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?
Micha Berger
: a number of tehillim (psalms), an address by a Rabbi (and sometimes by
My experience as well. In addition, whenever a minyan visits a gravesite,
Kel Malei and Kaddish are said. In the case of a family plot, Kel Malei
is said repeatedly for each family member buried where the crowd stands.
The most recent "unveiling" I was at was that of my great uncle, R' Josef
Goldberg. Eulogies were said, and someone read the stone (and translated).
Then Sherwood Goffin, the cantor at Lincoln Square Synagogue (and the
deceased's son-in-law) said Kel Malei for R' Goldberg and his wife, and
one for Sherwood's daughter, Nisa (who died at 18). The lattermost,
hearing a father say a memorial prayer for his child, was very emotionally
hard (probably would be even if we weren't all family). Then it closed
with mourner's Kaddish.
Jonathan J. Baker
> 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?
Maybe they'll engage in lawn-bowling as a zecher to the real minhag
of bowling in the bowling alley? Or ninepins?
R
>
>
> 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.
>
say that you are "attacking a position I do not hold.
Never did I say that a minhag is first codified and then
followed. I specifically differentiated between the top-down
rabbinic enactment (deRabbanans) and the bottom-up pravtices such
as minhagim.
Of course minhagim originate with the people. That's what a
minhag is. My point is that not everything that people do is a
minhag. Even if it is some meritorious and praiseworthy acto on
its own merits, it is still just a good (or neutral) thing that
people do. It does not become a minhag until codified. Otherwise,
pleas explain why the all-nite post-Selichos bowling, the Sunday
morning bagels-and-lox amd the monthly Sisterhood luncheons are
not minhagim? Or is it your position that they are minhagim?
R
>
>>
> At any rate, it is codified in Goldin's Rabbi's Guide.
OK. So I guess that for those who accept HaMadrich as a "Code,"
it's a minhag. So how many authorities accept it as a Code? Even
the author did not presume to call it a Code, he merely calles it
a "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?
Lubavitch? Who mentioned Lubavitch. Of course minhagim not
followed by Lubavitch are still minhagim for those who do follow
them. My point is that not everything that people do becomes a
minhag, even for those who do it.
I draw the line at the point where a practice is codified either
in writing or by some other means whereby it receives official
sanction from the local rabbinc authorities. Then, it becomes a
minhag for those over whom these authorities have authority.
You don't seem to like my definition. So I am wondering -- where
do YOU draw the line? When does something Jews do 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.
>
Perhaps not. If it does not in fact result from copying things
that Goyim do. But how did it become a minhag as opposed to
something people do?
> >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.
Read again what I wrote. If it is your minhag to drink R. Moshe's
permitted milk (which he reccomends not doing), then that's your
minhag. The authorities upon whom you rely made it your minhag.
The authorities upon whom I rely did not sanction that minhag,
and in fact specifically ruled against it. So that's my minhag.
Where's the problem? Did I ever say you were "bad" for following
your minhag according to your authorities?
>
> >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.
Yes, I can see it now. An entry written into the Pinkus HaKehilla
making the bowling an party official minhag. Unfortunately, it's
not going to happen. Everybody moved away in the late 70's and
early 60's, the shul closed in 1995, and the building was
demolished to build I don't know what just last month.
> 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.
Perhaps. Consider this: Suppose I come to your shul and am
honored with hagba. If there is a minhag there to do it a certain
way, I am not permitted to do it my way. I have to do it your
way, or else respectfully decline the honor. OTOH, if it's not
your "minhag" and it's only the way people do it because that's
what they are comfortable and familiar with, then perhaps I could
do it my way just as well.
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?
I don't know. If he really held it to be forbidden, he might have
ruled otherwise. Apparently he holds it to be objectionable but
not really forbidden.
Henry Goodman
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:8oompl$9n2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> On 31 Aug 2000 15:44:23 GMT, Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net>
wrote:
> : 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...
>
> My experience as well. In addition, whenever a minyan visits a gravesite,
> Kel Malei and Kaddish are said. In the case of a family plot, Kel Malei
> is said repeatedly for each family member buried where the crowd stands.
>
Yes, we do that in England too. We don't unveil.
[...]
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
Warren Burstein
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote:
> Maybe they'll engage in lawn-bowling as a zecher to the real minhag
> of bowling in the bowling alley? Or ninepins?
Isn't ninepins still illegal in New York and Connecticut? And even if
the law was repealed, was the legislature that did it both larger and
wiser than the one that banned it?
Warren Burstein
R <rut...@concentric.net> wrote:
> My point is that not everything that people do is a
> minhag. Even if it is some meritorious and praiseworthy acto on
> its own merits, it is still just a good (or neutral) thing that
> people do. It does not become a minhag until codified. Otherwise,
> pleas explain why the all-nite post-Selichos bowling, the Sunday
> morning bagels-and-lox amd the monthly Sisterhood luncheons are
> not minhagim? Or is it your position that they are minhagim?
A suggestion - could both sides cite some halachic sources that
directly address the question of when a practice becomes a minhag?
I don't think that the arguments from kitniot or kapparot are valid (or
that the assumption that there were earlier codifications is a valid
refutation). In either case there could have been earlier
codifications that later sources didn't refer to. Or maybe there
weren't. We can't tell.
Now if someone said, "X isn't a minhag, because no one codified it",
that would be proof in one direction. If someone said "I don't know of
any sources for X, but people do it, so it's a minhag", that would be
proof in the other direction.
Jonathan J. Baker
Yes, they are minhagim, but constrained by time & place. If
the bowling alley closes, I don't expect they'll go drive out to
find another one.
There are plenty of minhagim that have faded out for one reason
or another; Sperber's books are full of them.
Jonathan J. Baker
>> At any rate, it is codified in Goldin's Rabbi's Guide.
>OK. So I guess that for those who accept HaMadrich as a "Code,"
>it's a minhag. So how many authorities accept it as a Code? Even
>the author did not presume to call it a Code, he merely calles it
>a "Guide."
And how many Codes are called "Code"? The Set Table? The Four Pillars?
