Zmanim In Russia & Ukraine
Bahaltener commenting on the topic of Zmanim:
Actually, most Hungarian Chassidim follow the shita of Magen Avraham because it was the standard psak amongst Ashkenazim before the Baal HaTanya and the Gra came with their psak. Russian Chassidim virtually universally accepted the Baal HaTanya's psak, while others didn't change their old practice.
A similar thing happened with zman tzeis hakochavim, that was commonly calculated before according to Rabbeinu Tam, while the Baal HaTanya and the Gra changed to the psak of Gaonim. In this regards, the Breslover practice needs some more research, because in Russia and the Ukraine the Baal HaTanya's shita was normative. Perhaps the Magen Avraham's shita could be held lechumra in this case (not as an ikar hadin). One should also note that similar practice was used by Bershader (Ukranian) Chassidim as a chumra (see Imrey Pinchas).
--
A similar thing happened with zman tzeis hakochavim, that was commonly calculated before according to Rabbeinu Tam, while the Baal HaTanya and the Gra changed to the psak of Gaonim. In this regards, the Breslover practice needs some more research, because in Russia and the Ukraine the Baal HaTanya's shita was normative. Perhaps the Magen Avraham's shita could be held lechumra in this case (not as an ikar hadin). One should also note that similar practice was used by Bershader (Ukranian) Chassidim as a chumra (see Imrey Pinchas).
--
Related: Breslov & Zmanim
31 Comments:
Interesting. Thanks for posting this.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurebach writes that the halacha follows the Gra and Ba'al Hatanya because that is the custom of most Jews.
But he does add that just as one would not wish to use an esrog that was invalid according to the Magen Avraham, he should also refrain from missing the time of the Magen Avraham. If the custom was like the Magen Avraham, we would all daven earlier since that would be the halacha. He himself never missed the Magen Avraham zeman and to my knowledge does not mention that the lamdus of one shittah is somehow intrinsically better.
Interestingly, the earliest Breslov source for davening early is Sichos Hara where Rebbe Nachman says that one should daven as early as possible. Presumably we should at least strive to make the Magen Avraham zeman if not vasikin.
The custom of other chasidim seems irrelevant as is the lamdus.
Since the Mishnah Berurah clearly takes the Magen Avraham zeman very seriously this should not be dismissed out of hand by anyone (unless you follow the Ba'al Hatanya in everything or you cannot daven earlier for whatever reason.)
I know some chasidim feel that the Ba'al Hatanya was a greater posek then the Mishnah Berurah for some reason. I have never understood why; especially since the Rav himself remarked that he regretted going so much with the psak of the Magen Avraham.
He is peerless to explain the source and sevara in a clear, deep and often innovative way. But the fact that his goal in the sefer was different from the Mishnah Berurah does not make it a better sefer to learn .He covers very few of the important details of halacha compared to the Mishnah Berurah since the Mishnah Berurah's goal was to enable Yidden to keep all details of halacha.
Virtually every great halachic authority relates to the Mishha Berurah with tremendous yiras hakavod.
I refer especially to the remark of the Chazon Ish who said that it was definitely written with ruach hakodesh. This is the manner in which all halachic greats relate to the sefer with very few exceptions.
Regarding the issue of Mishno Bruro - this is completely separate subject and a long discussion (was already few times picked up here).
It is just enough to mention that there are those who hold that Baal Chofetz Chaim was not a poysek (baal hoyroo) in general, and was baal mechadesh (i.e. he didn't strictly use klaley hoyroo and didn't pasken according to them because he didn't have a shimush as a Rov-poysek). While this might sound unexpected to some, this view is really held by prominent poyskim (not even chasidic just to mention).
While no one argues that Baal haTania was poysek and ball hoyroo.
But this is not related to the subject at hand really. The attitude to daven as early as possible emphasizes the benefit of tfilas kevaskin, but why is it necessarily related to Mogen Avrohom's zman? This is really a separate issue.
A friend of mine who studies for smicha at YU told me that his rav said clearly and unequivocally that Mishna Brura is not a work of Halacha (i.e., piskei din).
Bahaltener wrote: "It is just enough to mention that there are those who hold that Baal Chofetz Chaim was not a poysek (baal hoyroo) in general, and was baal mechadesh (i.e. he didn't strictly use klaley hoyroo and didn't pasken according to them because he didn't have a shimush as a Rov-poysek)."
I cannot understand how you can write such a thing without seeing how insulting this is to the Chofetz Chaim.
He spent thirty years of incredible toil writing the Mishnah Berurah. How can you (or anyone else) accuse him of not doing shimush? Shimush is the easy stuff. The hard part is doing the learning!
