Parashot shoftim (belated) and ki teitze
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael Poppers
Sep 12, 2011, 2:51:34 PM9/12/11
to Shitat Hashavua
Thanks, Gabi.
As Gabi knows, I suggested the topic for P'Ki Seitzei. What I've read
indicates that the [Rhine-region] custom for unmarried men not to wear
a talis [gadol] may have been due to how expensive a talis was bayamim
haheim, and of course this custom is not brought down l'halachah (au
contraire, we see from BT Qidushin 29b that an unmarried man wears a
talis [see MA 8:3; also see BH 17:4]...n'arim should be taught to wear
a talis as soon as they can keep two tzitzis in front and two in back
[see SA 17:3 and hagahah ad loc.], and the custom "bimdinos acheirim"
to wait 'til the boy becomes a Bar Mitzva would seem to be the
_maximum_ #years one should wait [again, see BH 17:4]) -- as such, the
connection to our sedra may have been an ex-post-facto rationale
rather than a legitimate basis. In any case, as I mentioned to Gabi,
one can see from this Seifer MaHaRYL extract that MaHaRYL didn't
necessarily agree with the custom of his shoeil but rather was
answering according to his questioner's custom, hence anyone who tries
to use the extract as a Halachic basis for the custom is in error.
Indeed, one can see the "power of minhag," but this particular minhag
is most likely _not_ "long held" and, la'aniyus da'ti, is a prime
example of a "minhag shtus."
On a separate subject:
> On what basis can a מצוה
מדאורייתא be postponed indefinitely? <
One can be m'qayeim the mitzvah qiyumis by wearing a four-cornered
garment and ensuring that said garment has tzitzis on its kanfos (SA
8:3, and also see the hagahah to SA 9:1 as well as SA 24:1). Granted,
one can ask about postponing ituf, but I wouldn't classify that as a
"mitzva mid'Oraysa" (and see MA 8:4). That said, postponing the qiyum
per se _is_ a serious matter (see SA 24:6).
All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
As Gabi knows, I suggested the topic for P'Ki Seitzei. What I've read
indicates that the [Rhine-region] custom for unmarried men not to wear
a talis [gadol] may have been due to how expensive a talis was bayamim
haheim, and of course this custom is not brought down l'halachah (au
contraire, we see from BT Qidushin 29b that an unmarried man wears a
talis [see MA 8:3; also see BH 17:4]...n'arim should be taught to wear
a talis as soon as they can keep two tzitzis in front and two in back
[see SA 17:3 and hagahah ad loc.], and the custom "bimdinos acheirim"
to wait 'til the boy becomes a Bar Mitzva would seem to be the
_maximum_ #years one should wait [again, see BH 17:4]) -- as such, the
connection to our sedra may have been an ex-post-facto rationale
rather than a legitimate basis. In any case, as I mentioned to Gabi,
one can see from this Seifer MaHaRYL extract that MaHaRYL didn't
necessarily agree with the custom of his shoeil but rather was
answering according to his questioner's custom, hence anyone who tries
to use the extract as a Halachic basis for the custom is in error.
Indeed, one can see the "power of minhag," but this particular minhag
is most likely _not_ "long held" and, la'aniyus da'ti, is a prime
example of a "minhag shtus."
On a separate subject:
> On what basis can a מצוה
מדאורייתא be postponed indefinitely? <
One can be m'qayeim the mitzvah qiyumis by wearing a four-cornered
garment and ensuring that said garment has tzitzis on its kanfos (SA
8:3, and also see the hagahah to SA 9:1 as well as SA 24:1). Granted,
one can ask about postponing ituf, but I wouldn't classify that as a
"mitzva mid'Oraysa" (and see MA 8:4). That said, postponing the qiyum
per se _is_ a serious matter (see SA 24:6).
All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
Gabi Spiewak
Sep 12, 2011, 3:10:37 PM9/12/11
to shitat-...@googlegroups.com
Michael, please accept my apologies for not making your vital contribution to shitat hashavua this week public knowledge. It was my absolute intent to do so and was a classic erev shabbat oversight on my part.