The Repeated Torah (or Strong Hand)? The Observance of Sabbath According
to its Laws? The Abridged Set Table? Not everything is called "New York
State Statutes Annotated" or "Code of Federal Regulations". How about
the Setting of the Table? Or the Rabbi's Set Table? The Lives of a Person,
the Wisdom of a Person? The Clarified Repetition?
>> >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?
>Lubavitch? Who mentioned Lubavitch. Of course minhagim not
>followed by Lubavitch are still minhagim for those who do follow
>them. My point is that not everything that people do becomes a
>minhag, even for those who do it.
But you adamantly refuse to accept unveiling as a minhag, even when
it meets your criterion of codification by a recognized book, by
changing your standards to redefine "codification", "recognized",
"authority", etc.
That's why I suspect something else is at play besides simply
a criterion of codification why you refuse to recognize a minhag
as a minhag.
>I draw the line at the point where a practice is codified either
>in writing or by some other means whereby it receives official
>sanction from the local rabbinc authorities. Then, it becomes a
>minhag for those over whom these authorities have authority.
Yet you refuse to recognize this as a minhag. DESPITE its codification.
>You don't seem to like my definition. So I am wondering -- where
Because you keep changing the terms of the definition so as to draw
this minhag outside the pale.
>do YOU draw the line? When does something Jews do become a
>minhag?
When it becomes ritualized, repeated, done for the sake of doing it.
There's no *reason* they have to go to the bowling alley and then
daven kevatikin, they could just go home and go to the regular minyan.
What probably started as a lark one year, once it was repeated several
years running, became a minhag. Is it written down someplace that
there shall be a summary of the parsha read before the Torah reading?
It is a minhag in our shul to do so; usually R" Hecht does so, and
when he's away in the summer, various congregants do it. Why? I'ts
the local custom to have a summary.
>> 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.
>Perhaps not. If it does not in fact result from copying things
>that Goyim do. But how did it become a minhag as opposed to
>something people do?
By being done repeatedly, within given families, in the same way.
By being ritualized.
>> >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.
>Read again what I wrote. If it is your minhag to drink R. Moshe's
>permitted milk (which he reccomends not doing), then that's your
>minhag. The authorities upon whom you rely made it your minhag.
>The authorities upon whom I rely did not sanction that minhag,
>and in fact specifically ruled against it. So that's my minhag.
>Where's the problem? Did I ever say you were "bad" for following
>your minhag according to your authorities?
Yes, because you accused me and everyone else who does unveilings
of a) not following a valid minhag, and b) imitating the goyim
(which is a specific aveirah of chuqat hagoy).
Why you are so obsessed with declaring unveiling not to be a minhag
that you constantly shift your definition so as to make sure that it
lies outside the pale, is what I am speculating about. Is it just
the bad experience with the "neveila"? Or is it that you can't accept
that non-Lubavitchers have a valid minhag?
>> >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.
>Yes, I can see it now. An entry written into the Pinkus HaKehilla
>making the bowling an party official minhag. Unfortunately, it's
>not going to happen. Everybody moved away in the late 70's and
>early 60's, the shul closed in 1995, and the building was
>demolished to build I don't know what just last month.
So it faded out. Our shul's Sukkos barbecue faded out because
we no longer have a yard in the shul. So now, everyone goes to
the Rabbi's for the first night, because he has a yard where he
can put up a big enough sukkah to feed everyone (we all chip in).
>> 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.
>Perhaps. Consider this: Suppose I come to your shul and am
>honored with hagba. If there is a minhag there to do it a certain
>way, I am not permitted to do it my way. I have to do it your
>way, or else respectfully decline the honor. OTOH, if it's not
>your "minhag" and it's only the way people do it because that's
>what they are comfortable and familiar with, then perhaps I could
>do it my way just as well.
Well, that's my problem with Lubavs davening Ari by the amud in my
shul - they seem to feel they can daven Ari anywhere and it trumps
local minhag.
Jonathan J. Baker
>> Maybe they'll engage in lawn-bowling as a zecher to the real minhag
>> of bowling in the bowling alley? Or ninepins?
>Isn't ninepins still illegal in New York and Connecticut? And even if
>the law was repealed, was the legislature that did it both larger and
>wiser than the one that banned it?
I don't think it's necessary. After all, even if they outlaw abortion,
if halacha mandates it, I expect Jewish women will still get them. Dina
demalchuta dina apparently only applies to monetary matters. Life &
death questions still go by halacha.
Jonathan J. Baker
> Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
(P&M, mail sent by accident)
>> 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.
>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?
No, for the most part we pick which rabbi to follow, or which philosophy
to follow which allows a constistent picking-and-choosing of the piskei
halacha of earlier generations. It's kind of hard to say that one is
a disciple of Reb Moshe today, since he's been dead for 20 years or
thereabouts. People *do* pick & choose among his psakim, people argue
over interpretation, etc. One rabbi who handles both eruvin and divorces
(not as uncommon a combination as you might think), might argue on Reb
Moshe about building an eruv in Brooklyn, but might accept his ruling
on reform weddings to get someone out of needing a get where the husband
is unwilling. So too, someone might reject Reb Moshe's reasoning about
milk, but accept it about Conservative rabbis.
Ideally, each of us should know halacha well enough to make our own decisions.
Failing that, we should pick a rabbi (or set of rabbis with complementary
specialties) to help us make decisions.
meirm...@erols.com
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) posted:
>In < Warren Burstein <warr...@my-deja.com> writes:
>> jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote:
>
>>> Maybe they'll engage in lawn-bowling as a zecher to the real minhag
>>> of bowling in the bowling alley? Or ninepins?
>
>>Isn't ninepins still illegal in New York and Connecticut? And even if
>>the law was repealed, was the legislature that did it both larger and
>>wiser than the one that banned it?
>
>I don't think it's necessary. After all, even if they outlaw abortion,
>if halacha mandates it, I expect Jewish women will still get them. Dina
>demalchuta dina
Don't forget, "Duckpin demalchuta duckpin".