Rav Michel Zilber, the Rosh Yeshivah of Zevil said that people who speak against the Mishnah Berurah are playing with fire since this is the pesak of so many yidden who dares to say that it is not ok for some specious reason?
I have heard that the Mishnah Berurah had a different approach to many groups (such as the Hungarian mesorah in general) and he is certainly different form many chasidic mesoros such as always rule like the Magen Avraham, but he certainly had a genuine mehalech!
The vast majority of the greatest Rabanim hold strongly by the Mishnah. Here in Eretz Yisrael people even asked Rav Shlomo Zalman how the olam could do not like the Mishnah Berurah regading various practices (eg. sitting during borchu by krias Hatorah.) Interestingly I have noticed that many of the same people who don't like Mishnah Berurah also don't hold of Rav Shlomo Zalman since he was very meikel unlike their mehalech in mesorah. At least they draw the line at the Chazon Ish and the Stiepler, both staunch supporters of the Mishna Berurah as a sefer halacha l'ma'aseh.
As for the Ba'al Hatanya, I am always surprised that people ignore his statement that he regretted going so much with the Magen Avraham...
But you are correct that the Rebbe's statement that one should daven early is not clearly connected to making the Magen Avraham zeman. Yet I have always heard that Breslovers in earlier generations were careful about making the earlier zeman. I will give you another theory of why this may be: The custom of many in Breslov was to rule like the Be'er Heitiv. He rules clearly like the Magen Avraham in this issue.
My uncle taught me that now that we have the Mishna Berurah the halacha follows this peerless halahcic work.
I have met many who learn Magen Avraham and Shulchan Aruch Haran and avoid Mishna Berurah and Chayay Adam. I have found that they are sadly ignorant of the many essential details in the Mishnah Berura since most of them don't have the 6-7 hours a day it takes to have a chance of distilling these details from the the vast and difficult halachic works that the Mishnah Berurah spent thirty years on.
It is hard enough to distill and remember the details l'ma'se even though they have already been organized and set out for one in the Mishna Berurah.
Hashem should grant that we learn and fulfill the halacha with dveykus and Simcha!
Crawling axe wrote: "A friend of mine who studies for smicha at YU told me that his rav said clearly and unequivocally that Mishna Brura is not a work of Halacha (i.e., piskei din)."
I wasn't there and am not sure what he meant. I mean clearly the Chofetz Chaim held it was a halachic work.
Perhaps he meant that the Mishnah Berurah often brings two opinions without ruling which to follow. Many follow the more stringent path but I could see how this would relegate the Mishnah Berurah as a sefer that often enough doesn't pasken.
I must admit though that even if his Rebbe said clearly like Ba'hatener, I would not be impressed.
The person who told me about this is going to his grandmother’s funeral today (bd"h), but after Shabbos I can write a line to him and ask to clarify.
I cannot understand how you can write such a thing without seeing how insulting this is to the Chofetz Chaim.
Why is it insulting? Look carefully in the introduction of Mishno Bruro. Chofets Chaim himself writes, that it should be used as an aid for learning Shulchon Oruch, not as a final psak! Psak din is based on certain klaley hoyroo, and not only on logic and svoro. Similar claims for example were made about Chayey Odom (there are different views about it, and some don't consider him a poysek, because he used logical resolution, and not klaley hoyroo to make the psak). Mishno Bruro for example (look in the very beginning) clearly says, that in case of doubt it uses Gr"o's view, but there is no such klal hoyroo.
Rav Bick for example (who was an ashkenazic Rav from Mezhbuzh) held that Chayey Odom as well as Mishno Bruro - aren't psak works, but base their conclusions on svoro, which can contradict klaley hoyroo.
R Golshevsky,
I think you are more offended than the Chofetz Chaim himself would be by such a statement. Given the CC's own introduction to the MB where he states that he is writing his sefer as a compendium of views on the SO, which at least implies NOT a final psak, the burden of proof would seem to rest on those that DO use his sefer as psak halacha. It's not taking away from the gadlus of the CC to say he was a rosh yeshiva and not a posek. Both are arguably equally important.
Does anyone know more on this quote from the breslov website "Rabbi Aharon Mordechai Nochum Pinter heard from Gedolei Breslov that the concept of sh’kiah for Minchah was virtually not mentioned in the Ukraine – even concerning she’eilot nashim."
