<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Micha Berger <<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:14:25PM +0100, Eli Turkel wrote:<br>
: Ashekanzic Liturgy kept Kallir from Israel and Meshulam Ben Kalonymos<br>
: of Lucca Italy. IT is fairly well-established fact that Ashkenaz<br>
: ,looked up to Italy and Italy to Israel in terms of Minhaggim etc.<br>
<br>
Well, the piyutim from MbK might indicate something. But the baalei<br>
Tosafos identified R Eliezer haKalir with R' Eliezer ben RSbY, whereas<br>
Sepharadim did not. That would be sufficient to explain why Ashkenazim<br>
would use his work more than Sepharadim, without positing ancestry.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Backwards. it was ALREADY axiomatic how impoartant Kallir ws before the attribution to being a Ba'alei Tosafos!<br><br> <br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
It's very hard to posit ancestry off something as flimsy as use of<br>
piyutim. </blockquote><div><br>hardly flimsy at all it is a major contoversy in Tur wher he qutoes Remah [with a HEH!} This is a pivotal difference betwen Ashkenzic and Sepahrdic litrugy,. the idea of hefkse for Yotzros.<br>
All Ashkneazic Rishonim accepted it as OK. Sephardim rejectdd it<br> <br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Things like berakhos endings are somewhat stronger. And the<br>
increasing number of cases where Ashkenazi norms end up fitting midrashei<br>
halakhah or the Y-mi more closely than the Bavli seems to fit scientific<br>
method -- confirming the hypothesis by further experiment.<br>
<br>
: The usual claim is much stronger. That ashkenaz ie German Rhineland<br>
: Jewry actually came there from Italy and that Italian 800 CE Jews came<br>
: there from EY.<br>
<br>
Much of them. Not all. My understanding is that Ashkenaz is understood<br>
to be a richer mix of EY Jews than Sepharad.</blockquote><div><br>I am not concerned with the ANCESTRY, just the LEGACY. Ashkenaz by and large folowed EY norms. Sehaprad - based upon Babylonian objections did not [not all objections were Talmudic some were Gaonic] <br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Not exclusivity. This iswhy RGMhG links back to the gaonim.<br>
<br>
Tir'u baTov!<br>
-Micha<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all">This is not a perfect 1 to 1 mapping. E>G> Rashi was more Bave-centric than most Ashekanzic Kadmonim <br><br>I'm not sure about RGMhG because aiui he puts a higher value on Midrrahs Rabbaetc. than did others and that is EY-Centric <br>
<br><br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br><a href="mailto:RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com</a><br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>