> apparently only applies to monetary matters. Life &
>death questions still go by halacha.
mei...@QQQerols.com
e-mail by removing QQQ
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> R <rut...@concentric.net> wrote:
> : 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.
Sounds like zibura v'akraba - two conditions which require diametrically
opposite treatment.
> Partially because his esophagus
> is too Downs-y to push food down with any effectiveness.
Micha, you are to be commended for adopting Shua even with his
problems. I hope they all become resolved.
> So, we're waiting to see how much of the problem is inflamation,
> and then weigh our options.
May HaShem give you the right thought and Shua a complete recovery.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May you and yours have a Kesiva v'Chasima Tova!
R
>
> In <39B028BD...@concentric.net> R <rut...@concentric.net> writes:
> >"Jonathan J. Baker" wrote:
>
> >> At any rate, it is codified in Goldin's Rabbi's Guide.
>
> >OK. So I guess that for those who accept HaMadrich as a "Code,"
> >it's a minhag. So how many authorities accept it as a Code? Even
> >the author did not presume to call it a Code, he merely calles it
> >a "Guide."
>
> And how many Codes are called "Code"? The Set Table? The Four Pillars?
> The Repeated Torah (or Strong Hand)? The Observance of Sabbath According
> to its Laws? The Abridged Set Table? Not everything is called "New York
> State Statutes Annotated" or "Code of Federal Regulations". How about
> the Setting of the Table? Or the Rabbi's Set Table? The Lives of a Person,
> the Wisdom of a Person? The Clarified Repetition?
Now we are getting silly. Obviously, I was not referring to the
title, but to the subtitle, or what the LOC would put into its
catalogue information in lieu of a subtitle. All the works you
mentioned were written as legal codes and intended as legal codes
or at least compendiums of law. And all of them were intended by
their authors to contain rulings of law, and were accepted, at
least in some measure and in some places, as being rulings of
law. In the case of HaMadrich, I doubt that the author intended
it to be snaything like that. It is merely a gyuide for the rabbi
who (och und vey) would not know what to do without this guide.
And the rabbi who uses it merely consults it like an amateur chef
following a recipe in a cookbook. The book has no actualy
authority beyind the guidance it gives. HaMadrich did not intend
his book to be convey piskei halacha, and the rabbi using it did
not (I hope) use it as such.
R
as far as it is going to go. Jonathan has made his position
clear, and stands by it, I have made my position clear and I
stand by it. And I further assert that my position has nothing to
do with Lubavitch "imperiallism," and I stipulate that
non-Lubavitch minhagim are indeed minhagim, for non-Lubavitchers.
I would like to explore here some parameters of Jonathans
position that anything Jews do in a repeated ritualized weay
becomes a minhag. Let us further examine the question of the
post-Selichos bowling session.
Jonathan, how do you feel about the following scenario: suppose
that the administrations of the local yeshivas learned of the
bowling alley custom (which you say had acquired the status of
minhag), and they raised objections to it. "What kind of business
is this, hanging out in the bowling alley? Bowling alleys are not
proper places for yeshiva boys to hang out. And certainly not on
Selichos night, etc." And suppose they try to outlaw the
practice, theretening any who are caught at the bowling alley
with suspension, expulsion, or other kinds of sanctions.
Without getting into a discussion of the validity of the
administration's arguments and objections per se -- could we
validly object to theiir objections by saying (a la the Rama)
that it's a MINHAG, and therefore should not be abolished even if
there is good reason to abandon it?
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> R <rut...@concentric.net> writes:
>>"Jonathan J. Baker" wrote:
>
>>> At any rate, it is codified in Goldin's Rabbi's Guide.
>
>>OK. So I guess that for those who accept HaMadrich as a "Code,"
>>it's a minhag. So how many authorities accept it as a Code? Even
>>the author did not presume to call it a Code, he merely calles it
>>a "Guide."
>
> And how many Codes are called "Code"? The Set Table? The Four Pillars?
I would say "Columns".
> The Repeated Torah (or Strong Hand)? The Observance of Sabbath According
> to its Laws? The Abridged Set Table? Not everything is called "New York
> State Statutes Annotated" or "Code of Federal Regulations". How about
> the Setting of the Table? Or the Rabbi's Set Table? The Lives of a Person,
> the Wisdom of a Person? The Clarified Repetition?
I was able to figure out all except the last. Could you explain it,
pretty please with cherries on top.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>> : 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.
"codified" somewhere? Where do you get that? It merely presupposes
that people were _doing_ it, not that it was codified anywhere.
> 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.
Ever see who's more particular to perform kapporos?
>> 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).
Interesting theory.
>> 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.
Me too.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> In articlel>, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>
>>R commented that the Mechaber _ R' Yosef Karo wanted to abolish
>>kapporos and the R'ama says to allow it. _Usually_ Sephardim follow
>>the Mechaber and Ashkenazim the R'ama. My (too terse) question was;
>>who are more likely to observe the minhag, Sephardim or Ashkenazim?
>>
>
> Thanks. I really did not understand earlier what point you were
> trying to make.
My fault for being too terse.
> BTW in the Midwood area of Flatbush where I reside there are a large
> number of Sefardim. They seem to be just as gung ho for "shlugging
> kaaporos" as we Ashkenazim are.
They may even be _ahead_ of us.
> Here is an interesting aside. I thought that my neighbors kids were pulling
> my leg when they told me that they were gonna "do kaaporos" at the
> culmination of Tisha Baav. Guess what? There is an Iranian minhag for this.
> I had never heard of this before and could not believe it. I even asked an
> Iranian who said it was not true. The next day when he saw me he said he
> asked his mother who told him that, yes, they did in Iran slaughter a cow or
> sheep every "motzei tisha b'av". This seems to have at some point evolved to
> the kaaporah minhag among some Iranians in their shuls.
Hmm. IIRC the rule is that meat may not be eaten until the afternoon
of the _tenth_ of Av.
Henry Goodman
"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:8p0kpr$nrp$1...@panix6.panix.com...
> In <> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> writes:
> >"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >> In <> acke...@amanda.dorsai.org (Sheldon Ackerman) writes:
> >> > Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
> >[...]