As to your substantive comment, do you think the MaHaRYL would agree that it's a minhag shtus and nonetheless as a poseik one should maintain a pluralistic acceptance of all minhagim, no matter what their intrinsic value? In general, I would love to discover a consensus operational definition of minhag shtus: Does anything that contradicts a halakhic source qualify; is it simply when it contains no redeeming value or source of its own; or are both conditions necessary?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Shitat Hashavua" group.
To post to this group, send email to shitat-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to shitat-hashav...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/shitat-hashavua?hl=en.
Michael Poppers
Sep 13, 2011, 5:54:46 PM9/13/11
to Shitat Hashavua
On Sep 12, 3:10 pm, Gabi Spiewak <gspie...@kean.edu> wrote:
> Michael, please accept my apologies for not making your vital contribution
> to shitat hashavua this week public knowledge. It was my absolute intent to
> do so and was a classic erev shabbat oversight on my part.
>
No apology necessary. I appreciate your working with the suggestion
> Michael, please accept my apologies for not making your vital contribution
> to shitat hashavua this week public knowledge. It was my absolute intent to
> do so and was a classic erev shabbat oversight on my part.
>
and putting the week's sheet together based upon it!
> As to your substantive comment, do you think the MaHaRYL would agree that
> it's a minhag shtus and nonetheless as a poseik one should maintain a
> pluralistic acceptance of all minhagim, no matter what their intrinsic
> value? In general, I would love to discover a consensus operational
> definition of minhag shtus: Does anything that contradicts a halakhic
> source qualify; is it simply when it contains no redeeming value or source
> of its own; or are both conditions necessary?
>
question was not considered what I would label a "minhag shtus,"
perhaps, as I mentioned, because a talis was expensive/hard to obtain
(by way of comparison, consider the stories of yore re obtaining an
esrog for Chag haSukkos) and, realistically, certain parents in
certain regions of Europe could not be expected to purchase taleisim
for their sons as they grew up. Regardless of what the p'saq was for
that shoeil in that day, pos'qim in each generation are expected to
make a judgment based on current circumstances and situations, and I
challenge today's leaders (and, for those who care: yes, I've
discussed this with my Rav, who happens to also be the Rav for many
listmembers) to explain why they do not outfit their own sons with
taleisim, much less urge their followers to do so. (Maybe someday
I'll 'hear' a reasonable rationale for our times and then be modeh it
should be merely labeled "questionable" rather than "shtus" :).) I
believe there are many instances of a minhag labeled "shtus" but later
becoming widespread in at least certain communities (e.g. kaparos as
per BY [see this 'blog post:
http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2007/07/missing-minhag-shtus-in-shulchan-aruch.html
] and kitniyos as per RY [see http://www.kby.org/english/torat-yavneh/view.asp?id=3951
] ) -- I'm not aware of anyone labeling as "shtus" unmarried men not
wearing a talis, but BH 17:4 seems quite dispositive, and certainly
nowadays the opinions of BH and other pos'qim, never mind earlier
sources, have been ignored by a large group of b'nei Torah.
In terms of a general definition for "minhag shtus," misunderstanding,
much less contradicting (I've seen Sh'vus Ya'aqov 2:6 quoted as saying
that "minhag m'vateil halacha" [Maseches Sof'rim 14:18] only applies
to minhagim quoted in SHaS), Halachic-universe sources or having no
valid source may be sufficient (and we would need to distinguish an
actual violation of halachah as a "minhag taus"); if the custom also
has no redeeming value, perhaps it falls down to the category of
"minhag ra'"? Sugyos in BT P'sachim (perhaps in the 4th pereq? --
e.g. see Tos'fos d'h' iy ata on 51a) may impact on proper
definitions. Again, I wouldn't label the no-talis-'til-married custom
in question as "shtus" if I knew of a reasonable, applicable rationale
in consonance with Torah values.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages