- This topic has 173 replies, 48 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
The Beis Yosef is citing Rabbeinu Yerucham. Everyone agrees that that has halachic weight with regards to whether one can eat kitnios.
I don’t agree to that.
I think it has as much halachic weight as citing the passuk about how pesach is 7 days as proof that you don’t need to keep 8 days in chutz l’aretz.
How can citing a source from 800 years ago have any bearing on a minhag that has developed since then?
“A pasuk is never used to counter a Rabbinic enaction. However Rishonim who we don’t pasken like, are often used to rely on (sometimes with being metztaref other factors) in a shaas hadchak. Hence they have halachic weight whereas your pasuk doesn’t.
“How can citing a source from 800 years ago have any bearing on a minhag that has developed since then?”
Because the minhag that developed might have been a minhag shtus. Now if you want to quote other Rishonim/Acharonim who disagree and hold that it’s a good minhag then fine, but that’s a different argument then the one we are discussing.
“But just because he doesn’t like his conclusion, doesn’t give him the right to question motive”
I’m not saying that he has the right. I’m just explaining his thought process which was that the halacha is clearly xyz so someone who argues must have an ulterior motive. You can respond that he is dead wrong and that’s fine. I’m just explaining why he is accusing people of ulterior motives.
“Kol haposel b’mumo posel, so I assume that he himself paskens based on ulterior motives, and he projected his own shortcomings on a huge talmid chochom. As far as I’m concerned, that’s not a posek, and popa’s right.”
R’ Moshe wrote about someone’s psak ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?????
Would you say there kol haposel? I assume not.
“I also agree with popa, no matter how much you want to nitpick, that taking a psak out of context and misapplying it is naarishkeit, not halachah.”
I completely agree that it is possible to use halachic points to create naarishkeit.
hi guys
Would you say there kol haposel? I assume not.
Of course not. In halachah, we do weigh the gadlus of poskim when determining who is correct. Without even knowing the issue, I will say that R’ Moshe is right (especially since he uses such strong language.)
Similarly, Chacham Ovadiah zt’l gets enough credit from me (as if he needs my haskamah…) that when someone of lesser stature (about which you seem to agree with me) ch’v says what he does, I take sides with Chacham Ovadiah and call “Kol haposel” on the other fellow.
But of course, Kol haposel is not a universal rule, you have know how to apply it. And, as you seem to agree, there is an earned hierarchy in klal Yisroel.
Toi!
PBA: It’s a nice Pshetl, but unfortunately the Mizmor L’david’s Chiddush is not borne out by reality or history. Pashut P’shat is that the Minhag developed based on a typo in the Rabbeinu Yerucham.
What was the Mizmor L’Dovid’s pshat?
DY: Go as far North as you can on the shortest day of the year, assume first meal towards Chatzos and second meal sometime before Shkia, and you get 3 hours. The problem is that you’d have to go above the arctic circle before you get somewhere with less than a 6-hour day on December 21st.
We discussed it once on the CR.
Daas Yochid:
My point was that we don’t automatically assume that because someone accuses someone of something, he is guilty of the same thing. You seem to agree to that and I agree that there are situations where we are more noteh one way or the other.
PAA, I do agree to that. My point was specific to this situation.
And my point was basically that you can take sides with Chacham Ovadia without calling kol haposel on the other fellow.
It’s not a matter of merely taking sides on a halachic issue; this fellow passeled himself with his comments, and you can’t seriously claim that an Ashkenazic posek is meikil on kitniyos based on his opinion, which is, apparently, that of the conservative movement.
I spent a long time today looking into R’ David Bar-Hayim. Chas V’shalom to say he is Conservative or an Apikores. He is going back to a Halachic style that has fallen out of disuse in the past centuries, but was certainly prevalent in the time of the Rishonim (and seems very similar to the Maharshal). The Maharshal was outvoted by the Shulchan Aruch and those who chose him, but it is a valid Derech.