> >> No, for the most part we pick which rabbi to follow, or which
philosophy
> >> to follow which allows a constistent picking-and-choosing of the piskei
> >> halacha of earlier generations. It's kind of hard to say that one is
> >> a disciple of Reb Moshe today, since he's been dead for 20 years or
> >> thereabouts.
>
> >Doesn't seem to bother the Lubavitch
>
> 1) They don't follow him for halacha, but rather for fortune telling
> (such as bibliomancy) - the halachic authority in Crown Heights is the
> beis din.
>
> 2) And how seriously does any other segment of Judaism take their
following
> a dead guy? Or, rather, claiming to follow a dead guy, since it is by no
> means clear that the Rebbe would have approved of the kinds of excesses
> carried out in his name.
>
Just to make it clear, I am in complete agreement with you; my previous
comment was tongue in cheek.
I shan't take the Lubavitch movement seriously until they realise that Rabbi
Schneerson z.l. is dead and they appoint a new Rebbe.
--
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
R
>
> news.rcn.net> <39AEBFD5...@concentric.net> <8ooicl$lii$1...@panix6.panix.com> <39B028BD...@concentric.net> <8osl8j$a5k$1...@panix6.panix.com> <39B23E8F...@concentric.net> <8p0kfn$ngs$1...@panix6.panix.com> <39B46532...@concentric.net>
>
> Organization:
>
> In following the discussion between Jon and R regarding the "minhag" (or
> not) of unveiling. I was reading the Machberes section of the Jewish
> Mess over Shabbos which referred to the unveiling on the stone for the
> Slonimer Rebbe Z'tl. Since it is approaching the Yahrzeit of the
> previous Satmar Rebbe, there was also reference to the unveiling of his
> stone. What is the Chassidishe unveiling referring to?
I am sure it refers to reciting Tehillim, perhaps the Molei
Rachamim (some chasidim say this prayer, some do not), a kaddish,
and perhaps Mishnayos. I am not up on all the Satmar minhagim,
but it is probably a safe bet that they did not do an actual
"unveiling."
What is the connection of the SLonimer Rebbe to Satmar?
Moshe Shulman
>news.rcn.net> <39AEBFD5...@concentric.net> <8ooicl$lii$1...@panix6.panix.com> <39B028BD...@concentric.net> <8osl8j$a5k$1...@panix6.panix.com> <39B23E8F...@concentric.net> <8p0kfn$ngs$1...@panix6.panix.com> <39B46532...@concentric.net>
>Organization:
>In following the discussion between Jon and R regarding the "minhag" (or
>not) of unveiling. I was reading the Machberes section of the Jewish
>Mess over Shabbos which referred to the unveiling on the stone for the
>Slonimer Rebbe Z'tl. Since it is approaching the Yahrzeit of the
>previous Satmar Rebbe, there was also reference to the unveiling of his
>stone. What is the Chassidishe unveiling referring to?
They are talking about setting it up. I was by the setting up of the stobne for
the Bobover Rov ZT'L, and they actually placed the stone in it's place.
moshe shulman mshu...@NOSPAMix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh http://www.chassidus.net
Chassidus shiur: chassidus...@chassidus.net
Chassidus discussion list: chassidus...@egroups.com
Outreach Judaism http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
ICQ# 52009254
Moshe Shulman
>Harry Weiss wrote:
>> news.rcn.net> <39AEBFD5...@concentric.net> <8ooicl$lii$1...@panix6.panix.com> <39B028BD...@concentric.net> <8osl8j$a5k$1...@panix6.panix.com> <39B23E8F...@concentric.net> <8p0kfn$ngs$1...@panix6.panix.com> <39B46532...@concentric.net>
>> not) of unveiling. I was reading the Machberes section of the Jewish
>> Mess over Shabbos which referred to the unveiling on the stone for the
>> Slonimer Rebbe Z'tl. Since it is approaching the Yahrzeit of the
>> previous Satmar Rebbe, there was also reference to the unveiling of his
>> stone. What is the Chassidishe unveiling referring to?
>I am sure it refers to reciting Tehillim, perhaps the Molei
>Rachamim (some chasidim say this prayer, some do not), a kaddish,
>and perhaps Mishnayos. I am not up on all the Satmar minhagim,
>but it is probably a safe bet that they did not do an actual
>"unveiling."
Also hespedim.
>What is the connection of the SLonimer Rebbe to Satmar?
None that I know of except that he died around the same time as the Satmar
Rov's ZT'L yoertzheit.
Moshe Shulman
>> news.rcn.net> <39AEBFD5...@concentric.net> <8ooicl$lii$1...@panix6.panix.com> <39B028BD...@concentric.net> <8osl8j$a5k$1...@panix6.panix.com> <39B23E8F...@concentric.net> <8p0kfn$ngs$1...@panix6.panix.com> <39B46532...@concentric.net>
>> not) of unveiling. I was reading the Machberes section of the Jewish
>> Mess over Shabbos which referred to the unveiling on the stone for the
>> Slonimer Rebbe Z'tl. Since it is approaching the Yahrzeit of the
>> previous Satmar Rebbe, there was also reference to the unveiling of his
>> stone. What is the Chassidishe unveiling referring to?
>I am sure it refers to reciting Tehillim, perhaps the Molei
>Rachamim (some chasidim say this prayer, some do not), a kaddish,
>and perhaps Mishnayos. I am not up on all the Satmar minhagim,
>but it is probably a safe bet that they did not do an actual
>"unveiling."
Also hespedim.
>What is the connection of the SLonimer Rebbe to Satmar?
None that I know of except that he died around the same time as the Satmar
R
>
> I shan't take the Lubavitch movement seriously until they realise that Rabbi
> Schneerson z.l. is dead and they appoint a new Rebbe.
I shan't take your call for appointing a "new Rebbe" seriously
until you post the following: a) a detailed job description of
"Rebbe" so that we will know what it is you are looking for; b) a
detailed procedure for how candidates are to be nominated, and
how a finalist is to be selected; c) a short list containing few
suggested candidates along with what you think their
qualifications are (perhaps you yoursel would like to try out for
the job?).
