unveiling on saturday?
Cbsandler
important to have family together, then to respect the tradition of the
sabbath.
Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879
by cbsa...@aol.com (Cbsandler):
> is it never acceptable to have an unveiling on a saturday...is it not more
> important to have family together, then to respect the tradition of the
> sabbath.
You can violate the Sabbath to save a life, but I can't imagine a
situation where failing to unveil a tombstone on the Sabbath would
be a life threatening act. Surely you can find some other day to do
a thing as mundane as convening the family for an unveiling. Sunday,
for example?
Doug Jones
jo...@cs.uiowa.edu
Moshe Shulman
>is it never acceptable to have an unveiling on a saturday...is it not more
>important to have family together, then to respect the tradition of the
>sabbath.
Since one cannot violate laws of the Torah which one would do by havign the
unveiling on Shabbos, it is never allowed. Why cannot the whole family be
together on Sunday? I assume the family is Jewish and wouldn't be in church.
moshe shulman mshu...@NOSPAMix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh http://www.chassidus.net
Chassidus shiur: chassidus...@chassidus.net
Chassidus discussion list: chassidus...@egroups.com
Outreach Judaism http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
ICQ# 52009254
R
>
> is it never acceptable to have an unveiling on a saturday...is it not more
> important to have family together, then to respect the tradition of the
> sabbath.
You have things backwards. Shabbos is a law, not a "tradition."
The "unveiling" is a very recent invention -- much too recent to
even be a tradition.
It IS important to have the family together. So, have them
together to observe Shabbos. This can be done every week, instead
of just once after somebody died and they put up a monument on
the grave and the family wants to go through an ad hoc ceremony
of gathering around the tombstone, covering it with a
handkerchief fastened with scotch tape, and then "unveiling" it.
Sheldon Ackerman
>is it never acceptable to have an unveiling on a saturday...is it not more
>important to have family together, then to respect the tradition of the
>sabbath.
In addition to the other excellent responses you have received, an unveiling
on the Sabaath would probably fall under the category of "aveilos" which
would be prohibited on Saturday. (Only my opinion at this point..Will have
to think a bit more about it...)
meirm...@erols.com
acke...@amanda.dorsai.org (Sheldon Ackerman) posted:
I think in this situation, it is probably good to point out that
aveilos is mourning, which is limited on the Sabbath even in the week
after death, let alone a year later (if it *is* aveilos. I don't know
either because no one does this on the Sabbath.)
.
mei...@QQQerols.com
e-mail by removing QQQ
Jonathan J. Baker
>> is it never acceptable to have an unveiling on a saturday...is it not more
>> important to have family together, then to respect the tradition of the
>> sabbath.
>You have things backwards. Shabbos is a law, not a "tradition."
>The "unveiling" is a very recent invention -- much too recent to
>even be a tradition.
"too recent to even be a tradition"? Ever hear of Minhag America?
It's in the UK, too. It's well-enough established that different
families have different minhagim about it: within the first year,
after the first year, within shloshim.
Hey, if you want high-speed traditions, you should go to Princeton.
They can set up a "tradition" in a year, like the "tradition" of
the Clapper Hunt (instead of the real tradition of stealing the
clapper of the school bell, in hopes that its loss will prevent
the ringing of the bell to start classes for the new year).
>It IS important to have the family together. So, have them
>together to observe Shabbos. This can be done every week, instead
>of just once after somebody died and they put up a monument on
>the grave and the family wants to go through an ad hoc ceremony
>of gathering around the tombstone, covering it with a
>handkerchief fastened with scotch tape, and then "unveiling" it.
Hey, R' Goldin says "nohagu" to do just that, so don't knock it.
--
Jonathan Baker | D"T: 10ths are serious, 15ths are happy: 10 Tvt, 9
jjb...@panix.com | Av, Y"K; but all Y"T's are 15ths; 15 Shvt; 15 Av.
Web page update: new divrei torah. <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker>
Colin Rosenthal
>Cbsandler wrote:
>>
>> is it never acceptable to have an unveiling on a saturday...is it not more
>> important to have family together, then to respect the tradition of the
>> sabbath.
>
>You have things backwards. Shabbos is a law, not a "tradition."
>The "unveiling" is a very recent invention -- much too recent to
>even be a tradition.
Where I come from it's called a "stone-setting". Either way,
it is a custom followed without exception by all members of
the communities in which it is practised. If that isn't a
"tradition" then you'll have to redefine the word for me in words
of one syllable.
>It IS important to have the family together. So, have them
>together to observe Shabbos. This can be done every week, instead
>of just once after somebody died and they put up a monument on
>the grave and the family wants to go through an ad hoc ceremony
>of gathering around the tombstone, covering it with a
>handkerchief fastened with scotch tape, and then "unveiling" it.
Since you are, presumably, talking to someone who is still in mourning
for a recently deceased member of his or her family you might like to
consider using a more sympathetic and respectful tone.
--
Colin Rosenthal
Astrophysics Institute
University of Oslo
R
>
> >> is it never acceptable to have an unveiling on a saturday...is it not more
> >> important to have family together, then to respect the tradition of the
> >> sabbath.
>
> >You have things backwards. Shabbos is a law, not a "tradition."
> >The "unveiling" is a very recent invention -- much too recent to
> >even be a tradition.
>
> It's in the UK, too. It's well-enough established that different
> families have different minhagim about it: within the first year,
> after the first year, within shloshim.
Those minhagim refer to when the monument is erected, not when it
is "unveiled."
>
> Hey, if you want high-speed traditions, you should go to Princeton.
> They can set up a "tradition" in a year, like the "tradition" of
> the Clapper Hunt (instead of the real tradition of stealing the
> clapper of the school bell, in hopes that its loss will prevent
> the ringing of the bell to start classes for the new year).
>
> >It IS important to have the family together. So, have them
> >together to observe Shabbos. This can be done every week, instead
> >of just once after somebody died and they put up a monument on
> >the grave and the family wants to go through an ad hoc ceremony
> >of gathering around the tombstone, covering it with a
> >handkerchief fastened with scotch tape, and then "unveiling" it.
>
> Hey, R' Goldin says "nohagu" to do just that, so don't knock it.
I don't know who R' Goldin is. Nor is it clear to me that
"nohagu" means it is established as a minhag." Nohagu simply
means "this is what they have been doing." Sometimes, what people
do is simply wrong. Especially when itt origins are probably the
copying of what goyim do.
R
> >>
> >> is it never acceptable to have an unveiling on a saturday...is it not more
> >> important to have family together, then to respect the tradition of the
> >> sabbath.
