[Avodah] Minhagim

[Prof. Levine]

At 10:44 PM 5/9/2018, R Eli Turkel wrote:


>I suggest reading an article by Brown
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fmail%2Fu%2F0%2F%23search%2Fhillel%2F1633fd7c1ed2a4a7&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce7f2ed89c0b04a153b9008d5b61fe896%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C1%7C636615170523842613&sdata=KHDvBEGhAvUsiq8oxUjnwZDX%2Bt0hzpo7D25XR2o0CPA%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>It is an English translation from his book on the Chazon Ish
>
>Brown makes the argument that CI and much of litvishe gedolim in the recent
>past
>basically rejected minhagim as the practice of the masses. Only those
>practices that can be
>traced to the gemara or rishonim are acceptable. Even achronim except for a
>select few don't count.
>He further argues against the article by Haym Soloveitchik and claims that
>the attitude of CI was already present in Russia before WWII and even
>communities not affected by modernism. It was basically an attitude of
>elitism that only gedolim count.
>
>OTOH Hungarians led by Chasam Sofer strongly fought to preserve mighagim of
>the kehilla. This was even more stressed by the Chassidic community. In
>fact what distinguishes one chassidic group from the other ones is their
>unique set of minhagim most of them fairly recent (last 100-200 years at
>most)
>
>His conclusion is that both approaches have their pluses and minuses in
>terms of protecting their communities from modernism.
>I conclude that the debate over gebrochs mirrors the debate between
>litvaks and chassidim over the value of "recent" minhagim.

I believe you are referring to an article that recently appeared in 
Hakirah that is at 
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjyg6mKmfvaAhVCuVkKHeutBeYQFggtMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hakirah.org%2FVol24Shandelman.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3XZQch0OGem-hvrLpivEHB

(I cannot access the link you give above, because I do not have a 
google account.)

I found this article most disappointing and sent the  email below to 
the Editors of Hakirah

Subject: The Gaon of Vilna, the Hatam Sofer, and the  Hazon Ish: 
Minhag  and the Crisis of Modernity

To the Editor:

I must admit that the title of this article truly attracted my 
attention.  However, after reading it I was sorely disappointed.

The author writes at the beginning of the article, "We have seen that 
from the 1930's to the 1950's at least, the position of the Hazon Ish 
remained consistent and unyielding: A minhag has no normative status 
of its own, and at best can only be adduced as evidence for an actual 
halakhic ruling, which in turn derives its authority strictly from 
corroboration by qualified halakhists."  He then goes on to point out 
that both the GRA and the Hazon Ish did not observe many minhagim 
that most people do observe.  However,  he does not give us a list of 
the minhagim they did not observe nor does he give us a list of the 
minhagim that they did observe.   Surely these should have been 
included in detail in this article.

Later in the article the author writes, "These two Orthodox groups 
[the Hungarian Orthodox and the latter-day hasidic]  turned minhag 
into an endless opportunity for the creation of new humrot. And this 
only goes to show that it is not always a broken connection with the 
'living tradition' that facilitates the creation of a dynamic of 
humrot.  Again,  I think that the article should have included a 
detailed list of these Chumras.

In my opinion,  this article contains a lot of "fluff" and not much 
substance.  What came to mind after reading it was "Much ado about nothing."

Dr. Yitzchok Levine





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180510/09239e5c/attachment-0003.htm>