Mordechai Turnowitz
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> I shan't take the Lubavitch movement seriously until they realise that
Rabbi
> Schneerson z.l. is dead and they appoint a new Rebbe.
My der Mr Henrey Good Man;
Fortunate are you, a Jew who appears to be orthodox and yet is in a
position where he can afford the luxury of not taking the Lubavitch
Movement seriously. Others among us do not have that luxury. In my many
travels many is the time that I find myself in the most unlikely places
with nowhere to aanticipate the support I need for my religious
reqirements. But do I despair? I do not. The Lubavitch Movement is
always nereby where I can find a friendly Jewish face, a minyan to say
my prayers with, a warm mikva to immerse myself in, a cup of coffee with
some Halav Israel milk to put in it, and some kosher pastry to eat with
it.
I sincerely wish for you that you continue not to need their services,
and certainly not for anything more serious. May you never need to take
them seriously, and may you continue able to mock them and ridicule
them.
As for myself, I am able to do no such thing, and I, as well as many
thousands or tens of thousands of Jews will just have to keep on taking
them seriously without looking into the details of their theology or
politics.
A good year to you, and please keep right on mocking and not taking
serious.
--
Mordechai Turnowitz
Durban, South Africa
Harry Weiss
Organization:
R <rut...@concentric.net> wrote:
: Harry Weiss wrote:
:>
:> news.rcn.net> <39AEBFD5...@concentric.net> <8ooicl$lii$1...@panix6.panix.com> <39B028BD...@concentric.net> <8osl8j$a5k$1...@panix6.panix.com> <39B23E8F...@concentric.net> <8p0kfn$ngs$1...@panix6.panix.com> <39B46532...@concentric.net>
:>
:> Organization:
:>
:> In following the discussion between Jon and R regarding the "minhag" (or
:> not) of unveiling. I was reading the Machberes section of the Jewish
:> Mess over Shabbos which referred to the unveiling on the stone for the
:> Slonimer Rebbe Z'tl. Since it is approaching the Yahrzeit of the
:> previous Satmar Rebbe, there was also reference to the unveiling of his
:> stone. What is the Chassidishe unveiling referring to?
: I am sure it refers to reciting Tehillim, perhaps the Molei
: Rachamim (some chasidim say this prayer, some do not), a kaddish,
: and perhaps Mishnayos. I am not up on all the Satmar minhagim,
: but it is probably a safe bet that they did not do an actual
: "unveiling."
: What is the connection of the SLonimer Rebbe to Satmar?
None, most of the article was about the Slonimer. The end of the article
had other matters including the Yahrzeit/fundraiser for the Yeshiva in
Kiryas Yoel, with a reference to the establishment of hte KY cematary
and the unveiling.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> In <> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> writes:
>> >"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> >> In <> acke...@amanda.dorsai.org (Sheldon Ackerman) writes:
>> >> > Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >> No, for the most part we pick which rabbi to follow, or which
> philosophy
>> >> to follow which allows a constistent picking-and-choosing of the piskei
>> >> halacha of earlier generations. It's kind of hard to say that one is
>> >> a disciple of Reb Moshe today, since he's been dead for 20 years or
>> >> thereabouts.
>>
>> >Doesn't seem to bother the Lubavitch
>>
>> 1) They don't follow him for halacha, but rather for fortune telling
>> (such as bibliomancy) - the halachic authority in Crown Heights is the
>> beis din.
>>
>> 2) And how seriously does any other segment of Judaism take their
> following
>> a dead guy? Or, rather, claiming to follow a dead guy, since it is by no
>> means clear that the Rebbe would have approved of the kinds of excesses
>> carried out in his name.
>>
> Just to make it clear, I am in complete agreement with you; my previous
> comment was tongue in cheek.
SDNWOTN
> I shan't take the Lubavitch movement seriously until they realise
> that Rabbi Schneerson z.l. is dead and they appoint a new Rebbe.
The two are not the same. See Breslov Chasidim for details. :-)
Henry Goodman
"R" <rut...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:39B58C2C...@concentric.net...
All other Chassidic movements seem to manage to appoint a new Rebbe
immediately after the Shiva for the previous Rebbe. I think the Lubavitch
movement managed to do this on previous vacancies. A movement without a
leader will disintegrate.
You will probably say that there is nobody up to the standard of Rabbi
Schneerson z.l. but I would point that greater men than he have managed to
appoint successors, albeit of a lower calibre. I am thinking of Moshe/Joshua
and David/Solomon.
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
Henry Goodman
"Mordechai Turnowitz" <mtu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8p4bfb$53n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
What I can't take seriously is when they come out with celebrations of 50
years of the Rebbe's leadership when everybody knows that he has been dead
for 5 years and in no position to lead for several years before his petirah
(passing).
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
Michael Shimshoni
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net% writes:
%
%
%"R" <rut...@concentric.net> wrote in message
%news:39B58C2C...@concentric.net...
%> Henry Goodman wrote:
%> >
%>
%> > I shan't take the Lubavitch movement seriously until they realise that
%Rabbi
%> > Schneerson z.l. is dead and they appoint a new Rebbe.
%>
%> I shan't take your call for appointing a "new Rebbe" seriously
%> until you post the following: a) a detailed job description of
%> "Rebbe" so that we will know what it is you are looking for; b) a
%> detailed procedure for how candidates are to be nominated, and
%> how a finalist is to be selected; c) a short list containing few
%> suggested candidates along with what you think their
%> qualifications are (perhaps you yoursel would like to try out for
%> the job?).
%
%All other Chassidic movements seem to manage to appoint a new Rebbe
%immediately after the Shiva for the previous Rebbe. I think the Lubavitch
%movement managed to do this on previous vacancies. A movement without a
%leader will disintegrate.
Halevai!
%You will probably say that there is nobody up to the standard of Rabbi
%Schneerson z.l. but I would point that greater men than he have managed to
%appoint successors, albeit of a lower calibre. I am thinking of Moshe/Joshua
%and David/Solomon.