> >
> >You have things backwards. Shabbos is a law, not a "tradition."
> >The "unveiling" is a very recent invention -- much too recent to
> >even be a tradition.
>
> it is a custom followed without exception by all members of
> the communities in which it is practised. If that isn't a
> "tradition" then you'll have to redefine the word for me in words
> of one syllable.
Tradition in the Jewish sense means to me a "minhag" -- something
that is mentioned somewhere in the Shulchan Aruch or later
Poskim, not a folk-invention.
>
> >It IS important to have the family together. So, have them
> >together to observe Shabbos. This can be done every week, instead
> >of just once after somebody died and they put up a monument on
> >the grave and the family wants to go through an ad hoc ceremony
> >of gathering around the tombstone, covering it with a
> >handkerchief fastened with scotch tape, and then "unveiling" it.
>
> Since you are, presumably, talking to someone who is still in mourning
> for a recently deceased member of his or her family you might like to
> consider using a more sympathetic and respectful tone.
>
Why are you complaining to me. This "unveiling" business was
invented by people who make their living preying off those in
mourning. Complain to them. My lack of sympathy was for them,
certainly not for those in mourning. And by the way, there is no
indication at all that the original poster is actually in
mourning. My take on it is that it is simply someone trying to
challenge thos of us who observe Shabbos as the law, erecting
monuments as a minhag, and "unveiling" as nothing at all.
Jonathan J. Baker
>"Jonathan J. Baker" wrote:
>> Hey, R' Goldin says "nohagu" to do just that, so don't knock it.
>I don't know who R' Goldin is. Nor is it clear to me that
Then you haven't been a rabbi in America in the past 50 years.
R' Hyman Goldin.
He wrote Hamadrikh: The Rabbi's Guide (1939), he translated the Kitzur
Shulchan Aruch (1927-28), and the Mishnayot Nezikin (Babas) (1913-1933);
He's like one of the big rabbis of prewar American Orthodoxy.
>"nohagu" means it is established as a minhag." Nohagu simply
>means "this is what they have been doing." Sometimes, what people
>do is simply wrong. Especially when itt origins are probably the
>copying of what goyim do.
Goldin has a service for it, as does Hertz in the Authorized Prayer
Book. The latter goes back to the 40s.
It's recent, I guess, since there isn't a set service for it; Goldin
and Hertz differ widely on what to include. But then, funerals are
also kind of freeform: mizmor ledovid, tziduk hadin, kaddish, and
whatever other psalms the rabbi or the family feels like adding,
eulogies, reminiscences, etc.
Are you calling the chief rabbi of the British Empire "simply wrong"?
(Yes,that's an RK argument, but it is effectively what you're doing.)
Jonathan J. Baker
>Why are you complaining to me. This "unveiling" business was
Because you're backhandedly insulting millions of American
and British and, for all I know, Israeli Jews who use this
inoffensive practice, as well as the major rabbonim who
endorse it and have done so for at leat the past 60+ years.
Is there anything davka *wrong* about going to the cemetery,
saying kel molei rachamim for the deceased, some tehillim,
maybe a kaddish?
I don't know anyone who actually *pays* for it. I've been
doing the service for my relatives for 20 years, since I was
in high school. In my wife's family, one of the cousins
who is a rav will do it. I did her grandfather's service
some years ago, I'll do her father's service in 2 weeks be"h.
All you need is the Hertz siddur and a piece of cloth.
>invented by people who make their living preying off those in
>mourning. Complain to them. My lack of sympathy was for them,
No, we're complaining to you, because you're the one casting
chshad on kesheirim.
>certainly not for those in mourning. And by the way, there is no
That's not the way you expressed it.
>indication at all that the original poster is actually in
>mourning. My take on it is that it is simply someone trying to
>challenge thos of us who observe Shabbos as the law, erecting
>monuments as a minhag, and "unveiling" as nothing at all.
Which is a different matter. You're probably right about the
original poster's motives.
R
>
> In <> R <rut...@concentric.net> writes:
>
> >Why are you complaining to me. This "unveiling" business was
>
> Because you're backhandedly insulting millions of American
> and British and, for all I know, Israeli Jews who use this
> inoffensive practice, as well as the major rabbonim who
> endorse it and have done so for at leat the past 60+ years.
I don't know whom I have insulted. Unless, as the RK argument
goes, questioning equals insulting.
>
> Is there anything davka *wrong* about going to the cemetery,
> saying kel molei rachamim for the deceased, some tehillim,
> maybe a kaddish?
No, nothing at all wrong about that. But that is not an
"unveiling." The unveiling is a very-probably-non-Jewish ceremony
of covering with a handkerchief and then uncovering. And this
ceremony has grown to such importance that the original poster
takes us to task for following rules that would put observing the
Sabbath "tradition" ahead of this ad hoc ceremony.
>
> I don't know anyone who actually *pays* for it. I've been
> doing the service for my relatives for 20 years, since I was
> in high school. In my wife's family, one of the cousins
> who is a rav will do it. I did her grandfather's service
> some years ago, I'll do her father's service in 2 weeks be"h.
>
> All you need is the Hertz siddur and a piece of cloth.
You don't need a Hertz Siddur. All you need is a Tehillim or
other holy book from which to recite something appropriate. And
you certainly don't need the cloth. Where did that come from?
> >invented by people who make their living preying off those in
> >mourning. Complain to them. My lack of sympathy was for them,
>
> No, we're complaining to you, because you're the one casting
> chshad on kesheirim.
Chshad? I'm sorry if you took it that way. Actually, it was the
original poster who cast chshad at all of us for putting the
observance of Sabbath tradition ahead of such ceremonies.
>
> >certainly not for those in mourning. And by the way, there is no
>
> That's not the way you expressed it.
>
> >indication at all that the original poster is actually in
> >mourning. My take on it is that it is simply someone trying to
> >challenge thos of us who observe Shabbos as the law, erecting
> >monuments as a minhag, and "unveiling" as nothing at all.
>
> Which is a different matter. You're probably right about the
> original poster's motives.
I wish I were wrong about that.
A good Shabbos to all. May we have no more funerals or unveilings
at all.
Warren Burstein
R <rut...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Especially when itt origins are probably the
> copying of what goyim do.
Do non-Jews do unveilings? And are there Jewish communities in the US
that don't do them?
