On 10/9/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Dov Kay</b> <<a href="mailto:dov_kay@hotmail.co.uk">dov_kay@hotmail.co.uk</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<<and no written codification of 3 (until very late? anywhere?)>><br>
<br>
I think that Rav B Forst's Artscroll Kashrus book cites Rabbeinu Yerucham as the earliest source for 3 hours.<br>
<br>
In my parents-in-law's family (the Posens), the ladies wait 3 hours in accordance with the family custom, but the men are stringent and wait 6 hours. My wife is quite grateful for the p'sak we received permitting her to keep up with the 3 hour custom, even though I, as a Litvak, wait 6 hours.
<br>
<br>
Interestingly, Rav Schach is quoted in the first volume of Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz as saying that a Yekke should not be "machmir" and wait 6 hours, while I have seen Rav Elyashiv quoted somewhere as disagreeing. I suppose the question is whether minhag trumps strict halacha. For instance, no gebrokts on Pesach was, presumably, originally adopted as a chumra, but is now exclusively a function of minhag (with the exception of one Rabbi I know of in Melbourne who has not a drop of chassidic blood in him but took on "no gebrokts" as a chumra).
<br>
<br>
Kol tuv<br>Dov Kay<br></div></blockquote></div><br>This post opens a whole new realm of Halachic discussion i.e. the contrast between MINHAG and HUMRA<br><br>As a TRADITIONALIST - in the sense of using precedent to decide Halachah, I generally favor Minhag and object to humros - especially those w/o a solid historical base.
<br><br>Therefore as an Ashkenaz <br><ol><li>I am in favor of the MINHAG Of kitniyyos but opposed to Gebrukts because since it has no precedent for me, I would oppose it as new and unnecessary humra.<br></li><li>I am in favor of keeping traditional piyutim in davening - and Bracuh Hashenm l'olam and oppose seeing them as a hefsek - becasue that is a new lehumra. [otoh I would not object to deleting them for reasons of tircha detzibura - which is a pragmatic consideration, not as a humra]
</li><li>I am NOT in favor of reading Zecher/Zeicher on parshas Zachor. It has little history and imposes a new humra which imho is problematic. But if on Ki Tetze you want to read it one way during Shevi'i and the other during Maftir I can understand it - although as a revision of our Masortetic text I would still oppose it. [See R. Moordechai Breuer A"H's arctile on this matter
<br></li><ol><li>OTOH, where there is a long-stannding minhag to lein bifneihem/lifneihem I am OK with keeping that going. <br></li></ol></ol>Caveat: Certainly SOME humros arise anew due to new considerations and circumstances,
<br clear="all"><br>Illustration I am opposed to forbidding burial on 2nd day of Yom Tov - iow I am opopsed to making a new humra agasint our mesoarhr. BUT wheref there is a real concern in OUR society todayfor hillul Yom Tov, then it is OK to make a gzeira against. I favor doing this as a hor'as sho'oh and NOT as a revision of Halachic precedent.
<br><br>I I would also oppose adding new kulos that lack a really good precedent, too. Thus I set in the sukkah on Shmini Atzeres, and I favor the position of Derech Hachayyim and others who sit ONLY when a bracha would be triggered during sukkos. I oppose being meikel on this matter UNLESS they have a strong minhag Avos
<br>
<br><br>Bottom line: Thsoe humros codified by Rema/Levush and the end of the Rishonim era as Minhag Ashkenaz - I generally favor perpetuating. Those Humros introduced later on [e.g. davening late 1st night of Shavuos] I generally oppose imposing them.
<br><br>Halachic evolution - aiui - should follow the principles of Common Law.<br><br> <br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br><a href="mailto:RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com</a><br>Please Visit: <br><a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>