<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 4/2/2007 6:07:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>RSB,
IMHO, mixes up several different issues - the ability of hazal <BR>to be
metaken tefillot, the status of the text of the tefilla (as <BR>distinct
from the idea of the tefilla)and how fixed it is (as per <BR>other
threads re nusach bavel and eretz yisrael) and the status of
<BR>piyutim. Now, even if one argues that being fixed by hazal gives
it <BR>a status, piyutim don't have that status Given the fact of
who wrote <BR>them and that they were accepted into the siddur/machzor
means that <BR>the ideas should be taken with some seriousness (although
with the <BR>caveat that the position of rav hai gaon about aggadic
statements of <BR>hazal applies with far greater force to piyutim) - but
viewing them <BR>as binding statements of faith?? somehow, I don't think
that, say, if <BR>i disagree that af bri utat shem sar hamatar that I am
violating <BR>principles of faith....and the ideas of piyutim, even
widely accepted <BR>piyutim, have generated much controversy over the
years....(eg, even <BR>forgetting the fifth ikkar issue, the standard
ashkenazi avodah is <BR>viewed as problematic by
many...)<BR><BR>However, his position is represetative of a certan maximalist
school <BR>- that views everything within the mesora as inviolate and
not <BR>subject to questioning - but ignoring the fact that the mesora
itself <BR>views that much is subject to questioning - and therefore
this view <BR>is itself against the mesora</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>WADR, there is no confusion on my part. When Chazal established Nusachei
HaTefilah,there is no question or uncertainty that the same was predicated upon
Psukim in Tanach as they understood the same via a Mesorah passed down from the
AnsheiKnesses HaGdolah. Brachos Krias Shma, both before and after the recitation
of Krias Shma as well as each and every Bracha of Shemoneh
Esreh-Weekday, Shabbos , YT and Yamim Noraim was discussed and formulated on
these rules. The SE and Musaf of Shabbos, YT, RH and YK were not Aggadic ideas
and were viewed by Rishonim as stating the themes of the Kedushas HaYom and as a
form of Karban Mussaf. IMO, the sugya in RH re the recitation of the 13 Midos
and its efficacy for somone who does Teshuvah and all of the Sugyos re the
establishment of Hallel and the basic format of the Seder cannot be dissmissed
as Agaddic or the basis of Piyut, especially since Halachos are based upon them.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The themes of Hoshanah Rabbah, Geshem and Tal can all be traced back to
the understanding of Chazal that God watches over EY, our livelihood,
etc . While Ibn Ezra objected to the recitation of Piyutim, IMO, many other
Rishonim , Acharonim and Baalei Chasidus, Musar and Machshavah
viewed the recitation of the Piyutim as building an emotional and
spiritual crescendo that reinforced the themes of the day. I highly recommend
Noraos HaRav on RH for anyone interested in RYBS's forceful defense of the role
of Piyutim and their being based on many Ikarim and halachos. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Piyutim of RH and Yom Hakippurim , especially those composed by R
Elazar HaKallir, have a special status and underscore the themes of Malchiyos,
Zicronos and Shofaros, Tekias Shofar, Teshuvah and the Avodah.RYBS felt that
Selichos were a necessary means of getting oneself spiritually prepared for the
Yamim Noraim. Similarly, the Kinos also express the various aspects of Aveilus
on Tisha BAv that emanate from the Churban.The recitation of the Asarah Harugie
Malchus on Tisha Bav relates to the special halachos of Aveilus for
the loss of Talmidie Chachamim-especially the Baalei Mesorah of the
Mishnah. Simply stated, Piyutim, properly understood, not only enhance
one''s Kiyum of the Kedushas HaYom, but are an integral part of the
Kedushas HaYom. the community's Tefilas HaTzibbur and should not just be
regarded as inspired poety. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>WADR, there are many halachic debates that focus on the importance of
these Brachos being said in a Minyan as opposed to hearing Shofar. The Ramban in
the Milchamos in Brachos maintains that Emes vYatziv is Min HaTorah and
that the recitation of Krias Shma is Drabanan.Obviously, Ramban viewed the text
of Emes vYzatzviv as setting forth an authoritative Ikar-that by recognition of
hidden miracles or what some call "tevah", one sees and comprehends
revealed miracles ( see Ramban at end of Parshas Bo for this in great detail).I
highly recommend R E Bick's analysis of the views of Ramban in the latest Pesach
package from the VBM. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Putting aside the question of the Avodah of Nussach
Ashkenaz, we recite a Nussach of it to rdemonstrate the supremacy of TSBP
and its role in the Avodah that we hope to restore speedily in our time and the
Asarah Harugei Malchus on Yom HaKippurim as a reminder that Misas Tzadikim
Mchaper, not as Piyut or inspired poetry. They are not Aggadic themes .
The Nussach of any Birkas HaMitzvah is standard-Asher Kidshanu Bmitzosav
Vztivanu, etc. Whenever one recites such a Bracha, that is an affirmation of one
of the Ikarie Emunah-that Klal Yisrael is sanctified by a life dedicated to
those mitzvos that are not explainable on a rational level and which distinguish
us from the nations of the world, thereby establishing a covenental relationship
or Bris Sinai. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Therefore, the notion that Piyut does not express Ikariei Emunah IMO cannot
be seriously maintained.In addition, Like it or not, one can find support
for the views of Chazal, Medrash, Zohar R Yehudah HaLevi,, Rambam,
Ramban and many other Rishonim within many of the sugyos that relate to the
Nusach HaTefilos and Brachos. That is all part of the Mesorah and requires
years of study just to scratch the surface of the
deeper meaning. However, there were and remain definite fixed
notions on both a Torah and Rabbinic level as to the basic
elements of Brachos and Tefilah. Yet, IMO, that is a far cry from stating
that "the mesorah itself views that much is subject to questioning" or that they
are merely piyut. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Steve Brizel</DIV>
<DIV>Zeliglaw@aol.com</DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR><DIV><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">See what's free at <A title="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503" href="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503" target="_blank">AOL.com</A>. </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>