That being said, Klal Yisrael has for the most part rejected such a Derech. As such, quoting him for anything L’ma’aseh is problematic. But he is not Paskening based on ulterior motives. He is Paskening based on what seems Pashut Pshat based on the available Mekoros.
PAA: He’s not an Ashkenazi Posek. He might be an Ashkenazi; he might be a Posek. But he is a Posek for an era before there was ever a difference between Ashkenazim and Sefardim.
FTR, I didn’t say he was conservative, just that this “psak” is shared with conservative. And my macha’ah for the kavod of Chacham Ovadiah zt’l stands.
“The problem is that you’d have to go above the arctic circle before you get somewhere with less than a 6-hour day on December 21st.”
Not true. I went to myzmanim.com and looked up Trondheim, Norway, for 12/21/2014. (Trondheim has the northernmost orthodox synagogue in the world, but it is still south of the Arctic Circle.) Sunrise is 10:01am and Sunset is 2:32pm.
(Tomorrow night, candlelighting is at 10:56pm, and Shabat does not end because it won’t get dark enough to see three stars. In fact, it has not been dark enough there to see three stars for weeks. )
I spent some time investigating the three hour yekke minhag, and Prof. Sperber told me he thought my theory is reasonable.
I’ll make it short.
The position that the minhag comes from Rabeinu Yerucham is far fetched, and in my opinion, untenable. As is known, he specifically says six hours in another sefer of his. Two, it’s very likely that the letter gimel was a ta’us sofer, it’s only one letter. Three, and more important, Rabeinu Yerucham was French, a talmid of Rabeinu Peretz of Corbeil (south of Paris), and until proven otherwise, had zero influence on German custom. He could not possibly have taken an entrenched German custom and single-handedly, without talmudic proof, changed it to three hours, and that only in Germany and not in France or C’na’an.. No way. Four, no one else mentions it.
The minhag is only several hundred years old, as witnessed by the Mizmor L’david’s dealing with it, a first in rabbinic literature. To base it on the Pri Chadash is interesting, but irrelevant, the Italian Chezkiyah de Silva had no authority or influence in Germany.
In the 1700s ,the eating patterns of the Germans , Jews and non-Jews alike changed, and with it, meal times. This has been documented. The evening dairy meal gradually moved earlier so that it would be served in the daytime. Considering that the winter days are short, if earlier in the day there was a meat meal, which certainly occurred on shabbat and yom tov, there were only approximately three-four hours left in the day. Hence, by sociological neccessity, and without changing the halachah (Ashkenaz psak according to the ba’alei hatosfot was not to wait at all,so it’s a minor change mid’rabanan to cut from six to three), the wait was cut to three.
This theory answers several important questions, namely:
1. Where is the source for three hours in the rishonim? There is none, nor was one necessary.
2. Why was it never mentioned until the 1700s? It didn’t exist yet.
3. Why only in Germany? That’s where eating patterns changed.
I have no definitive proof. It is a theory, even conjecture if you desire. You can knock it down, be my guest. But it makes more sense to me than anything else I’ve heard.
“PAA: He’s not an Ashkenazi Posek. He might be an Ashkenazi; he might be a Posek. But he is a Posek for an era before there was ever a difference between Ashkenazim and Sefardim.”
Fair enough. Did you watch the interview of R’ Bar-Hayim by R’ Yair Hoffman? Much of his ideology/methodology is explained in it, although it is about two hours long.
Interesting idea, Old man.
The Saducees weren’t conservative either. Their Psak haarkened back to before Bi’as Ha’aretz. Many today harken back to before Avraham Avinu.
PAA: Indeed I watched the entire thing.
HaLeiVi: This is different. He has a Derech with a legitimate Mesorah, especially among the major Poskim in Egypt in the times of the Rishonim. It is unfair to put him in the same category as Tzedukim or Conservatives.