--
"I apologize for that verbiage. Unfortunately,
there's probably more" - J. D. Salinger
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jonathan J. Baker
>"Jonathan J. Baker" wrote:
>> In <> R <rut...@concentric.net> writes:
>>
>> >Why are you complaining to me. This "unveiling" business was
>>
>> Because you're backhandedly insulting millions of American
>> and British and, for all I know, Israeli Jews who use this
>> inoffensive practice, as well as the major rabbonim who
>> endorse it and have done so for at leat the past 60+ years.
>I don't know whom I have insulted. Unless, as the RK argument
>goes, questioning equals insulting.
>> Is there anything davka *wrong* about going to the cemetery,
>> saying kel molei rachamim for the deceased, some tehillim,
>> maybe a kaddish?
>No, nothing at all wrong about that. But that is not an
>"unveiling." The unveiling is a very-probably-non-Jewish ceremony
>of covering with a handkerchief and then uncovering. And this
Have you actually spoken to any non-Jews about this? My wife
has, and none of them have ever heard of it. Someone had written
a story involving a Jewish funeral, and Debbie told her about the
unveiling thing, and she had never heard of anything like it, nor
had anyone on her chat room (mostly women).
AFAICT, unveiling is a purely Jewish thing. Pnei Baruch doesn't
talk about it, but SA YD 344:20 talks about going to the cemetery
at the end of the year and saying hashcabah (which for Ashkenazim
would be kel mole rachamim).
I think Pnei Baruch alludes to it, at the end of the chapter on
the matzevah: it is the custom to eulogize the dead at the time
of erecting the monument, so don't do it on one of those days
when hesped (eulogizing) is forbidden. He cites Kol Bo al
aveilus p. 381, and Levushei Mordechai (tinyana YD sec. 140).
Americans do it, Israelis do it, Lubavitchers do it. R' Hecht
had an unveiling for our shul's old shamash on his shloshim;
he had been buried in a terrible storm on a Friday morning the
day he died, and nobody knew about it until Shabbos, so the
unveiling was the memorial that the shul people could participate
in for him.
>ceremony has grown to such importance that the original poster
>takes us to task for following rules that would put observing the
>Sabbath "tradition" ahead of this ad hoc ceremony.
That's trolling. I wouldn't take that part of it seriously.
>> I don't know anyone who actually *pays* for it. I've been
>> doing the service for my relatives for 20 years, since I was
>> in high school. In my wife's family, one of the cousins
>> who is a rav will do it. I did her grandfather's service
>> some years ago, I'll do her father's service in 2 weeks be"h.
>> All you need is the Hertz siddur and a piece of cloth.
>You don't need a Hertz Siddur. All you need is a Tehillim or
>other holy book from which to recite something appropriate. And
>you certainly don't need the cloth. Where did that come from?
At a guess, it's like shabbat candles. One goes and "erects
the matzevah", but it was actually put in place by the cemetery
some time earlier. So we cover it to pretend it wasn't there,
like we cover the eyes to pretend that the flame is new after
the bracha, we cover the challah so that we can set the food
out after we make kiddush (see all that business about Pores
mappah umekadesh in Psachim 100a-b). That way, we're making
the memorial (Goldin has some tehillim and kel molei, with
a dvar Torah from the person doing the service) at the time of
putting up the monument, even though it was physically there
already. If we can set the table after kiddush by covering the
food with a cloth *which is already there*, this should work too.
>> >invented by people who make their living preying off those in
>> >mourning. Complain to them. My lack of sympathy was for them,
>> No, we're complaining to you, because you're the one casting
>> chshad on kesheirim.
>Chshad? I'm sorry if you took it that way. Actually, it was the
>original poster who cast chshad at all of us for putting the
>observance of Sabbath tradition ahead of such ceremonies.
That part I ignored as a troll. But an Orthodox poster casting
unjustified aspersions on other Orthodox as well as non-Orthodox
Jews, for allegedly doing chukos hagoyim, I'm not all that fond of,
>> >certainly not for those in mourning. And by the way, there is no
>> That's not the way you expressed it.
>> >indication at all that the original poster is actually in
>> >mourning. My take on it is that it is simply someone trying to
>> >challenge thos of us who observe Shabbos as the law, erecting
>> >monuments as a minhag, and "unveiling" as nothing at all.
>> Which is a different matter. You're probably right about the
>> original poster's motives.
>I wish I were wrong about that.
>A good Shabbos to all. May we have no more funerals or unveilings
>at all.
Amen.
meirm...@erols.com
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) posted:
>At a guess, it's like shabbat candles. One goes and "erects
>the matzevah", but it was actually put in place by the cemetery
What is the inscription called in Hebrew?
>some time earlier. So we cover it to pretend it wasn't there,
>like we cover the eyes to pretend that the flame is new after
>the bracha, we cover the challah so that we can set the food
>out after we make kiddush (see all that business about Pores
>mappah umekadesh in Psachim 100a-b)
I am certain the Shabbos candle practice well precedes this, but I
wonder who initiated the practice of putting a ribbon in front of a
just constructed building or lots of other places and then
ceremonially cutting the ribbon.
meirm...@erols.com
<rut...@concentric.net> posted:
>Colin Rosenthal wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Aug 2000 21:03:26 GMT,
>> R <rut...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> >Cbsandler wrote:
>> >>
>> >> is it never acceptable to have an unveiling on a saturday...is it not more
>> >> important to have family together, then to respect the tradition of the
>> >> sabbath.
>> >
>> >You have things backwards. Shabbos is a law, not a "tradition."
>> >The "unveiling" is a very recent invention -- much too recent to
>> >even be a tradition.
>>
>> Where I come from it's called a "stone-setting". Either way,
>> it is a custom followed without exception by all members of
>> the communities in which it is practised. If that isn't a
>> "tradition" then you'll have to redefine the word for me in words
>> of one syllable.
>
>Tradition in the Jewish sense means to me a "minhag" -- something
>that is mentioned somewhere in the Shulchan Aruch or later
>Poskim, not a folk-invention.
Tradition is a problematic word in both directions in several ways.
From trans datus, given across, it generally means in English given
accross generational boundaries. So even though Colin probably meant
that, he didn't say it. If alsolutely everyone watched some
particular TV show or went to a parade or did anything that started
this year, it's not a tradition. I heard this discussed on the radio,
and the linguist said iirc that 'our traditional practice' is often
only ones customary practice, or ones usual or typical practice.
My dictionary gives 5 defs. The first two are the handing down orally
and anything handed down that way from generation to generation. The
third is a long-established custom that has the effect of an unwritten
law. Four is, internestingly, "Among Jews, the unwrittten religous
code regarded as handed down from Moses" I think they're close. AND
b) "Among Xians, the unwritten teachings regarded as handed down from
Jesus."