%
%--
%Henry Goodman
Michael Shimshoni
mpfreed...@my-deja.com
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
> All other Chassidic movements seem to manage to appoint a new Rebbe
> immediately after the Shiva for the previous Rebbe. I think the
Lubavitch
> movement managed to do this on previous vacancies.
Not true. The Breslov Chassidim only ever had one Rebbe.
>A movement without a
> leader will disintegrate.
One would have thought this would have happened to the Lubavitch and
most people were expecting it - but it hasn't. They have even
increased in strength and numbers since the Rebbe's death. There was a
recent article in the London 'Jewish Chronicle' describing the
movement's continued growth.
Murray Freedman
Murray Freedman
Micha Berger
: other Chassidic movements seem to manage to appoint a new Rebbe
: immediately after the Shiva for the previous Rebbe. I think the Lubavitch
: movement managed to do this on previous vacancies.
It took Lubavitch a year between the death of his father-in-law and the
appointment of R' MM Shneerson.
While others have pointed to Breslov, I'm not sure it's a good example.
Breslov survived -- but at the expense of having more hangers on than
core movement. I doubt core Breslovers count the "Na, Nach" people in their
number. Much are people who just hang their hat on R' Nachman's hook because
he's the most accessible modern source for Jewish meditation.
I wonder how many true Breslovers, one whose beliefs would be recognizable to
those of a generation ago, there really are today. The original movement may
be close to death, ch"v. But it is important never to despair...
-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
Hadass Eviatar
>
> I wonder how many true Breslovers, one whose beliefs would be recognizable to
> those of a generation ago, there really are today. The original movement may
> be close to death, ch"v. But it is important never to despair...
I eagerly await Moshe's response to this question!
Kol tuv, Hadass
--
Hadass Eviatar
Winnipeg, Canada
http://www.superhwy.net/~eviatar
Yisroel Markov
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2000 09:44:16 GMT, Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
> : other Chassidic movements seem to manage to appoint a new Rebbe
> : immediately after the Shiva for the previous Rebbe. I think the Lubavitch
> : movement managed to do this on previous vacancies.
>
> It took Lubavitch a year between the death of his father-in-law and the
> appointment of R' MM Shneerson.
Older Chasidim tell me that this was because the Rebbe ZY"A had initially
refused to accept the position. However, in the last years of the Previous
Rebbe it was obvious to everyone who the next one would be. This was not the
case with the Rebbe. He apparently never groomed a successor, hence the
current weird state of Chabad.
> While others have pointed to Breslov, I'm not sure it's a good example.
> Breslov survived -- but at the expense of having more hangers on than
> core movement. I doubt core Breslovers count the "Na, Nach" people in their
> number. Much are people who just hang their hat on R' Nachman's hook because
> he's the most accessible modern source for Jewish meditation.
This may very well happen to us.
[snip]
Elsewhere, Murray Freedman wrote:
> One would have thought this would have happened to the Lubavitch and
> most people were expecting it - but it hasn't. They have even
> increased in strength and numbers since the Rebbe's death. There was
> a recent article in the London 'Jewish Chronicle' describing the
> movement's continued growth.
That is because the Rebbe ZY"A left a solid and motivated organization. There
are two sources of growth: inside births and outside "conversions" AFAIK,
most of the growth in the latter is being accomplished by those Chabadniks
who are doing what they've always done -- preaching the beauty of observant
Jewish life, rather than explaining to all and sundry who Mashiach is.
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Brute force is the only avenue of action open to men who regard
themselves as mindless aggregates of chemicals." -- Ayn Rand
Moshe Shulman
I think that is unfair to make such a requirement. It is enough that they give
up the messianic belief business about a dead Rebbe.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
But what about the _first_ demand?
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>>
>> > I shan't take the Lubavitch movement seriously until they realise
>> > that Rabbi Schneerson z.l. is dead and they appoint a new Rebbe.
>>
>> I shan't take your call for appointing a "new Rebbe" seriously
>> until you post the following: a) a detailed job description of
>> "Rebbe" so that we will know what it is you are looking for; b) a
>> detailed procedure for how candidates are to be nominated, and
>> how a finalist is to be selected; c) a short list containing few
>> suggested candidates along with what you think their
>> qualifications are (perhaps you yoursel would like to try out for
>> the job?).
>
> All other Chassidic movements seem to manage to appoint a new Rebbe
> immediately after the Shiva for the previous Rebbe.
Yes, the son or the son-in-law. Unfortunately Rabbi Schneerson had
neither.
> I think the Lubavitch movement managed to do this on previous
> vacancies.
Same answer.
> A movement without a leader will disintegrate.
Well, Breslov has been going strong for 200 years now. I won't say
there are no problems, but it's not _close_ to disintegration.
AAMOF, my wife heard recently in a lecture (on a different topic
altogether) that Breslov, with _all_ it's "offshoots" is the biggest
Chasidus in Israel today.
> You will probably say that there is nobody up to the standard of
> Rabbi Schneerson z.l. but I would point that greater men than he
> have managed to appoint successors, albeit of a lower calibre. I
> am thinking of Moshe/Joshua and David/Solomon.
That's also a consideration.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Mordechai Turnowitz" <mtu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > I shan't take the Lubavitch movement seriously until they realise
>> > that Rabbi Schneerson z.l. is dead and they appoint a new Rebbe.
>>
>> My der Mr Henrey Good Man;
>>
>> Fortunate are you, a Jew who appears to be orthodox and yet is in a
>> position where he can afford the luxury of not taking the Lubavitch
>> Movement seriously. Others among us do not have that luxury.
snip
>> A good year to you, and please keep right on mocking and not taking
>> serious.
>
> What I can't take seriously is when they come out with celebrations
> of 50 years of the Rebbe's leadership when everybody knows that he
> has been dead for 5 years and in no position to lead for several
> years before his petirah (passing).
Well, that's a lot less argumentative than your original. So don't.
I suspect that these "celebrations" are for L only so they don't
even apply to you.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> : other Chassidic movements seem to manage to appoint a new Rebbe
> : immediately after the Shiva for the previous Rebbe. I think the
> : Lubavitch movement managed to do this on previous vacancies.