The Aruch Hashulchan has also a very different way at approaching Halacha than the Mishna Berurah in that the Aruch Hashulchan many times looks at what the yidden are doing and works from there to make it mutar as opposed to the Mishna Berura who many times goes the other way and starts with the Halachic texts and then on to what the people are doing.
At least in Breslov, it would seem to me to be meikel where you can as the most important thing is davening, simcha, learning etc and that chumras take one away from the more important focus.
My Rav has Smichah from Ohr Somayach Monsey, under the instruction of Rabbi Zimmerman Chief Rabbi of Gateshead England.
He uses Mishnah Berurah on many occasions. Does my Rav not know that MB is not a Halachic Sefer?! To say MB is not a halachic work is complete Mishugas.
Bahaltener writes:
Look carefully in the introduction of Mishno Bruro. Chofets Chaim himself writes, that it should be used as an aid for learning Shulchon Oruch, not as a final psak!
Could it be that the CC writes this so that no one err's on account of his word?
The MB isnt some 400 year old sefer that we can relate too, it was published right before before the turn of the century.
MB is an intellectual sefer. It is not a simple here is the answer and isnt something you use to figure out a quick question. MB gives you many sources that are all authoritative and through your study of it you will have an expert understanding of the Shulchan Aruch not just 1 opinion held by a small percentage of Jews. Not all Chassidim follow the Alter Rebbe's codification or any Ashkenaz or Sefardic communities.
MB is a halachic sefer and as for no one using it to poskin from.
Is Rabbi Elyashiv the leading Ashkenaz Posek Gadol a legitimate enough source for a Posek? He quotes MB right here.
V’Zot HaBracha (Birur Halacha 20:1:2), citing Rabbi Y.S. Elyashiv
16 Mishnah Berurah 212:1; see Biur Halacha – s.v. “im haikar”
This is such mishugas. Im not a Talmid Chacham by ANY means but what kind of education do you Yidden have to be making such statements?
Do you have smicha? What reputable Rabbis have said this publicly and stand by it?
MB is not a Halachic Sefer?!
There is a difference between seyfer that brings Halochoys, and seyfer that makes psakim. While both can be called a "Halachic Seyfer", there is a major difference between them. I think this is pretty self obvious.
Bahaltener: It was with great reluctance that I took you to task in my earlier comment since I can tell that you are a yarei Shamayim sincere and you are not altogether wrong. I am very sorry but I felt that I had no choice.
The words, "Baal Chofetz Chaim was not a poysek (baal hoyroo) in general" and "because he didn't have a shimush as a Rov-poysek" were definitely insulting.
The Chofetz Chaim spent thirty years writing the Mishnah Berurah; do you really think he omitted shimush? Why would he write such a work until he was qualified for it? After all; the author of "Shmiras Halashon" could have done shimush with virtually any Rav.
In addition, he actually did serve as a Rav for a while.There is a well known reason why he decided to step down but surely you will admit that he definitely did shimush and knew how to pasken a sha'aleh before accepting responsibility for a kehilah. (We have a record that he paskened then by the way.)
But even if he had not served as a Rav, your statement still makes him out to be a fool. Could someone invest such a huge amount of time writting a halachic work clearly meant to be halahca l'ma'ashe (see intro to hilchos Shaobbos which I will translate for Menashe below,) be anything else? To intimate this regarding the Chafetz Chaim is clearly insulting.
If you had only written: "It is just enough to mention that there are those who hold that Baal Chofetz Chaim was baal mechadesh (i.e. he didn't strictly use klaley hoyroo)." I don't think I would have responded in this way since on a certain level that is correct.
But I probably would have pointed out that there are (at least) two major Ashcenazic paths to psak. The one used by the Chayay Adam and Mishnah Berurah--as well such greats as the Ya'avitz and the Maharsham of Barz'an--is the path of ba'alei chidush who rely more on chidush especially l'kulah. This is the path followed by Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurebach and most other Litvisher greats. The other derech is the more (but not only) Hungarian way. This path does not rely on chidush as much and has developed very different kelalay hara'ah of it's own.
It is absurd to make a blanket statement that the Chayay Adam was not a posek.
The Kesav Sofer, said to the Arugas Habosem: "My father (the Chasam Sofer) said that when the Rav of a community must pasken it is proper for him to look at the source of the halacha inside but if he cannot do so because he doesn't have time or for some other reason, he should look into the Chochmas Adam and rely on his psak l'ma'aseh." (Toldos Arugas Habosem, pg. 94.)
In addition the Pischei Teshuvah on Shulchan Aruch often paskens like the Chochmas Adam halacha l'ma'aseh; is he also not a ba'al hara'ah?