Another problem is the use of "Jewish tradition" is thought be many
listeners to refer to customs and practices. "Traditional Jewish Law"
explicitly calls it law and is probably clearer. But people who
haven't been truly taught that it's law, that its something one does
if it connects with him, still hear the word tradition louder than the
word law, even moreso if law is not mentioned. So if one is not
careful, one can spend hours talking to some of them about jewish
tradition without their ever realizing the discussion is about law.
And then of course minhag has two meanings itself aiui, binding
customs and customary customs, and the hebrew adjective which
distinguishes them is not well known to people who aren't fluent.
I've already forgotten it myself.
>> >It IS important to have the family together. So, have them
>> >together to observe Shabbos. This can be done every week, instead
>> >of just once after somebody died and they put up a monument on
>> >the grave and the family wants to go through an ad hoc ceremony
>> >of gathering around the tombstone, covering it with a
>> >handkerchief fastened with scotch tape, and then "unveiling" it.
>>
>> Since you are, presumably, talking to someone who is still in mourning
>> for a recently deceased member of his or her family you might like to
>> consider using a more sympathetic and respectful tone.
>>
>Why are you complaining to me. This "unveiling" business was
>invented by people who make their living preying off those in
>mourning. Complain to them. My lack of sympathy was for them,
>certainly not for those in mourning. And by the way, there is no
>indication at all that the original poster is actually in
>mourning. My take on it is that it is simply someone trying to
>challenge thos of us who observe Shabbos as the law, erecting
>monuments as a minhag, and "unveiling" as nothing at all.
I agree with everything here except I have a feeling he is involved
somehow in just such a situation, but not the one who is planning it.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Jonathan J. Baker" wrote:
snip
>> "too recent to even be a tradition"? Ever hear of Minhag America?
>> It's in the UK, too. It's well-enough established that different
>> families have different minhagim about it: within the first year,
>> after the first year, within shloshim.
>
> Those minhagim refer to when the monument is erected, not when it
> is "unveiled."
>>
>> >It IS important to have the family together. So, have them
>> >together to observe Shabbos. This can be done every week, instead
>> >of just once after somebody died and they put up a monument on
>> >the grave and the family wants to go through an ad hoc ceremony
>> >of gathering around the tombstone, covering it with a
>> >handkerchief fastened with scotch tape, and then "unveiling" it.
>>
>> Hey, R' Goldin says "nohagu" to do just that, so don't knock it.
>
> I don't know who R' Goldin is. Nor is it clear to me that
> "nohagu" means it is established as a minhag." Nohagu simply
> means "this is what they have been doing." Sometimes, what people
> do is simply wrong. Especially when itt origins are probably the
> copying of what goyim do.
I was only at one such ceremony in my life. A very religious uncle of
mine died childless. His widow was given the "task" ("honor?") of
removing the veil from the tombstone. The oficiating rabbi was a very
religious O person. R, I wouldn't knock it so easily.
I was surprised when I saw it, but I noticed it gave my aunt a
measure of comfort.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Colin Rosenthal wrote:
>> R <rut...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> >Cbsandler wrote:
>> >>
>> >> is it never acceptable to have an unveiling on a saturday...is
>> >> it not more important to have family together, then to respect
>> >> the tradition of the sabbath.
>> >
>> >You have things backwards. Shabbos is a law, not a "tradition."
>> >The "unveiling" is a very recent invention -- much too recent to
>> >even be a tradition.
>>
>> Where I come from it's called a "stone-setting". Either way,
>> it is a custom followed without exception by all members of
>> the communities in which it is practised. If that isn't a
>> "tradition" then you'll have to redefine the word for me in words
>> of one syllable.
>
> Tradition in the Jewish sense means to me a "minhag" -- something
> that is mentioned somewhere in the Shulchan Aruch or later
> Poskim, not a folk-invention.
How much later? If a "folk-invention" gets written up nowadays by
someone _you_ consider a posek, would you consider it a "minhag"?
>> >It IS important to have the family together. So, have them
>> >together to observe Shabbos. This can be done every week, instead
>> >of just once after somebody died and they put up a monument on
>> >the grave and the family wants to go through an ad hoc ceremony
>> >of gathering around the tombstone, covering it with a
>> >handkerchief fastened with scotch tape, and then "unveiling" it.
>>
>> Since you are, presumably, talking to someone who is still in
>> mourning for a recently deceased member of his or her family you
>> might like to consider using a more sympathetic and respectful tone.
>>
> Why are you complaining to me. This "unveiling" business was
> invented by people who make their living preying off those in
> mourning. Complain to them. My lack of sympathy was for them,
> certainly not for those in mourning.
I don't know. You didn't mention the tombstone makers or the
rabbi officiating. Who _were_ you talking about?
(BTW in a different post I mentioned the only unveiling
ceremony I ever saw. With a strict O rabbi officiating). You
mentioned "the family". I can see why Colin made his comment.
> And by the way, there is no
> indication at all that the original poster is actually in
> mourning. My take on it is that it is simply someone trying to
> challenge thos of us who observe Shabbos as the law, erecting
> monuments as a minhag, and "unveiling" as nothing at all.
Why say "challenge"? I got the impression it was someone who was
well aware of unveilings and not aware of the importance of Shabbos.
Teach don't preach. Your original answer to the poster was much
better than your response to Colin.
Micha Berger
: I was only at one such ceremony in my life. A very religious uncle of
: mine died childless. His widow was given the "task" ("honor?") of
: removing the veil from the tombstone. The oficiating rabbi was a very
: religious O person. R, I wouldn't knock it so easily.
I think the word you're looking for, Moshe, is "catharsis".
There was an unveiling for my grandfather's stone, as well as my great
uncle's. Both were (are?) O, Litvish (in one case, Northern Poland), and
roughly mod-O.
My brother-in-law's father's stone had an unveiling. He was Hungarian
and Yeshivish. (More than half of the attendees came in from Lakewood for
the occasion.)
Unveiling is very much an O practice.
-mi
Micha Berger
: Tradition in the Jewish sense means to me a "minhag" -- something
: that is mentioned somewhere in the Shulchan Aruch or later
: Poskim, not a folk-invention.
You show signs of severe textualism.
Minhag IS folk-invention. Things created by poskim are takkanos or piskei
halachah, not minhagim. One might require the validation of a minhag as
being within the spirit of Torah.
Second, your dichotomy makes a line between sacred and secular that
doesn't strike me as being within the Jewish worldview. Instead of Jesus'
dichotomy of Caeser's law vs. God's, we have secular custom vs minhag. But
the underlying spirit is that kind of Christian dualism.