>
> It took Lubavitch a year between the death of his father-in-law and the
> appointment of R' MM Shneerson.
>
> While others have pointed to Breslov, I'm not sure it's a good example.
> Breslov survived -- but at the expense of having more hangers on than
> core movement.
I don't know the numbers, but there are a _lot_.
> I doubt core Breslovers count the "Na, Nach" people in their number.
Correct. They don't.
> Much are people who just hang their hat on R' Nachman's hook because
> he's the most accessible modern source for Jewish meditation.
>
> I wonder how many true Breslovers, one whose beliefs would be
> recognizable to those of a generation ago, there really are today.
More than you think apparently.
> The original movement may be close to death, ch"v.
No way Jose'. It was at much direr straits in previous times and
always managed a resurgence. Also, viability is not measured in
numbers alone.
> But it is important never to despair...
:-)
Henry Goodman
"Moshe Shulman" <Moshe...@chassidus.net> wrote in message
news:39b6ea5e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> On 6 Sep 2000 00:11:56 GMT, R <rut...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Henry Goodman wrote:
> >> I shan't take the Lubavitch movement seriously until they realise that
Rabbi
> >> Schneerson z.l. is dead and they appoint a new Rebbe.
> >I shan't take your call for appointing a "new Rebbe" seriously
> >until you post the following: a) a detailed job description of
> >"Rebbe" so that we will know what it is you are looking for; b) a
> >detailed procedure for how candidates are to be nominated, and
> >how a finalist is to be selected; c) a short list containing few
> >suggested candidates along with what you think their
> >qualifications are (perhaps you yoursel would like to try out for
> >the job?).
>
> I think that is unfair to make such a requirement. It is enough that they
give
> up the messianic belief business about a dead Rebbe.
>
I accept this, but I don't think they will stop the messianic meshugas
(nonsense) until they have a Rebbe with the authority to tell them to stop
it.
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
R
OTOH, a "new Rebbe" might insist that they continue. Unless, as I
suggested, you have some specific candidate to nominate, or you
yourself want to try out for the job. If so, why don't you send
me an email with the particulars, including what you understand
to be the job description and how your candidate (or you
yourself) could fit the job description. If you convince me, I
will do what I can to put the nomination foreward.
Moshe Shulman
>> >qualifications are (perhaps you yoursel would like to try out for
>> >the job?).
>> I think that is unfair to make such a requirement. It is enough that they
>give
>> up the messianic belief business about a dead Rebbe.
>I accept this, but I don't think they will stop the messianic meshugas
>(nonsense) until they have a Rebbe with the authority to tell them to stop
>it.
It is theoretically possible. They already have a structure of mashpiim.
Moshe Shulman
>> I accept this, but I don't think they will stop the messianic meshugas
>> (nonsense) until they have a Rebbe with the authority to tell them to stop
>> it.
>OTOH, a "new Rebbe" might insist that they continue. Unless, as I
>suggested, you have some specific candidate to nominate, or you
>yourself want to try out for the job. If so, why don't you send
>me an email with the particulars, including what you understand
>to be the job description and how your candidate (or you
>yourself) could fit the job description. If you convince me, I
>will do what I can to put the nomination foreward.
There are a few Rebbes who are descended from the Alter Rebbe.
Micha Berger
: (nonsense) until they have a Rebbe with the authority to tell them to stop
: it.
I disagree. Morristown, NJ (home of the Lubavitch Yeshiva, the Rabbinical
College of America) succeeded in making their meshichist population feel
like outsiders. I know, because many of them moved to my home town.
If they can do it, others can.
-mi
Simcha Streltsov
: Rebbe it was obvious to everyone who the next one would be. This was not the
: case with the Rebbe. He apparently never groomed a successor, hence the
: current weird state of Chabad.
...
: That is because the Rebbe ZY"A left a solid and motivated organization. There
: are two sources of growth: inside births and outside "conversions" AFAIK,
maybe that means that he wanted Habad to run as organization, rather than
a personality-based group?
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
R
>
> In <> Moshe...@chassidus.net (Moshe Shulman) writes:
> >On 6 Sep 2000 00:11:56 GMT, R <rut...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >>Henry Goodman wrote:
> >>> I shan't take the Lubavitch movement seriously until they realise that Rabbi
> >>> Schneerson z.l. is dead and they appoint a new Rebbe.
> >>I shan't take your call for appointing a "new Rebbe" seriously
> >>until you post the following: a) a detailed job description of
> >>"Rebbe" so that we will know what it is you are looking for; b) a
> >>detailed procedure for how candidates are to be nominated, and
> >>how a finalist is to be selected; c) a short list containing few
> >>suggested candidates along with what you think their
> >>qualifications are (perhaps you yoursel would like to try out for
> >>the job?).
>
> >I think that is unfair to make such a requirement. It is enough that they give
> >up the messianic belief business about a dead Rebbe.
>
> reading "Leadership in the HaBaD Movement", by Avrum Ehrlich
> (Aronson, last year). It covers lots of ways of selecting a new
> rebbe when the succession is vague, most of which have been used
> by Chabad or its offshoots.
Does the book have a detailed job description? The first thing
one has to do in filling a position is to define what the job
requires -- IOW what is a Lubavitcher Rebbe supposed to do? Then,
perhaps the author (or you yourself) can suggest some candidates?
I will take it that you yourself are not running. Perhaps your
LOR could be persuaded?
Micha Berger
: minhag. Tashlich on Rosh HaShanah is a minhag.
Tashlich is another example of a minhag the Rabbis didn't like. When I
was a kid, tashlich involved throwing bread into the water. At this point,
at least in the NY tristate area, this isn't done anymore. Tearing bread,
when not for food, is halachically problematic.
The following is a quote from the Aram Soba Newsletter (mailed from
shemayisrael.co.il) for this week, their topical halachic column written
by R' David Yosef (R' Ovadiah's son). It discusses yet another minhag that
runs counter to the conclusion one would reach from the Torah itself. (Note
the transliteration of "missvah", which looks odd to this Ashkenazi's eye.)