It is intersting that the Sdey Chemed recounted that when he paskened a din based on the Chayay Adam the (I presume) Rav he was speaking to claimed that this could not be relied upon since the Chayay Adam was not a ba'al hora'ah.
The Sdei Chemed replied with uncharacteristic sharpness: "Even if you have a kabalah to this effect we will not accept it! We see with our own eyes that he is very great in psak!"
The Sdei Chemed then records many big sources that quote and rely on the Chayay Adam halacha l'ma'aseh. (If you care to see the story and the sources they are in Sedei Chemed VI, kelalei haposkim, 15:32)
When Rav Bick zt"l, made such statements he was saying that t they were not going in the derech of the kelalay hapesak that he had received. Like I wrote earlier however, the fact that so many gedolim have endorsed the Mishnah Berurah as a sefer halacha l'ma'aseh, should be enough to show that Rav Bick's view is the minority to say the least. Although he was a giant of giants, I don't think the Chazon Ish etc etc have to feel embarrassed from him in Torah.
I know that many Chasidim paskin like the Shulchan Aruch Haran or even the Magen Avraham or have other special kelalim of their own. Although every approach is valid this does not make any other approach less legitimate.
Menashe wrote: "I think you are more offended than the Chofetz Chaim himself would be by such a statement."
I am sure that you are right. The Chofetz Chaim would not have stood on his own honor no matter what the insult--much like the well known story of the Rambam.
But also like the Rambam, if a student protested, he would have understood completely. "He is a student defending the honor of his teacher."
I am a little confused why you choose the intro to volume I. In (the end of intro to) Volume III he is very clear: "One of the reasons why the people lack knowledge of hilchos Shabbos is because they are very hard and it is impossible to understand them from the Shulchan Aruch alone unless one is already familiar with the source of the din in gemara and poskim. People don't have time for this today because they are very busy and under pressure b'avonosainu harabim. In addition there are many different opinions in every detail...I wrote introductions to certain very difficult areas so that it should be easy to understand the Shulchan Aruch. I also brought the sources for many Avos from the Rambam and other Rishonim so that one should know the halacha clearly. In addition I collected from the achronim many new inyanim that are found in our times l'ma'aseh.
I hope with Hashem's help that whouever learns the halacha now will know each din and its reasoning L'HALACHA U'LMA'ASEH."
But this is really superfluous. Once we find that so many greats hold that the Mishnah Berurah is l'ma'aseh that is enough even if the Mishnah Berurah did not say it himself. Why should you need more "proof" than this?
No statement from a marked minority of other gedolim can detract from this.
The marked disadvantage to the detractors of the Mishnah Berurah is that they are usually unable to get a real grip on halacha l'ma'aseh since they often busy amd do not have the shortcut afforded by the Mishna Berurah. Either one learns 6-7 hours a day for many years (and even then who knows) or he doesn't know period. I have yet to meet a middle way; those who succeed become major ba'alei Halacha. All those I have pointed this out to (there have been many) have agreed but point out that since the Mishna Berurah holds different kelalei psak they are afraid that learning it will confuse them.
They are of course correct. It is just a pity that a luminary like Rav Bik, zt"l, did not write where the psak of the Mishnah Berurah differs from the other mesorah so that people without much time etc could also know what to do when.
Hashem should help us keep halacha l'ma'an shemo b'ahava!
It is absurd to make a blanket statement that the Chayay Adam was not a posek.
I did mention that there is a disagreement about it.
The path that uses klaley hoyroo simply invalidates the path that is loose about them, exactly because it is not in accordance with these klalim! (Shulchon Ourch haRav brings many of them by the way, for example - sofek brochoys lehokeyl and etc). Because of that, there are those who clearly hold that Chofetz Chaim was not a poysek, but roysh yeshva who wrote chidushim on Halocho. This doesn't denigrate the greatness of Chofetz Chaim. I didn't invent it, and I don't think there is anything insulting about it.
Also, I don't think this has something to do with Hungary at all. For example such giant as Rabbi Shloyme Kluger didn't hold of Chayey Odom's to be a poysek, while not less famous Rabbi Shloyme Gantzfrid used him as one of the deyoys to compile his Kitzur.
Also, the amount of time invested in something is not a proof of what it contains. There were those for example who severely criticized chidushim of the Rasha"sh (not Reb Sholom Sharabi, but Rasha"sh on Gemoro) for being incorrect and based on speculative svoroys. Obviously the author spent a lot of time on them.
All these is not my invention, but the subject of discussion amongst the poyskim.