Third, isn't Israel granted a corporate sanctity? Therefore, the practices
of the Jewish people are holy (assuming all other criteria are met) merely
because they are the practices of the Jewish people.
You see this conflict when we look at how "kapparos" was handled by the
Rishonim. OTOH, they saw pagan influence; OTOH it was the folk-invention
of a holy people.
: Why are you complaining to me. This "unveiling" business was
: invented by people who make their living preying off those in
: mourning.
I think your history is false. Unveilings predate store-bought stones.
Last, I would consider someone who makes gravestones to be in sacred
communal work. After all, they are helping us fill the obligation to
mark graves. And they don't get rich off of it. (BTW, it's a good job for
someone who wants to learn most of the day.) The unveiling doesn't
cost anything, beyond what is promised to tzedakah in the Kel Malei.
There's no profit motive. I think your characterization is unfair.
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287 - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Moshe Shulman
>On 25 Aug 2000 18:51:05 GMT, R <rut...@concentric.net> wrote:
>: Tradition in the Jewish sense means to me a "minhag" -- something
>: that is mentioned somewhere in the Shulchan Aruch or later
>: Poskim, not a folk-invention.
>You show signs of severe textualism.
>Minhag IS folk-invention. Things created by poskim are takkanos or piskei
This is not really true. Minhagim not based on gadolim are not minhagim.
Moshe Shulman
Micha Berger
:>Minhag IS folk-invention. Things created by poskim are takkanos or piskei
: This is not really true. Minhagim not based on gadolim are not minhagim.
I would expect something more than a blanket assertion.
The word "minhag" definitionally means "that which is practiced". The
derashah calls it "toras umascha" (the Torah of your nation), by playing
on the words "toras imecha" (your mother's Torah). Which puts it in
distinction to the mesorah (the tradition) described by the verse as
"mussar avicha" (that which your father transmitted).
In defense of minhag, such as the example I brought of kaparos, the quote
"the remnant of Israel would not sin" is used as proof that there is some
metaphysical guarantee against consensus following a bad minhag. Again,
minhag is seen as a will of the people.
I also explained how, to my mind, this differentiates minhag from
Rabbinic law. If you're to say that minhag too is rabbinic invention,
then the difference requires explanation.
R
>
> On 29 Aug 2000 23:02:12 GMT, Moshe Shulman <Moshe...@chassidus.net> wrote:
> :>Minhag IS folk-invention. Things created by poskim are takkanos or piskei
>
> : This is not really true. Minhagim not based on gadolim are not minhagim.
>
> I would expect something more than a blanket assertion.
>
> The word "minhag" definitionally means "that which is practiced". The
> derashah calls it "toras umascha" (the Torah of your nation), by playing
> on the words "toras imecha" (your mother's Torah). Which puts it in
> distinction to the mesorah (the tradition) described by the verse as
> "mussar avicha" (that which your father transmitted).
>
> In defense of minhag, such as the example I brought of kaparos, the quote
> "the remnant of Israel would not sin" is used as proof that there is some
> metaphysical guarantee against consensus following a bad minhag. Again,
> minhag is seen as a will of the people.
>
> I also explained how, to my mind, this differentiates minhag from
> Rabbinic law. If you're to say that minhag too is rabbinic invention,
> then the difference requires explanation.
Rabbinic Law is top-down: a law created by the rabbis, and
imposed by the people. Minhag is bottom up: a practice created by
the people, and then codified by the rabbis. You cannot simply
say that any practice that Jews are doing has the status of
minhag. It becomes minhag only when officially sanctioned.
Otherwise, it is merely something people do.
An example: during my teen years, I lived in a neighborhood where
there was an all-night bowling alley two blocks from the big
shul. It was a large congregation, with many teen agers
attending. Now every year on the first night of Selichos, it was
the practice that after Selichos was finished (about 1:45 AM) all
the teen agers would go from the shul to the bowling alley, and
we would bowl until about 5:30 AM. Then, we would go back to the
shul (one of us had a key) and have a minyan for shacharis. It
was probably the largest assembly of the year for a weekday
shacharis. At least a dozen "adults" who had not been at the
bowling party would get up early to join this Shacharis service.
Then, we all went home to get a few hours of sleep.
This was done over the course of many years. I myself probably
attended this "custom" six times. It had been going on for many
years before I joined it, and continued for years after I left,
until (as unfortunately happens all to frequently) the Jews moved
out of the neighborhood. At this bowling party there were public
school students, yeshivah students, and even a couple of fellows
with long curly peyos. One year, the rabbi himself joined us.
Was that a minhag? Should I have imparted that custom to my sons
when they were teen agers? Should former members of that
congregation try to institute that custom when organizing new
congregations in new localities?
Where do you draw the line? I assert that the line is drawn when
something practiced by Jews receives official sanction and
recognintion by rabbinic authorities. Then it becomes a minhag.
Otherwise, it is simply something that some (or even many, or
most, or all) Jews do.
Eating apple dipped in honey on the night of Rosh HaShanah is a
minhag. Tashlich on Rosh HaSHanah is a minhag. Selling "tickets"
for seats at the Rosh HaShanah services, posting guards at the
shul door to make sure that everyone trying to enter has a
ticket, and having ushers show people to their purchased seats --
is not a minhag, no matter how widespread the practice might be.
Colin Rosenthal
R <rut...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Eating apple dipped in honey on the night of Rosh HaShanah is a
>minhag. Tashlich on Rosh HaSHanah is a minhag. Selling "tickets"
>for seats at the Rosh HaShanah services, posting guards at the
>shul door to make sure that everyone trying to enter has a
>ticket, and having ushers show people to their purchased seats --
>is not a minhag, no matter how widespread the practice might be.
But in communities where officiating at unveilings/stone-settings
is a normal part of rabbinic duties is it not, therefore, a minhag
even by your definition?
R
I don't know. In some communities "officiating" at the monthly
Sisterhood lnncheon and at the Semi-Annual Sunday Father-and-Son
Bagel and Lox Breakfast is also "a normal part of rabbinic
duties." Is it therefore a minhag by my definition?
As I mentioned in a part you snipped: the rabbi once came to
"officiate" at our annual after-Selichos all-night bowling
session. Suppose he had made it a regular practice to do so --
would it have become a minhag?
meirm...@erols.com
<rut...@concentric.net> posted:
What will happen when the minhag of all-night bowling spreads to
countries without bowling alleys?