Old Man,
M’ikar hadin Ashkenazi Jews only wait an hour (or less). Keeping 6 hours, for Ashkenazim, is a chumra. If it became very inconvenient to keep 6 hours and they wanted to change the minhag, isn’t it reasonable that they would pick 3 hours because of the source in Rabbeinu Yerucham?
In other words, even if Rabbeinu Yerucham is a typo (which I am not convinced of), he could still be the source of the 3 hour minhag.
Alternatively, keeping 6 hours was never an “entrenched minhag” in Germany. They may have kept one hour (or less). Faced with the adoption of 6 hours my other Ashkenazi communities they may have compromised and created 3 hours, once again basing themselves on Rabbeinu Yerucham.
HaLeivi,
What are you saying? The Sadducees denied the primacy of the Chazal and the Sanhedrin in transmitting Torah Sh’bal Peh. While that is not Conservative, it is apikorsus. Their psak was not valid before Bias HaAretz.
“PAA: Indeed I watched the entire thing.”
You were able to get the entire thing? When I watched it a few months ago, it was broken up into maybe 12 parts and two of the parts were missing.
That is not called having a Mesora. It is called breaking from Mesora based on historical conclusions. As we saw, it rhymes with conservative and is the common origin of every break-away.
Not true. I went to myzmanim.com and looked up Trondheim, Norway, for 12/21/2014. (Trondheim has the northernmost orthodox synagogue in the world, but it is still south of the Arctic Circle.) Sunrise is 10:01am and Sunset is 2:32pm.
How long is the shortest day in Berlin?
Edit: I looked it up; 7:39.
“They may have kept one hour (or less)”
To this day, Jews in the Netherlands keep one hour. Even the Sefardic Jews there adopted that Ashkenazic ruling.
And that should be the ruling in America, too, because for the first 143 years of Jews in America all the communities followed the Dutch Sefardim. The Ashkenazim broke with the mesorah starting in 1797 in Philadelphia. There should be no surprise that there is not a single Ashkenazi congregation in America that was started prior to 1850 that is still Orthodox, while two remaining Sefardic congregations from colonial times remain halachic. (The word “orthodox” had not yet been applied to Judaism at the time they were founded.)
Correction. Make that 141 years. The Ashkenazic breakaway in Philadelphia was in 1795, not 1797. I apologize to the CR and I regret the error.
PAA: I watched 9 of the 12 parts on Youtube. Entire was a slight exaggeration, I guess, but it was more than enough to understand him and his opinions.
HaLeiVi: He didn’t break with Mesorah. He is a Talmid of R’ Kapach whose Yemenite Mesorah was very similar to that Mesorah anyway. It might be a mistake to try to apply that Mesorah to the rest of Klal Yisrael, but it’s certainly a valid Derech.
Old man: I like it.
Ben: It’s absolutely a typo. He is quoting Rashi word-for-word except he says “3” instead of “6”.
And that should be the ruling in America, too, because
for the first 143 years of Jews in America all the
communities followed the Dutch Sefardim.
well according to Tosafos in Avoda Zara we don’t day Kamma Kamma Batul onceit was Nisrabba Alav.
Dear Haleivi and Sam,
Thank you, I am honored
Dear benignuman,
As I said, I have no definitive proof, but I will address your points.
1. Rabeinu Yerucham’s sefer apparently is well known for its’ typos. It is for that reason that it was hardly studied until recently.
2. It is a mistake to assume that just because there exists a position by a Rishon, that everyone knew about it. Rabeinu Yerucham was from Provence and after the Jews were banished from France in 1306, went to Spain and lived out his life there, writing toldos adam v’chava towards the end of his life and dying in 1350. As I noted, zero Influence on German custom. I would be shocked if his sefer was available in Germany at any point in time.