What I'm more interested in, is not that discussion, but what Halohic traditions Breslover chasidim had. Such kind of disagreement as above seems to depend on certain mesoyroys at least.
Regarding Chayey Odom chasidim have some other considerations too, because of his severe hisnagdus to Chasidus. While some tolerate him, some on the other hand (Boyan, Rizhin etc) wouldn't even take his sforim.
Reb Dovid Shapiro (a known Breslover, talmid of Reb Gedalya Kenig ztz"l) asked Reb Gedalya, how Breslovers relate to Chayey Odom.
Reb Gedalya answered him with a story:
"When Reb Menachem Mendel Vitebsker, Baal haTanina and Reb Avrohom Kalisker came to Vilno to meet with Vilner Goen (to settle down the machloykes), he as known had refused to see them, and after they came out they were literally stoned by the angry mob.
"What should we do?" Asked Baal haTania. "I'm not afraid of any of these stones" - said Reb Menachem Mendl Vitebsker, - "except those thrown by Chayey Odom, because he is the only one there throwing lesheym shomaim".
When asked, Reb Michl Dorfman said, that in Russia, Breslover Chasidim learned straight Shulchon Oruch with meforshim, and not Mishno Bruro as a source as common amongst litvishe oylom today.
Bahaltener wrote: "Because of that, there are those who clearly hold that Chofetz Chaim was not a poysek, but roysh yeshva who wrote chidushim on Halocho. This doesn't denigrate the greatness of Chofetz Chaim. I didn't invent it, and I don't think there is anything insulting about it."
This is insulting since it is clear that the Chofetz Chaim set out to write a guide to halacha l'ma'seh not a sefer chidushim on halachah. The approach you wrote invalidates the Chofetz Chaim in halahca l'ma'seh and makes him out to be incompetent at best.
It is as if you are saying, "If only some of the Rabanim who speak against him (but have done much less than him) were there it could have been done right."
Your approach is exceedingly dogmatic.
Would you say the same regarding a Sefardi Posek like the Ben Ish Chai or the Kaf Hachaim who both had their own Kelalei Hora'ah? If you say regarding them "Eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" why can't you give the Mishnah Berurah the same credence?
Not only are there very many sources that the Chofetz Chaim meant halacha l'ma'seh, there are an inordinate amount of the greatest greats in halacha who said that he achieved this completely.
For example the Chazon Ish wrote that the words of the Mishnah Berurah are like a ruling from the Sanhedrin in the Lishkas Hagazis.
Was he then another person who was not a ba'al hora'ah? All of Israel came to him for rulings!
Rav Ya'akov Kamintzky said that every word of the Mishnah Berurah can be learned like a Rishon. Was he another person who lacked an understanding of so called kelalei hor'ah?
In short: he set out to pasken. Saying that he abysmally failed in this goal is very insulting. Saying that others have a different mehalech is 100% ok. You need not rule like him or learn the sefer as long as you DO NOT invalidate him.
(The comparison to the Rashas is once again absurd. The Rashash was a banker Talmid Chacham, not one of the Gedolei Yisrael!
Furthermore, I never said every Litvisher held one way and every Hungarian another. I was taught that most hold one way or the other. Exceptions are irrelevant.)
You wrote: "What I'm more interested in, is not that discussion, but what Halohic traditions Breslover chasidim had. Such kind of disagreement as above seems to depend on certain mesoyroys at least."
Thank you for conceding that. Hopefully we make progress.
Why in the world should you invalidate the mehalech of many yereim and shelaymim just because you received differently? I don't understand what you mean by "at least" however.
Certain groups of chasidim who didn't accept the Chayay Adam are fairly meanigless; many of these same groups were very intolerant and often did not accpet Breslovers either.
you wrote: ""I'm not afraid of any of these stones" - said Reb Menachem Mendl Vitebsker, - "except those thrown by Chayey Odom, because he is the only one there throwing lesheym shomaim".
So are you saying that he is accepted because he was l'shem shamayim (like the Barditchever said regarding the Gra?)
I guess not although I could see the story going both ways (he meant l'shmah so why not learn his seforim?)
I have heard others say that he cannot be trusted since he supposedly kept the Ba'al Hatanya from seeing the Gra. All I reply is that virtually all very big poskim validate him completely; you cannot even learn Piskei Teshuvah without running into him so why believe he is nothing because he was a misnaged. Rabeinu said a tzaddik is till a tzaddik even if he errs in some way. Why should this error invalidate the Chayay Adam?