Moshe Shulman
>On 29 Aug 2000 23:02:12 GMT, Moshe Shulman <Moshe...@chassidus.net> wrote:
>:>Minhag IS folk-invention. Things created by poskim are takkanos or piskei
>Rabbinic law. If you're to say that minhag too is rabbinic invention,
>then the difference requires explanation.
Let me give a simpel example: Rabbi X in City Y has custom Z (not that it is
halacha, but that he has a reason to do it, and it is not contrary to halacha.)
Those who follow it are following a custom (minhag) This with time has the
force of minhag.
R
>
> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 30 Aug 2000 14:36:37 GMT R
> <rut...@concentric.net> posted:
>
> >As I mentioned in a part you snipped: the rabbi once came to
> >"officiate" at our annual after-Selichos all-night bowling
> >session. Suppose he had made it a regular practice to do so --
> >would it have become a minhag?
>
> What will happen when the minhag of all-night bowling spreads to
> countries without bowling alleys?
If a Jewish community is really serious about keeping laws and
minhagim, they build the required infrastructure. Just as they
establish shuls, mikvaos, kosher butcher shops and bakeries, they
will have to build bowling alleys. But only if that is a minhag.
I have not yet heard any opinions on whether or not this does
qualify as a minhag.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>R <rut...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>: Tradition in the Jewish sense means to me a "minhag" -- something
>>: that is mentioned somewhere in the Shulchan Aruch or later
>>: Poskim, not a folk-invention.
>
>>You show signs of severe textualism.
>
When you say "based" to you mean "started" or "accepted"? R seems to
say "started" whereas Micha seems to say "accepted".
Warren Burstein
mei...@erols.com wrote:
> What will happen when the minhag of all-night bowling spreads to
> countries without bowling alleys?
If the local bowling alley is closed at night, could one bowl an
equivalent amount during the day, or will one be required to travel
(how far?) to another establishment?
Henry Goodman
"Sheldon Ackerman" <acke...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote in message
news:slrn8qb8a3....@amanda.dorsai.org...
> In article <20000824082233...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Cbsandler
wrote:
> >is it never acceptable to have an unveiling on a saturday...is it not
more
> >important to have family together, then to respect the tradition of the
> >sabbath.
>
unveiling
> on the Sabaath would probably fall under the category of "aveilos" which
> would be prohibited on Saturday. (Only my opinion at this point..Will have
> to think a bit more about it...)
This is indeed an additional reason. Some communities in the UK do not
allow stone-settings, as we call them on Rosh Chodesh (such as today) for
this sort of reason.
I have never seen a tombstone actually covered and 'unveiled'. We just have
a number of tehillim (psalms), an address by a Rabbi (and sometimes by
members of the family) and a formal reading of the inscription. They nearly
always take place on Sunday, except for very large cemeteries, such as
Bushey, which gets booked up long in advance and some families then arrange
it for a weekday.
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
Micha Berger
: When you say "based" to you mean "started" or "accepted"? R seems to
: say "started" whereas Micha seems to say "accepted".
Which sums up the bowling "minhag" issue. Minhag is a creation of the people,
but that doesn't mean that all creations of the people are minhagim.
In the case of an unveiling, we go to the grave, which means that kaddish
and Kel Malei are said. If a consensus of rabbanim endorses this excuse to
honor the deceased and pray a little, it's minhag, no?
Moshe Shulman
>> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>> This is not really true. Minhagim not based on gadolim are not minhagim.
>When you say "based" to you mean "started" or "accepted"? R seems to
>say "started" whereas Micha seems to say "accepted".
Started. (It may be possible that 'accepted' also, but that is not the way we
see it.)
R
>
> On 31 Aug 2000 13:48:28 GMT, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> : When you say "based" to you mean "started" or "accepted"? R seems to
> : say "started" whereas Micha seems to say "accepted".
>
> Which sums up the bowling "minhag" issue. Minhag is a creation of the people,
> but that doesn't mean that all creations of the people are minhagim.
>
> In the case of an unveiling, we go to the grave, which means that kaddish
> and Kel Malei are said. If a consensus of rabbanim endorses this excuse to
> honor the deceased and pray a little, it's minhag, no?
Yes, IF: this consencus of rabbanim codifies this endorsement in
some official code or compendium where such new minhagim are
recorded. Then, for those communities and/or congregations who
accept the rabbanim making up this consensus as having the
authority to endorse new minhagim, the unveiling becomes a
minhag.
But we don't need this consensus and this recording of the minhag
to do the things you suggest here. They are all good things, and
they are good on their own merit, without becomeing part of a
minhag. They can be done without rabbi, without minhag, and
without official recording. OTOH, the handkerchief on -
handkerchief off ceremony at the unveiling (from which, I take
it, the "unveiling" derives its name) has no intrinsic goodness,
beyond the fact that Jews have been doing it. TO become a minhag,
it would require some official sanction and codification, and
even then would become minhag only to those who accept the
authority of those sanctioning and codifying. Otherwise, the
bowling party would be a minhag too, no? And the bowling party
actually has some intrinsic good in it, for it probably induced
some teenagers to come who otherwise would not have come to the
Selichos service. Ditto for the Sunday Morning Bagels and Lox
breakfast, which is probably attended by some who might otherwise
not come to shul, might not dave SHacharis, might not put on
tefillin. So, are these minhagim?
Micha Berger
: Yes, IF: this consencus of rabbanim codifies this endorsement in
: some official code or compendium where such new minhagim are
: recorded.
Historically, though, this isn't true. The Shulchan Aruch defends
kapparos (to return to the same example) because it's Minhag Yisrael.
The existance of the practice motivated looking for rabbinic justification.
Until then, there was no codification of kapparos.
Another example is kitniyos, which well preexisted any written mention.
(And also probably never would have gotten started if we needed rabbanim
to initiate it.)
Similarly, yarmulkah.
I can't think of a single example where the minhag wasn't fully accepted
before being written down anywhere. Which is part of what lead me to this
conclusion.
We should also distinguish between true minhagim, such as those given, and
local piskei halachah. We call "gebrochts" a minhag, but it isn't in
this sense. It's a p'sak accepted in some communities that the odds of
chameitz are too high as a result of cooking with matzah.
R
>
> On 31 Aug 2000 20:23:45 GMT, R <rut...@concentric.net> wrote:
> : Yes, IF: this consencus of rabbanim codifies this endorsement in
> : some official code or compendium where such new minhagim are
> : recorded.
>
> Historically, though, this isn't true. The Shulchan Aruch defends
> kapparos (to return to the same example) because it's Minhag Yisrael.
