<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/18/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Micha Berger</b> <<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">micha@aishdas.org</a>
> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Wed, October 17, 2007 10:16 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:<br>: On 10/17/07, Richard Wolpoe <<a href="mailto:rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com
</a>> wrote:<br>:> Rav Herschel Schachter states:<br>
[<<a href="http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2003/rsch_masorah.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2003/rsch_masorah.html</a>> -mi]
<br>:> . A matter of *halacha* which has been accepted for centuries can
<br>:> not be overturned, unless one can demonstrate that there simply was<br>:> an error involved from the very outset.<br>: Given:<br>:<br>: 1. Rif Rambam paskened 2 matzos at the Seder as per simple read of<br>
: the Talmud.<br><br>More than that... They held that 3 matzos was soseir the whole concept<br>of lekhem oni. How is it oni to have MORE than on other holidays?<br><br>And so yes -- the Gra concluded that that every one else was wrong.
<br><br>This has huge implications WRT the Gra's beliefs in eilu va'eilu.<br>Every pesaq he overturned, the Gra implicitly said that the one that<br>drove the minhag wasn't even a "va'eilu".</blockquote>
<div><br>It is far more ranging simply eilu v'eilu. When Rabbi Eliezer argued against the majority regarding kira it was in HIS generation. What the GRA in effect does can easily be contrued as zilusa debei Dina, The BY considered both options and paskened like Minhag Yisrael. The Gra HAD the option to say the BY shouldn't have gone there becasue the Gmara says otherwise. Fine. He can DISAGREE with BY. But by altering a p'sak founded on universal minhag now you can posit that EVERY p'sak can be called into question! If the GRA is greater than the BY; and he questions the BY, so now every p'sak in Shulchan Aruch is suspect as flawed! ein ledavar sof. You might as wel las toos out all hibburim and do like the Rosh, pasken form the G'mara directly.
<br><br><br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">On Wed, October 17, 2007 10:05 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:<br>: And now by extension may kohanim use an innovation such as a box to
<br>: visit<br>: the Rebb's Ohel?<br>: 1. Does that constitute a Shinuy of Halachah?<br><br>First, L isn't the first to do it.</blockquote><div><br>and who was/is? <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Second, it's ridiculous to project such a blatantly Brisker model of<br>
halakhah onto L. Of course it won't jibe. Why would you expect it to?</blockquote><div><br>I don't get this one. What's Brisk go to do with it? <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Wed, October 17, 2007 11:18 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:<br>:> Nevertheless, we still assume that a centuries-old *halachic*<br>:> position,
<br>:> accepted and observed universally by all of *Klal Yisroel*, does not<br>:> lend<br>:> itself to reversal. The tradition makes room for, and even<br>:> encourages, *<br>:> chiddush*, but not for *shinui* (see Nefesh Harav pg. 64). According
<br>:> to<br>:> Rambam, the binding force of the Talmud is precisely due to the fact<br>:> that it<br>:> was universally accepted by all of *Klal Yisroel*.<br><br>: #1 Arvis<br>: OK one day Arivs is a reshus. People do it. Later it becomes a
<br>: Minhag Yisroel.<br><br>: 1. At what time does it become normative<br><br>When people do it.</blockquote><div><br>But we see fro mMatza that "PEOPLE DOING IT" is not in itself normative. The Gmar asays Rehus. But people doing it they create a Hiyyuv. This is not congruent with the G'mara. If Minhag can over-ride halachah then fine. Then the GRA should have stuck with 3 matzos. Since he DID NOT, then text supercedes Minhag and there is NO hova, but reverts to the textual reshus. You cannot have it both ways unless you posti no systme accept what the posiek "FEELS LIKE' on any given issue.
<br><br>To quote a brilliant Friend of mine:<br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">Hineh Hahalach beyad haposeik -<br>Birtzoso mechazek uvitrtzoso mochek!
<br></blockquote><br><br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">: <br><br>: #2 Birkas Kohanim<br>: OK there are at least 3 positions on saying Birksa kohanim
<br>: 1. Every Day<br>: 2. Every Yom Tov<br>: 3. Every Yom Tov but NO on Shabbos<br>...<br>: re: #3 - deapite it being a minhag in manycongregations, RYBS has
<br>: insisted that it is a minhag ta'us and MSUT be changed....<br><br>And the Gra, keshitaso, insisted that #2 is also ta'us, and his<br>talmidim brought that ruling to EY.</blockquote><div><br>Waht dose that say about Minhag Ashkenaz is MA a Shinuy? is restoring daily bircahs kohaim shinuy?
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">The question is whether "not like the gemara" is sufficient to declare
<br>a minhag beta'us. The Gra was very textual. And contrary to RHS's<br>theory of chiddush and shinnui, was willing to do some Machasheves<br>Yisrael to make sure he had authoritative texts -- this was critical<br>
since he relied on them so heavily! (As opposed to RYBS, who insisted<br>on using a "real Rambam" even when first given a Frankel one.)</blockquote><div><br>They had Frankel Rambam's In the days of the Rav?
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Others have higher thresholds, acknowledging non-textual traditions<br>
(or those of other, perhaps lost, texts) that date back to Chazal. Or,<br>requiring an actual prohibition being violated rather than simply<br>following something the gemara considered inferior.</blockquote><div><br>I agree on this
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">The MB applies the Gra's reasoning, with the added feature of
<br>including the rishonim and early acharonim as authoritative texts. The<br>AhS championed the higher threshold before ammending minhag (in their<br>case, minhag Litta).</blockquote><div><br>The Darchie Moshe [I have the citation somewhere] elimnated a minhag based upon research and concensus Later on he found a source for teh abolished Minhag and He had harata and did Teshuva And from then on hew was most careful about abolosihing questionable minhaggim. I have rarely found a minhag that has been questioned by GRA, RYBS, MB etc. that did not have SOME justification, if you looked hard enough. See the wonderful book on this called Minhag Avoseinu Beyadeinu who discusses BOTH sides of nearly every major controversial Minhag re: the Holidays!
<br><br> <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Which means that in RHS-speak, the AhS would say that the MB made
<br>shinuyim.</blockquote><div><br>I would agree. I think based upon RHS criteria so did RMF at times.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>On Wed, October 17, 2007 10:41 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:<br>: On 10/17/07, Micha Berger <<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">micha@aishdas.org</a>
> wrote:<br>:> On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 09:42:41PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
<br>:> Mah inyan shemittah eitzel har Sinai? We're talking about whether<br>:> tum'ah is inherently bad, and you ask about the Gra's authority to<br>:> pasqen differently than accepted norm....<br><br>
: You were showing how the advent Zohar overturned normative Talmudic<br>: Halachah...<br><br>Not at all. Halakhah isn't that someone MUST wait. The gemara has no<br>requirement, leaving the time between waking up and davening an open
<br>period in which washing is required. The Zohar gives a reason why it<br>should be ASAP. Therefore, it's a hanhagah atop the gemara, not<br>overturning it.</blockquote><div><br>It negates the Gemara's requirement of doing several Brachos before washing including Elokai neshama immediately upon rising. Despite what you write, the models are not really that compatible. And they are certainly operating upon different premises
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Frankly, I don't get the gemara anyway. But this is tangential -- what
<br>about zerizim maqdimin or being prepared for the unexpected? Wouldn't<br>they be enough to motivate washing as early as possible regardless of<br>the tum'ah issue?<br><br>SheTir'u baTov!<br>-micha<br></blockquote>
</div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br><a href="mailto:RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com</a><br>Please Visit:
<br><a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
</a>