<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Yitzhak Grossman <<a href="mailto:celejar@gmail.com">celejar@gmail.com</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;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
</div>The prohibition against giluah on Hol Ha'Moed is "kdei shelo yecansu<br>
l'regel k'shehen m'nuvalin" (Moed Katan 14a); is that reason applicable<br>
to Sefirah?<br>
<br>
Yitzhak<br>
<font color="#888888">--<br></font></blockquote></div><br>Nope<br>This is AISI a Gaonic custom based upon a model of a quasi hulo shel Mo'ed.<br>Remember, this is all Ga'onic - there is no Talmudic imperative to observe aveilus here at all.<br>
<br>
[FWIW In that sense it is like Ta'anis Esther which is acknowledged to be the least stringent of all fast days]<br><br>The 3 original aspects were:<br><ol><li>Taspores</li><li>Nissu'in</li><li>Limited Melacha<br>
</li></ol> [actually it was iirc just 2 taspores came later] <br>The specifics of limitted melacha are vastly different than those of hulo shel mo'ed BUT the concept is similar. It would be onerous to have a 6-week HHM after Passover w/o SOME relaxation of restrictions.<br>
<br>AIS, the aveilus aspects selected were those that would co-incide with the pre-existing restrictions - hence miktzas aveilus <br><br>And Arizal was makpid NOT to cut hair until erev Shavuos mamash [not EVEN Lag BA'omer! AIUI]<br>
<br>Now even if the hulo shel mo'ed theory is all wet, we can still identify that the ORIGINAL restrictions as constituted were quite limited. What is interesting is that the Tur and th Kitzur SA use virtually the same language on the matter.<br>
<br>Now it is mistaver to say the at the Crusades would have increasedthe intensity of the Restrictions. But as per Tur and AFAIK general Ashkenazic Rishonim, there is no evidence of this. It is NOT mistaver to say that form the era of Magen Avraham forward this restrictions started mushrooming! <br>
<br>I don't have any major objection to saying <br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">event X triggered humra Y, </blockquote>
but this just does not fit the facts of the case here. <br><br>Waht DOES seem obvious is that Ashkenzim [unlike Sephardim] chose to observe the "back -half" off sefira because of the events on and about Rosh Hodesh Sivan.<br>
<br>Clarification: I am not denying that we have a minhag/Masroah to observe Aveilus during this period. My point is simple, the original scope and parameters of aveilus were quite specific and additional models super-imposed upon the original are imho shinuyyim to the accepted practice.<br>
<br>Lemashal, what would you say if ashkenazim started saying not only are kitniyyos assur eat on Pesach but they are subject to bal yei'ra'eh and bal Yimatzei and they must be destroyed or sold. You would immediately realize that his humra was not rooted in the original g'zeira.<br>
<br>I am saying the same about the restrictions of Sefira, that about 200-300 years ago, the restrictions morphed, and AISI for no particular reason than to impose general Aveilus on a more restricted g'zeira <br>
<br><br> <br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>