> The existance of the practice motivated looking for rabbinic justification.
> Until then, there was no codification of kapparos.
Actally, the Shulchan Aruch rules that the minhag should be
abolished. This presupposes that the minhag was already codified
somewhere, else there would be no need to abolish it. It is the
Rama who rules that the minhag must not be abolished. Because it
is a minhag. If it was just something that people did, it could
be abolished for good reason as the Mechaber does.
>
> Another example is kitniyos, which well preexisted any written mention.
> (And also probably never would have gotten started if we needed rabbanim
> to initiate it.).
Kitniyos probably was codified in those communities where the
prohibition was accepted, though the ruling may not have been
reduced to actual writing (it predates the invention of the
printing press).
>
> Similarly, yarmulkah.
>
> I can't think of a single example where the minhag wasn't fully accepted
> before being written down anywhere. Which is part of what lead me to this
> conclusion.
>
> We should also distinguish between true minhagim, such as those given, and
> local piskei halachah. We call "gebrochts" a minhag, but it isn't in
> this sense. It's a p'sak accepted in some communities that the odds of
> chameitz are too high as a result of cooking with matzah.
Perhaps. I will have to think about that one. Certainly, this
"psak halachah" is accepted in some communities, ignored in
others, and rejected is others still. And which treatment this
"psak" receives is a matter of minhag. Nowadays, the minhag is
probably more family than geographic, but you get the idea.
BTW: How is the little boy doing? I have been having him in mind
at my prayers, as I am sure many other scjm folk have too.
Micha Berger
: Actally, the Shulchan Aruch rules that the minhag should be
: abolished.
Thanks for pointing out my misspeech. I think it unfortunately distracted
you from the point. Because, as you later say:
: It is the
: Rama who rules that the minhag must not be abolished.
Which means that the Rama was affirming a minhag that already existed.
Take my post, replace S"A for Rama, and the same argument would apply.
: This presupposes that the minhag was already codified
: somewhere, else there would be no need to abolish it.
No it doesn't. For that matter, had the minhag been codified, the
Mechabeir (the author [of the S"A]) would have needed to address that
source. The fact that he is capable of evaluating the practice in
situ implies that that was all the Mechabeir knew of as the basis
of the minhag.
IOW, the S"A is indication that there was no codification of the
minhag, and R' Yosef Karo still needed to prove the practice to be
assur (as opposed to just basis-less) in order to overturn it.
Similarly, the Rama tries to defend the minhag not because of its
textual backing but because of his faith in "the remnant of Israel
would not sin" (shi'eiris Yisrael lo ya'asu avla). Notice that he
too has no support texts to cite.
: Kitniyos probably was codified in those communities where the
: prohibition was accepted...
Again, if this were true then the first codifications that we do have
would be quoting sources. The don't. They look at the practice alone.
: BTW: How is the little boy doing? I have been having him in mind
: at my prayers, as I am sure many other scjm folk have too.
The surgery was TOO successful. They tightened the entrance to the stomach
to the point where only liquids can get in. Partially because his esophagus
is too Downs-y to push food down with any effectiveness.
So, we're waiting to see how much of the problem is inflamation, and then
weigh our options.
Thanks for asking,
Jonathan J. Baker
>On 31 Aug 2000 13:48:28 GMT, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>: When you say "based" to you mean "started" or "accepted"? R seems to
>: say "started" whereas Micha seems to say "accepted".
>Which sums up the bowling "minhag" issue. Minhag is a creation of the people,
>but that doesn't mean that all creations of the people are minhagim.
>In the case of an unveiling, we go to the grave, which means that kaddish
>and Kel Malei are said. If a consensus of rabbanim endorses this excuse to
>honor the deceased and pray a little, it's minhag, no?
Going to the grave to say eulogies & psalms is already in halacha,
see YD 344:20 at the end "tachlit 12 chodesh mevakrin umashkivin" (with
the Taz disagreeing, saying that hesped after 12 months is bad). Kol
Bo al Aveilus brings the custom of doing so at the time of setting up
the monument. Which fits with our family customs: to set up the matzevah
before the end of 12 months. Others say after 12 months, since going
to the cemetery reminds one of the deceased, and during the first year
you don't need reminders, it's still fresh. WHat R is objecting to, and
what I speculated about its rationale, is specifically covering the stone
and uncovering it, i.e., unveiling.
Jonathan J. Baker
>Micha Berger wrote:
>> On 31 Aug 2000 13:48:28 GMT, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> : When you say "based" to you mean "started" or "accepted"? R seems to
>> : say "started" whereas Micha seems to say "accepted".
>> Which sums up the bowling "minhag" issue. Minhag is a creation of the people,
>> but that doesn't mean that all creations of the people are minhagim.
>> In the case of an unveiling, we go to the grave, which means that kaddish
>> and Kel Malei are said. If a consensus of rabbanim endorses this excuse to
>> honor the deceased and pray a little, it's minhag, no?
>Yes, IF: this consencus of rabbanim codifies this endorsement in
>some official code or compendium where such new minhagim are
>recorded. Then, for those communities and/or congregations who
Which has happened. We traditionalists use a piece of cloth
large enough to cover at least the engraved part of the stone;
at my grandparents' graves we used a pillowcase, since both of
them are in big family plots with small footstones. I expect for
ths we'll use something bigger, tallis-sized, since the stone is
3'x1'8"x8" by cemetery rule - say, a bedsheet. Maybe those
reformists use handkerchiefs, thereby making it a symbol of a
symbol, so you can sneer at it.
At any rate, it is codified in Goldin's Rabbi's Guide.
>accept the rabbanim making up this consensus as having the
>authority to endorse new minhagim, the unveiling becomes a
>minhag.
And for those who don't, they don't do it, but that doesn't
erase its standing as a minhag. Or is this Lubavitch imperialism
again - if Lubavitch doesn't have it as a minhag, doesn't matter
who else does it, it's not a minhag?
>But we don't need this consensus and this recording of the minhag
>to do the things you suggest here. They are all good things, and
>they are good on their own merit, without becomeing part of a
>minhag. They can be done without rabbi, without minhag, and
>without official recording. OTOH, the handkerchief on -
>handkerchief off ceremony at the unveiling (from which, I take
>it, the "unveiling" derives its name) has no intrinsic goodness,
>beyond the fact that Jews have been doing it. TO become a minhag,
OTOH, it has no intrinsic badness either. There are plenty of
minhagim which are recorded as *bad* minhagim because they
contradict some otherwise clear halachic principle, and the
rabbis try to uproot them, often to no avail (read the Chayei
Adam sometime) There's no *issur* on putting a piece of
cloth on a matzevah then removing it.