In addition, when they showed Rav Nosson the Chayay Adam he praised it highly saying it was muchuvan l'ma'aseh much more than...
you wrote: "When asked, Reb Michl Dorfman said, that in Russia, Breslover Chasidim learned straight Shulchon Oruch with meforshim, and not Mishno Bruro as a source as common amongst litvishe oylom today."
I can't understand what bearing this has on our discussion.
before the communists came to power there wasn't many copies of Mishnah Berurah available. When the communists were in power, they certainly were not getting more seforim in. In any event, Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurebach said that it was not until somewhat later that the Mishnah Berurah's psak was accepted by the olam since it took time to get around and be recognized for what it was. Before then the Litvisher Olam held like the Chayay Adam (with very rare exception.)
Rav Michel was in Communist Russia fighting for Yiddishkeit; of course he had no mesorah to follow the Mishnah Berurah. He did it like the old guard ashrei chelko!
In any event, Rabeinu said that Breslov is Lev Basar, a heart of flesh. The main thing is not to exclude people and make them feel like they are required to accept a specific mehalech of psak to be accepted--especially if the mehalech is the marked minority. In Breslov, the main thing is not customs (unlike many other mehalchim.) The main thing is the heart.
If one comes to Uman he will find Sefardim and Ashkenazim of all types. There is a chabad minyan and Satmar, Teimaney and Sephardic, Breslov mesorah and Litvish style and everything else. Everyone is equally accepted and loved and should rejoice the entire year for having been zocheh to this wonderful tikkun as Rav Nosson writes and emphasizes.
Hashem should help us live with Azamra! May see the good in others even those who have a diverse path from our own!
Anyone knows what are the zmanin used by polisher chassidim like the Gerrers ?
Bahaltener.
May I ask what your educational background is? You are definitely someone who is learned in Torah, and I have having great difficulty understanding how you reach this conclusion that you have.
With that said.
You are completely 100% wrong. Im not the one that says you are wrong.
Harav Hagaon Rabbi Y. S. Elyashiv, shlita does.
The Rav quotes Mishna Berurah countless times when he poskins.
Are you saying that the Rav is wrong in using MB?
You are stand firm with what you have taught and I respect that even though I disagree with you completely.
It seems everyone is willing to agree to disagree, and Im sure my comments are far from needed.
Just thought you should know since you already ignored my previous post that brought this.
Long Beach Chasid: Did you pay attention to the discussion above? This is a disagreement. Some say hold one way, some another. Read carefuly what was written above.
Micha Golshevsky said:
who lacked an understanding of so called kelalei hor'ah?
Reb Tuvye Goldshteyn za"l (from Eimek Halocho, a renowned talmid of Reb Moyshe Feinstein) showed some exapmples, how Mishno Bruro isn't strictly following klaley hoyroo (for whatever reason).
Regarding brocho on rice, Mishno bruro conlcudes, that one should say mezoynoys (while this is a machloykes actually). Shulchon Oruch hoRav says (accordning to klaley hoyroo), that one should either say shehakoyl, or avoid saying a separate brocho on rice altogether, because he might be not yoytze at all.
Another example is what one should do after going to beys hakisey in the middle of the seudo. Mishno Bruro says to say brocho on bread in one case and not to say in another, while according to klaley hoyroo, Shulchon Oruch hoRav says that one shouldn't say a brocho, because of sofek brochoys lehokeyl. and etc.
This is limud, not emotional discussion "who was bigger". We pasken according to klaley hoyroo, not according to who was bigger. Like he (Reb Tuvye Goldshtein) said - "If there is a disagreement between Chasam Soyfer and Rabbi Akiva Eiger, should we count who went to mikve more often? We have klaley hoyroo and that's how we pasken!"
Why in the world should you invalidate the mehalech of many yereim and shelaymim just because you received differently?
I'm not invalidating anything. I'm just bringing who hold what about it. You don't agree or think different about this issue? That's your right, but don't deny that there is another view about it, even though it seems strange because of being too non "standard".
I can't understand what bearing this has on our discussion.
This is related to discussion above though indirectly. Reb Michl Dorfman just showed his displeasure, that many today substituted learning Shulchon Oruch with learning Mishno Bruro.
And again - this is not invalidating or putting anyone down.
bahaltener
If you choose to ignore my statements because you can not answer the questions that is fine. Please do not insult my ability to understand what you are typing because it is nothing complicated.
Everything that needs to be said has been said.
Long Beach Chasid: All you said was basically "you are 100% wrong" etc., while I wrote to you that this is a disagreement not between me and some other chaver somewhere, but amongst big poyskim. You can call whoever you want right or wrong, that's your personal evaluation of these matters. I'm just bringing those views and I'm not interested in emotions here.
You arent saying some people dont hold by the Mishnah Berurah which is true and the same is true of the Baal HaTanyas Shulach Aruch an many others.
You are saying that MB is not a major halachic work that Rabbi's use to Poskin from
3 Gedolim have been sourced and you still disagree
The question arises as to what qualifications you have to make your statements and you refuse to answer this.
If that is irrelevant in your opinion then fine.
Question:
Every single website that sells Mishnah Berurah describes it as.
Mishnah Berurah is a work of halakha (Jewish law) by Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, better known as The Chofetz Chaim (Poland, 1838 - 1933). It is a commentary on Orach Chayim, the first section of the Shulchan Aruch (laws of prayer, synagogue, shabbat and holidays), summarizing the opinions of the Acharonim (post-Medieval rabbinic authorities) on that work.
Now did they get it all wrong and only you and a minority opinion got it right?
You arent saying some dont hold by MB's rulings you are disregarding period.
Regardless of your opinion the people I have spoken too that have a greater grasp on Emes say you are incorrect.
So its not my emotion or my opinion.
You are saying that MB is not a major halachic work that Rabbi's use to Poskin from
I'm saying that poyskim who hold that Mishno Bruro isn't compiled accordning to klaley hoyroo considered a in a different category from sforim that are. Isn't it clearly enough spelled out?
What sites write or people say - is up to them, I'm talking about what poyskim hold.
Bahaltener: A Litvisher acquaintance claimed that the Shulchan Aruch Harav could not be relied upon by anyone halacha l'ma'aseh. One "proof" in his eyes was the Rav's own admission that he regretted relying on the Magen Avraham as much as he had. "If so how can anyone rely on him? He himself admits that it should have been written differently. Any psak he makes we must consider if it is really emes or not." This was his strongest point although he had other valid seeming reasons.
I immediately took him to task for this fallacy. "How can you possibly say that the Shulchan Aruch Harav cannot be relied upon? Now that generations of Chasidim have relied upon him and so many works rely on him as a halachic authority, it is clear that one can rely on the Rav halacha l'ma'seh.If your mesorah is different that's fine but you have no right to invalidate the Rav. Even if I had no way to answer your points (I actually did,) you still could not say such a ridiculous thing." I also pointed out that the Rogitchover, zt"l, and many other greats authorities held of the Shulchan Aruch Harav.
(I would have told him that this is insulting to the Ba'al Hatanya but unfortunately I am not sure he would have cared. My other arguments convinced him however.)
Your earlier claim was very similar to this gentleman's but in the opposite direction. I refuted this with:
1)so many gedolim endorsed it as halacha l'ma'aseh
2) so many Yidden use it halacha l'ma'aseh it really is playing with fire to claim that they have no right to do so who ever you are.
If you concede that 1)the olam and many greats who relied on him had a right to do so. And 2)that the Mishna Berurah achieved his goal as a guide to halacha l'ma'aseh--even if you don't follow or even learn Mishnah Berurah because of certain tzorech iyun's I can respect that.
As far as having questions on the Mishnah Berurah which some claimed were against kelalai hora'ah; this is surely a lame proof.
Would you ever concede that the Shulchan Aruch Harav is not valid if someone asked powerful questions that left some of his psakam a big tzorech iyun? Of course not! Please give the Mishnah Berura the same credence.
(Nevertheless, the questions you present do not seem so difficult. I have sent you an email with answers.
If you want me to post them I am willing but I feel that this forum is not appropriate for discussing the details of kelalei hora'ah and the Mishnah Berurah.)
You wrote: This is limud, not emotional discussion "who was bigger". We pasken according to klaley hoyroo, not according to who was bigger. Like he (Reb Tuvye Goldshtein) said - "If there is a disagreement between Chasam Soyfer and Rabbi Akiva Eiger, should we count who went to mikve more often? We have klaley hoyroo and that's how we pasken!"
I am sorry if I come off emotional, I assure you that it is not intentional.
But I still fail to see the relevance of this example. You did not say that in a certain instance the psak is not like the Mishnah Berurah, you said across the board one cannot rely on him halacha l'ma'seh since he did not follow kelalei psak. You even accused him of not bothering to do shimush (a clear falsehood.) Wouldn't you react violently if someone told you he had kashos on the Chasam Sofer or Rebbe Akiva Eiger and therefore none of their rulings could be trusted as halacha l'ma'aseh? I would never let someone get away with this for the same reason: once a large segment of kelal Yisrael and (especially) gedolei Yisrael accept a sefer's mehalech in halacha l'ma'aseh, it is valid no matter what questions one may have. To quote Rav Chaim Voluzhiner's famous psak: "One does not die from a quesiton..."