I will add to this point that because of the incessant geographical wars that were part of life in the middle and modern ages, there was often little if any communication betwen relatively large geographical areas; actually, insulation was the rule. This of course resulted in strong and unwavering, but very different minhagim developing in different areas. This point emphasizes the unlikelihood that Rabeinu Yerucham’ s influence was felt anywhere outside of Spain and Spanish custom, even after the expulsion in 1492 .
3. Even a Rishon needs a source. As Sam has vehemently argued ( I disagree with him, but his arguments are coherent and strong), innovative halachic positions still require a textual springboard. What was Rabeinu Yerucham’s textual basis for three hours? And why was he alone? After all, he did not live in isolation. Best answer: none, it was a ta’ut sofer and he never wrote it.
4. I would greatly hesitate before suggesting that three hours is a nice compromise between one (or none) and six, as neat as it sounds. Some may have escaped me, but I cannot recall a quantitative halachic decision that was settled by splitting that quantity in two. We may argue ad infinitum how large a zayit is , but no one says “let’s take the minimum opinion and the maximum opinion , average them, and presto! There is our exact halachic quantity”. One can hardly imagine a scenario where one opinion is that something is batel b’rov, another is that it’s batel b’shishim, and someone coming along and saying, “let’s stop fighting, just call it batel b’shloshim and we can all go home”
Sam2: I have to de-lurk myself to disagree with you on Rav Bar-Hayyim. The emphasis his machon shilo places on Yerushalmi over bavli is his own chiddush. I also have it on very good authority that some of his historical conclusions are without any evidence but I won’t argue that point since I haven’t researched them and am no longer entitled to badger my rebbeim about things like that.
Edit, just to have something on topic for a change
Halacha: Wear tefillin
Minhag: Rabbeinu Tam
Chumra: Gassos (or common sense given the state of judaica store peshutim)
Shtus: Your tefillin are passul because you don’t have “double-black” retzuos. (Reb Yid, take a shot of double black yourself, and calm down!)
Alternatively:
Halacha: Don’t eat or own chametz on Pesach
Minhag: Don’t eat Kitniyos
Chumra: Peanut oil.
Shtus: Sell your peanut oil keilim with the chametz.
“The emphasis his machon shilo places on Yerushalmi over bavli is his own chiddush”
He points out that the Rambam paskens in accordance with the Yerushalmi over the Bavli in a significant number of places. And the Rambam in the hakdama to Mishneh Torah explains that the halacha is derived from both talmudim as well as the other braisos, tosefta etc. He himself doesn’t blindly follow the Yerushalmi over the Bavli. When it seems to him that the Yerushalmi is correct (which might in certain circumstances be because he prefers the “Torah of Eretz Yisrael”) he will follow the Yerushalmi. He also points out that the Gra in Shnos Eliyahu often explains the Mishnah using only the Yerushalmi’s explanation without mentioning the Bavli’s.
Also, one of his points is that the Yerushalmi often fits with the lashon of the mishnah better than the bavli does – for instance there are times when the bavli turns a mishnah upside down via chisurei mechsera vehachi katani while the yerushalmi explains pashut pshat in the mishnah.
So in other words, as I said and as Itche said, he drew historical conclusions and decided to act on them. Next he became a Machria between the Amoraim. As chazal tell us, Gedola Machlokes Shemagi’a Ad Kisei Hakavod. Once you break free there is nothing holding you back from going anywhere.
All this is silly and Ramos Ruach. The presence of the latter cannot be denied.
The Teimanim followed the Rambam’s Psak from way back when. The developements of Ashkenazic and Sfardic Halacha didn’t change them all the way. However, this has nothing to do with being Choleq Al Rabbo.
In Yiddish we say, Fuhn Ah Kasha Shtarbt Mehn Nischt. If you want to think up reasons for each place where the Rambam seems to go with outside Sefarim, or if you want to come up with general ideas, so be it. This is something else entirely.
“Once you break free there is nothing holding you back from going anywhere.”