: It is permissible - and a missvah - to get married during the month of
: Elul; doing so constitutes a breach of neither halachah nor Jewish custom.
: Some, however, have the custom of not conducting weddings during the ten
: days of repentance. Although this custom does have basis among the
: authorities, those who wish to be lenient in this regard and get married
: during the ten days of repentance may do so even "lechatehilah" (optimally).
: In fact, this great missvah could assist the bride and groom in tipping the
: scales in their favor in judgment. If the groom is twenty years of age or
: older, then he should not be stringent and delay the wedding; he should
: rather conduct the wedding during the ten days of repentance.
-mi
Hadass Eviatar
>
> : Eating apple dipped in honey on the night of Rosh HaShanah is a
> : minhag. Tashlich on Rosh HaShanah is a minhag.
>
> Tashlich is another example of a minhag the Rabbis didn't like. When I
> was a kid, tashlich involved throwing bread into the water. At this point,
> at least in the NY tristate area, this isn't done anymore. Tearing bread,
> when not for food, is halachically problematic.
Hm, we still do it here in Winnipeg, AFAIK the Orthodox as well. I take
your point about tearing the bread on Yom Tov - but what if it were
already torn up and ready?
Kol tuv, Shabbat Shalom, Hadass
Sheldon Ackerman
>At this point,
>at least in the NY tristate area, this isn't done anymore. Tearing bread,
>when not for food, is halachically problematic.
>
How can you make such a general statement and want individuals to take you
seriously? Is Midwood part of the NY tristate area? You know for a fact that
NO ONE throws bread into the water during tashlich?
meirm...@erols.com
acke...@amanda.dorsai.org (Sheldon Ackerman) posted:
>In article <8pbcn.net>, Micha Berger wrote:
>
>>At this point,
>>at least in the NY tristate area, this isn't done anymore. Tearing bread,
>>when not for food, is halachically problematic.
Just wanted Micha to know that I never saw this post.
>>
>How can you make such a general statement and want individuals to take you
>seriously? Is Midwood part of the NY tristate area? You know for a fact that
>NO ONE throws bread into the water during tashlich?
mei...@QQQerols.com
e-mail by removing QQQ
Jonathan J. Baker
>acke...@amanda.dorsai.org (Sheldon Ackerman) posted:
>>In article <8pbcn.net>, Micha Berger wrote:
>>>At this point,
>>>at least in the NY tristate area, this isn't done anymore. Tearing bread,
>>>when not for food, is halachically problematic.
>Just wanted Micha to know that I never saw this post.
>>How can you make such a general statement and want individuals to take you
>>seriously? Is Midwood part of the NY tristate area? You know for a fact that
>>NO ONE throws bread into the water during tashlich?
Where does Midwood go to find water? It's over 2 miles to either Prospect
Park or Sheepshead Bay.
--
Jonathan Baker | Mishenichnas Elul marbim becheshbon hanefesh.
jjb...@panix.com | Don't know if it's classic like Av, Adar, but is true.
R
>
> : Eating apple dipped in honey on the night of Rosh HaShanah is a
> : minhag. Tashlich on Rosh HaShanah is a minhag.
>
> Tashlich is another example of a minhag the Rabbis didn't like. When I
> was a kid, tashlich involved throwing bread into the water. At this point,
> at least in the NY tristate area, this isn't done anymore. Tearing bread,
> when not for food, is halachically problematic.
Also, carrying food into the public domain on Yom Tov for the
purpose of feeding fish or any animal that is not your own is
forbidden.
But what has this to do with Tashlich, which is simply a prayer
recited at a body of water containing fish? And what is your
source for the notion that the rabbis didn't like it? It was the
bread throwing they didn't like, not the Tashlich prayer.
R
>
> In <l61mrs41afs3ee56k...@4ax.com> meirm...@erols.com writes:
> >acke...@amanda.dorsai.org (Sheldon Ackerman) posted:
> >>In article <8pbcn.net>, Micha Berger wrote:
>
> >>>At this point,
> >>>at least in the NY tristate area, this isn't done anymore. Tearing bread,
> >>>when not for food, is halachically problematic.
>
> >Just wanted Micha to know that I never saw this post.
>
> >>How can you make such a general statement and want individuals to take you
> >>seriously? Is Midwood part of the NY tristate area? You know for a fact that
> >>NO ONE throws bread into the water during tashlich?
>
> Where does Midwood go to find water? It's over 2 miles to either Prospect
> Park or Sheepshead Bay.
Perhaps someone has built a pool fed by water from an underground
spring and he stocks it with fish. This is becomeing popular to
use as Tashlich pools built in Synagogue courtyards. I believe
the one behind 770 was the first of its type, and very many
people come to 770 on Rosh HaShanah to say Tashlich there.
Sheldon Ackerman
>
>>>How can you make such a general statement and want individuals to take you
>>>seriously? Is Midwood part of the NY tristate area? You know for a fact that
>>>NO ONE throws bread into the water during tashlich?
>
>Where does Midwood go to find water? It's over 2 miles to either Prospect
>Park or Sheepshead Bay.
Many of the Orthodox do not go to Tashlich on yom tov but will go after yom
tov. Others do walk to sheepshead bay, while others will go to Coney Island.
Quite a number, perhaps a majority do go to Lubavitch on Ocean Parkway at
about Ave H. They have two fountains that they have stocked with fish. They
had to cover these fountains with mesh wiring so that the fish can remain
alive after all those bits of challah were being thrown at them.
Art Kamlet
When there's a good rain the sewer water can really be geard
gushing along -- so anyone throwing the bread (why bread?) in the
sewers -- say at Nostrand & Flatbush Aves -- can guarantee running
water.
And in Midwood the local laws prohibit rain on Yom Kippur but
allow it for Rosh Hashanah.
--
Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kam...@infinet.com
Warren Burstein
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
> I accept this, but I don't think they will stop the messianic meshugas
> (nonsense) until they have a Rebbe with the authority to tell them to
stop
Would the meschistim accept a new Rebbe?
--
"I apologize for that verbiage. Unfortunately,
there's probably more" - J. D. Salinger