>it would require some official sanction and codification, and
>even then would become minhag only to those who accept the
>authority of those sanctioning and codifying. Otherwise, the
I thought so. Lubavitch imperialism. You reserve the right
to judge not only which minhagim you choose to do, but also
to deny that others have minhagim at all. I cannot accept that
in our multivalent halacha system. It's the cholov yisroel thing
all over again: not only do we only drink certified Jewish milk,
you guys are bad for drinking non-certified milk, EVEN THOUGH THE
POSITION HAS BEEN CODIFIED AND SANCTIFIED BY THE GREATEST POSEK
OF THE LAST GENERATION. It's not: we have this rule and you have
that rule, and we're all good Jews, but: we have this rule and you
don't hold by it, therefore you're eating treif, or you're doing
a bad practice by unveiling.
>bowling party would be a minhag too, no? And the bowling party
Lack of codification, therefore no.
>actually has some intrinsic good in it, for it probably induced
>some teenagers to come who otherwise would not have come to the
>Selichos service. Ditto for the Sunday Morning Bagels and Lox
>breakfast, which is probably attended by some who might otherwise
>not come to shul, might not dave SHacharis, might not put on
>tefillin. So, are these minhagim?
Lack of codification, so no, by your standard. OTOH, if it becomes
codified in the shul rules, then it becomes a minhag, by your standard.
Consider things like the order of hagbah: it makes no halachic difference
which way you do it: pick up, twist back & forth, walk backwards, sit,
roll (normal Ashkenaz); pick up, twist back & forth, put down, roll, pick
up, walk backwards, sit (Lubavitch); pick up before kriah, twirl 360
degrees, put down, lein, roll, pick up, walk backwards, sit (Spanish).
But they are all minhagim. Some of them are probably codified. What
makes it a minhag is repetition in a ritualized fashion. One can have
a personal minhag to keep a certain chumra or kula. One can have a
family minhag to use certain measures on Pesach at the seder. One
can have an ancestral minhag based on the part of the world where one
came from. It need not be codified to be minhag, it only needs to be
repeated, and better, transmitted from one generation to the next. See
the Chayei Adam on circular chanukiyot: he would rather it didn't happen,
but he bows to tradition in that people do it, and brings a rationalization
for it. Is that codified? Codified as a bad custom?
Colin Rosenthal
>
>"Sheldon Ackerman" <acke...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote in message
>news:slrn8qb8a3....@amanda.dorsai.org...
>> In article <20000824082233...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Cbsandler
>wrote:
>> >is it never acceptable to have an unveiling on a saturday...is it not
>more
>> >important to have family together, then to respect the tradition of the
>> >sabbath.
>>
>> In addition to the other excellent responses you have received, an
>unveiling
>> on the Sabaath would probably fall under the category of "aveilos" which
>> would be prohibited on Saturday. (Only my opinion at this point..Will have
>> to think a bit more about it...)
>
>This is indeed an additional reason. Some communities in the UK do not
>allow stone-settings, as we call them on Rosh Chodesh (such as today) for
>this sort of reason.
>I have never seen a tombstone actually covered and 'unveiled'.
Now you mention it, my father's stone-setting (two years ago) was the first
time I'd seen a literal "unveiling" in Britain, so far as I can recall. But the
last time I'd been to a stone-setting previously was a very long time
ago, so I may have forgotten the procedure.
Jonathan J. Baker
>Micha Berger wrote:
>>
>> On 31 Aug 2000 20:23:45 GMT, R <rut...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> : Yes, IF: this consencus of rabbanim codifies this endorsement in
>> : some official code or compendium where such new minhagim are
>> : recorded.
>>
>> Historically, though, this isn't true. The Shulchan Aruch defends
>> kapparos (to return to the same example) because it's Minhag Yisrael.
>> The existance of the practice motivated looking for rabbinic justification.
>> Until then, there was no codification of kapparos.
>Actally, the Shulchan Aruch rules that the minhag should be
>abolished. This presupposes that the minhag was already codified
>somewhere, else there would be no need to abolish it. It is the
You're presupposing your conclusion.
>Rama who rules that the minhag must not be abolished. Because it
>is a minhag. If it was just something that people did, it could
>be abolished for good reason as the Mechaber does.
A minhag *is* something that people do. It doesn't *need* codification.
And from what you say, it *wasn't* codified until the Rema sanctified it
as a minhag - i.e., what people do, so it shouldn't be abolished.
If they're not prophets, they're children of prophets.
>> Another example is kitniyos, which well preexisted any written mention.
>> (And also probably never would have gotten started if we needed rabbanim
>> to initiate it.).
>Kitniyos probably was codified in those communities where the
>prohibition was accepted, though the ruling may not have been
>reduced to actual writing (it predates the invention of the
>printing press).
That dichotomy went out long before the codification of kitniyot.
The Mishna may not have been written down at the outset, but
there was plenty of written psak from the Geonim onward, esp.
since much of what went on with the Geonim consisted of correspondence.
People would write to Bavel, and get answers back.
Codification denotes writing down, at least in the post-Talmudic
period.
Again you presuppose your conclusion without evidence.
Bring some evidence, why don't you, of a minhag being first written
down and then followed, from before 1700, say, when people started
deliberately changing minhagim such as the Chasidim and the Reformers.
Sheldon Ackerman
>to judge not only which minhagim you choose to do, but also
>to deny that others have minhagim at all. I cannot accept that
>in our multivalent halacha system. It's the cholov yisroel thing
>all over again: not only do we only drink certified Jewish milk,
>you guys are bad for drinking non-certified milk, EVEN THOUGH THE
>POSITION HAS BEEN CODIFIED AND SANCTIFIED BY THE GREATEST POSEK
>OF THE LAST GENERATION. It's not: we have this rule and you have
>that rule, and we're all good Jews, but: we have this rule and you
>don't hold by it, therefore you're eating treif, or you're doing
>a bad practice by unveiling.
Not picking on you, Jonathan, but your post is a good one for my pet peeve
:-)
First of all I don't think everyone will quite agree with the statement in
bold above. I will try to check out the p'sak myself in the igros moshe this
Shabbos so that I can see for myself how clear or not clear the p'sak is.
But here is the peeve. There will be lots of individuals who will say that
there is nothing wrong with such and such because a specific Posek says so.
My question is what about the other 100 things that the Posek says should or
should not be done...Do they followe him as well? Or is it like looking at
the shelves
of a supermarket. We pick and chose which items we like?