We never discussed who is "bigger" merely that sometimes it is no longer feasible to declare a sefer that was meant and taken to be halacha l'ma'aseh, theoretical and those who rely it l'ma'aseh misguided. The Mishna Berurah--and the Shulchan Aruch Harav--are clearly in the indisputable category.
If you concede that 1)the olam and many greats who relied on him had a right to do so. And 2)that the Mishna Berurah achieved his goal as a guide to halacha l'ma'aseh--even if you don't follow or even learn Mishnah Berurah because of certain tzorech iyun's I can respect that.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe said somewhere, that even though the Chofetz Chaim didn't pasken accordning to klaley hoyroo, his works were accepted by many because of his ahavas Yisroel. (Menashe can probably provide an exact mekoyr for this). Surely, there is an inyan that if something being accepted, it gets some validity even though there are those who don't agree to it in some instances. I.e. in discussion above (I mentioned it several times) no one was trying to invalidate the practice of big number of Yidden. The only purpose of bringing it down was to show the variety of views, and what's more to the subject at hand - how it relates to Breslover practice and meosyro in particular. So it's not an "attack" or some kind of scorning to others' practices at all.
Thanks, for the additional info about the subject, it's very interesting.
The fact that a number of Yidden practice something doesn’t seem to be relevant on determining its source’s halachic validity.
For instance, Rav Auerbach rules against all of Chazon Ish’s reasons regarding not using electricity on Shabbos and pretty much concludes that outside of using incandescent lights, there is technical halachic no reason not to use electricity on Shabbos — but we still shouldn’t do it, now that a number of years the majority of Yidden have refrained from it.
So, if one came to him and said that the practice of Yidden relying on Chazon Ish’s psak makes the latter’s psak valid, he would disagree with that. According to him, CI’s psak is not valid. But the present and future practice of Yidden is still valid in an of itself.
Crawling Axe wrote: and pretty much concludes that outside of using incandescent lights, there is technical halachic no reason not to use electricity on Shabbos — but we still shouldn’t do it, now that a number of years the majority of Yidden have refrained from it.
Rav Shlomo Zalmam also prohibits because the Maharshag ruled it is asur and the Rabanim followed his psak. It is not only because of minhag that he prohibits electricity when it does not produce fire or heat that is yad soldes bo-- despite the fact that he was not clear of why other types of the reason why other types are asur.
crawling axe wrote: "So, if one came to him and said that the practice of Yidden relying on Chazon Ish’s psak makes the latter’s psak valid, he would disagree with that. According to him, CI’s psak is not valid. But the present and future practice of Yidden is still valid in an of itself."
This is an extremely inaccurate statement.
1) who told you so? Perhaps he would say that those who hold like the Chazon Ish have a valid approach but he has many questions on the Chazon Ish and stands by his psak to permit.
2) This is obviously his attitude in the letters the Chazon Ish and Rav Shlomo Zalman exchanged on this subject. Although you can see from between the lines that Rav Shlomo Zalman holds differently because of his questions (and this it he view of most poskim) his incredible deference and meekness towards the Chazon Ish is amazing to behold.
He never invalidated the Chazon Ish's psak (held by many big Rabanim here in Israel by the way. E.g: Rav Nisim Korelitz and Rav Chaim Kanievsky to name just a few.)
Eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim.
By the way: Rav Shlomo Zalman for himself always treated electricity as a d'oraysah since although he ruled differently because of his questions, he was machmir like the Chazon Ish in practice for himself.
If you wish to continue this conversation, please read the letters first.
Bahaltener: I am profoundly sorry if I misunderstood your comments. As I wrote earlier, I was reluctant to comment and certainly never meant anything personal by it, especially since it is clear that you are a yarei shamayim. If I was wrong I apologize.
You wrote: "Thanks, for the additional info about the subject, it's very interesting."
Very glad to hear it!
I was going to go back and read the letters, but this caught my attention, as I was talking to my rabbi:
Eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim.
… can only be said in retrospect. Hillel believed Shammai to be wrong. And vice versa.
But you’re right, I should read the letters first.
See Eiruvin 13 and especially the Ritvah there.
Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel are irrelevant to our discussion since the bas kol of eilu v'eilu was regarding them. We learn from there that although each group held the halacha follows their psak, the reality is that the halacha could have followed either.
Although it is possible that others learn the gemara differently the approach of Chasidus-and the Arizal--are predicated on the Ritvah's view.
Post a Comment
<< Home