Break free of what? Of only paskening like the Bavli? I’m not sure what you mean when you say that there is nothing holding you back from going anywhere. If I decide to not blindly follow the Mishnah Berura, but to consider the Aruch Hashulchan as well, does that mean that there is nothing holding me back from going anywhere?
old man: See the Chida in Shem HaGedolim about reprinting the Rabbeinu Yerucham. But, Lulei D’mist’fina to argue on the Chida in Nistar, I would be willing to say that the Cherem on reprinting the Rabbeinu Yerucham actually came from Nigleh-i.e. that it’s full of typos. I would guess that that is also R’ Ovadia’s S’vara in permitting it.
In Magid Meisharim of the Beis Yosef, the Magid calls Rabbeinu Yeruchem hidden. I guess just like there is a reason for everything else there is Hashgacha and a reason for the mistakes, too.
??”? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?:? (R’ Ovadia Yosef)
????: ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????
?????: ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????
Rav Ovadia Yosef is not an Ashekanzi posek.
Here, ask me whether a sefardi has to not eat milk and fish together?
A. It was a typo.
“Rav Ovadia Yosef is not an Ashekanzi posek”
Granted. But he is talking about ashkenazim.
But the challenge was to find a normal ashkenazi posek.
PBA: I know of several Sefardi Poskim who allow their followers to be Mattir Neder on fish and milk. In fact, many Sefardim are Noheg L’hakel anyway.
PAA: R’ Ovadia is famous for holding (by several different logical paths) that Ashkenazim should be Sefardim. Ashkenazi Poskim rejected that Psak of his. This is just an example of that. (And see the harsh words R’ Ovadia has the for TZ”E when the TZ”E tried to Pasken for Sefardim against R’ Ovadia.)
But the specific quote that I quoted says that they can remain ashkenazim.
“the Rambam paskens in accordance with the Yerushalmi over the Bavli in a significant number of places”
The Rambam paskens in accordance with his understanding of the Yerushalmi that often differs from others’ understanding of the Yerushalmi. I’ve sometimes wondered whether he had access to better manuscripts; much of the Yerushalmi is so confusing that different Acharonim come to completely different conclusions regarding what the gemara is talking about.
Hello Sam,
I corresponded with a fine young fellow who is writing a doctorate on the Chida and asked him whether he thought the Chida’s hesitations about the sefer Adam V’chava were because of the poor copying, or because there is nistar in the typos and people who are spiritually unworthy should not be using it.
Naturally, he was very familiar with all of the Chida’s writings, and mentioned the Chida’s affinity for Rabeinu Yerucham’s Adam V’chava.
He is convinced that the Chida’s comments on the copying accuracy of Adam V’chava are all in the nigleh (as you said yourself), and he saw no evidence of typo = nistar. The Chida was wont to warn people about poor copying standards, and he especially emphasized this in the writings of Rabeinu Yerucham, which were to him, loaded with mistakes. Bottom line, the Chida valued greatly the writings of Rabeinu Yerucham provided that one use extreme caution.
If you want, I’ll copy-paste his comments to me.
As to the discussion, I have no doubt that the “gimel sha’ot” is a typo, and that this typo was not the source or even an asmachta to the German minhag.
Old man, it’s hard to accept your theory that a community loyal to halachah would make a change, even “a ‘minor’ change mid’rabanan to cut from six to three”, based only on “sociological neccessity”. There would have to be a m’kor/sevara, although the sociological necessity could definitely play a role.
It’s entirely possible that there were those who defined “seuda acheres” as the shortest seuda interval in a given time/locale (similar to Mizmor L’Dovid), and even explained at least some Rishonim’s six hours in that context.
It should be noted that the Chayei Adam (127:10 IIRC; I’ll try to find it and link it later if I have time) notes a legitimate minhag to wait “eizeh sha’os” (which would include three), and says it is legitimate to be meikil in case of necessity. He does not talk about “sociological necessity”; that expansion would be your chiddush.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.