
    a- the tanur shel achnai story's conclusion about "lo bashamayim
       hi" (also implied by the limitations placed around the concept
       of hora'as sha'ah), and
    b- the fact that when the bas qol said "eilu va'eilu .. vehalakhah
       keBH" we did then started exclusively following beis Hillel.

I summarized the shitos in the Encyc Talmudit entry "bas qol" on
Aspaqlaria at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/01/legislative-authority-of-bas-qol.shtml>.

R' Nissin Gaon gives two sevaros that make ignoring the evidence for R'
Eliezer to be the exception, and that normally a bas qol would decide
the din (like eilu va'eilu):

1- Halakhah kemoso bekhol maqom states a general rule about machloqesin
between RE and RY. The tanur was the exception to the rule. Had the bas
qol spoken about this case, we would follow it.

2- The bas qol was a test. Thus the final "nitzchuni".

Tosafos have two opinions:

3- The bas qol only spoke to reinforce R' Eliezer's kavod -- a bas qol
can't decide din.

4- Halakhah kebeis Hillel is only the din because it fits the normal
rules of pesaq (BH was the larger school). Again, the bas qol only said
what we would have known through process.

5- The Or Sameiach says something similar to Tosafos's 2nd opinion, but
also allows following bas qol when all else is neutral.

This leads us to RAM's post...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:47:18PM +0000, kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
:> Nevi'im can tell us nuances, but a navi who tries to give us
:> "revelation" of laws needs to die.

: My understanding is that this is true only if their revelation
: contradicts what we already know about Torah to be true.

And thus not related to pesaq of new or open questions. It's entirely
about overturning. Whether, like R' Nissim Gaon, this means bending the
process for new laws or specifically about overturning known Torah,
that's the above machloqes.

A second issue invoking Eliyahu haNavi's authority behind the Ari based
minhagim raises:

It Eliyahu haNavi included in "bashamayim"? Didn't we recently have a
discussion about his remaining alive so as to be around to restore
the shalsheles hamesorah from the musmachei MRAH?

Third, how many of these practices were made public by the Ari? If Eliyahu
haNavi taught him the new and correct practices, why wasn't he promulgating
them rather than it waiting for his talmidim and their talmidim?

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 08:25:12PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 22/06/2011 5:02 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> That's Midrash. What's your source for that actually being the reason?

> The Medrash, exactly as you said.  How is that not a source?...

1- An impressive list of rishonim hold that aggadic stories not only have
a nimshal, but aren't necessarily historic. You know what the Rambam says
(at the intro to Pereq Cheileq) about people who take the more fantastic
stories as literal...

2- Aggadita is never a halachic source. Y-mi Peah 13a, Mavo haTalmud
of R' Shemuel haNagid, and the kelal is cited in pragmatic contexts
by the Teshuvos haGeonim, the Eshkol (2:47), and the Noda biYhudah
(YD 161(,

But to say that's relevent is conflating two issues -- the story of
the tefillah's origin and the creation of a rule that it should be
said by us.

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 09:21:47PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Excuse me?  Why do you think we say Baruch Shem?  Because Moshe heard
> the mal'achim say it.  Why do we say Baruch She'amar?  Because it was on
> a piece of paper that fell from heaven.  Why do we start saying at least
> the first word of the part of kaddish after "Yehei Shmeih Rabba"?  Because
> Eliyahu told an amora to say it.  How did Moshe know that the ketores can
> prevent a plague?  Because the Malach Hamaves told him so.  There are many
> examples of things we do and say because of supernatural revelation.

We learned the matbei'ah from the mal'akhim, or from the peteq. The dinim
derabbanan to say those matbei'os were legislated in the normal ways. We
aren't saying them on the authority of anyone in heaven.

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 01:36:43PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
: If it was "logical that people changed their minhogim to bring them
: into line with these revelations," then why didn't this happen in
: Germany? There most of the old Ashkenazic minhagim were preserved
: scrupulously. (For the record, Kabbolas Shabbos was not introduced into
: Frankfurt until about 1700 and at that time there was much opposition
: to it. To this day KAJ in NY says Kabbolas Shabbos differently than most
: other places.)

Let me again trot out my triangle of halachic concerns... A poseiq has
to weigh pros and cons in order to reach a decision. It's not a dry
algorithm. Those concerns fit within a space that has three corners:
formal halachic analysis, aggadic concerns, Toras imekha (established
norms).

As I blogged
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/12/halachic-process-part-ii.shtml>,
I believe chaasidim (and Qabbalah-influenced Sepharadim) and the baalei
mussar looked for ways to maximize the impact of mitzvos, and therefore
gave more weight to aggadic concerns, to having a halakhah that fit
the movement's worldview.

Classical Litvishkeit (and non-Qabbalah influenced Sepharadim, eg ROY's
derekh in pesaq) creates textualists, people who look at what rov posqim
hold, or which sevara is compelling.

And others place the most emphasis in preserving minhag Yisrael sabba.
Among most Yekke's, this means up to and including the Maharil, roughly
the beginning of Ashkenazi achronim.

It doesn't make other weighting systems wrong, or less logical, even if
they do produce wildly different answers. We are navigating conflicting
values, and different priority schemes will render one more compelling
or the other.

Thus I agree with RZS (quick, someone bring out some bramfe for a
"lechaim"!) that it's perfectly logical to change minhagim to fit the
new model for understanding how Hashem relates to us and what it says
about how we should try to relate to Him. But no less logical that
it didn't happen in Germany. For that matter, even if Germans /did/
weigh aggadic concerns the way many others did, they wouldn't change
minhagim to conform to the Ari, they would change them to better fit
the implications (lemashal) of Horeb and Collected Writings.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha at aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507