B"H

Abe,

Since we have discussed on this thread the matter of "Boruch She-amar," I wish to summarize here those findings in the writings of Maharitz (1713 - 1805 C.E.), who has had somewhat to say about the matter, when writing his commentary on the Siddur known as "Etz Hayim."

First, he says that the current opinion to arrange the "Boruch She-amar" in eighty-seven words is only a late, kabbalistic practice. The original Spanish-rite prayer book contained a different number of words. (The earliest records containing a number of words greater than 87 are to be found in the prayer ritual arranged by Rambam, in his "Code of Jewish Law," and in various prayer books scattered throughout Yemen.) So too, it was pointed out to me that different versions of Boruch She-amar are to be found in the Siddur of Rabbi Saadia Gaon, and in the other old prayer books of Yemen as well.

These are the words of Maharitz:

ברוך שאמר. בענין נוסח ברוך שאמר כתבו המקובלים שיש בו פ"ז תיבות והחמירו שלא להוסיף עליו בין בחול בין בשבת. ומיהו אין נוסחת כולם שוה כי לכל אחד מהמקובלים נמצא נוסח משונה מהאחר וכל אחד מהם במנהגו ובנוסחתו. ומינה תילף דנהרא נהרא ופשטיה וכל א' יחזיק בגירסת אבותיו. הלא תראה כי מהרלנ"ח בתשובותיו סי' ע"ד החמיר שלא להוסיף על פ"ז תיבות ואעפ"כ היה בידו מנהג הספרדים שמוסיפים תיבות יותר כמו שאמר הוא עצמו שם וכתב שלא ראה מי שמיחה בהם. כל זה להורות דאין לשנות. כל מקום ומקום לפי מנהגו ונוסחתו ועיין בספר מ"י שם בתשובה בענין זה . גם הרד"א (רב דוד אבו-דרהם) לא הקפיד בחסיר ויתיר כמו שתראה בספרו. גם הגאון מוהר"ר יצחק אבוהב במנורת המאור שלו כתב דיש כאן י' ברוך יעוין שם. ובנוסחת האר"י גם בנוסחתנו י"ב הויין. כל זה מורה דכל אחד דיבר בזה כפי מה שקיבל ונהרא נהרא ופשטיה. עוד תראה דאף הפר"ח שהביא נוסחת ברוך שאמר ע"פ הסוד ואינה אלא פ"ה תיבות

ברוך שאמר. נתקן ע"פ פתקא שנפלת מן השמים. מצאו אותה בקבר יחזקאל ע"ה (כ"כ הפוסקים) וכתב פר"ח תמהני אחר שנחתם התלמוד איך יכלו הגאונים לחדש ברכות שלא נזכרו בתלמוד ותימה על הרא"ש שתמה גבי ברכת פדיון הבן ובכאן הודה להם וצריך עיון. עד כאן לשונו. ובמחילה ברכה זו מיוסדת מימות תנאים. זכרה רשב"י בזוהר פ' ויקהל דף רע"ו עיין שם. וכבר השיבו הרב מ"ר ז"ל מטעם שנזכר בזוהר עיין שם

I presume therefore that you vote for: בפי עמו and not בפה עמו. Welcome to the club.

quote:

Originally posted by Abe:
I presume therefore that you vote for: בפי עמו and not בפה עמו. Welcome to the club.

Yes, Abe. בפי עמו is the version used by those in Yemen.

David

Quote "Reb David, I only brought a psak relating to Geirim. I don't know that Rav Ovadiah requires Ashkenazim who make Aliya to Eretz Yisroel to change their Nusach. Indeed, he often mentions Halachos for Ashkenazim who (he writes, somewhat wittily) "Yotz'im B'yad Rama"."

But if the Bais Yosef is the Mara D'asrah of Eretz yisrael, wouldn't it be Lo Sisgadadu to hold onto your old traditions? Obviously, most poskim would concur that there is no one "Morah D'Asrah" and it's a Makom with many "Batai Dinim." It could be argued that the Talmidai HaGra, who the Yerushalmis were from, would Kovea that the Gra would be the Morah D'Asrah (thus much of Minhag Eretz Yisrael is based after the Gra's opinion.)

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:

But if the Bais Yosef is the Mara D'asrah of Eretz yisrael, wouldn't it be Lo Sisgadadu to hold onto your old traditions?

Actually, Maharitz (1713 - 1805 C.E.) says that this matter of "Mareh D'Asra" of Eretz of Yisroel was disputed in his own day. Here are his words:

EXCERPT FROM MAHARITZ's QUESTIONS & RESPONSA "PE'ULATH SADIQ:"
(Vol. II, Responsum # 251)

"Let it be known that the land of the West (i.e. Israel), and Egypt and the land of Yemen are the places of Maimonides, and this fact is well-ascertained by the books and by all the people. Yet, HASHKAG, in Section 128, has written that the land of the West (i.e. Israel) is also the place of our Rabbi, [author] of the "Beth-Yoseph" (meaning, R. Yoseph Karo). Now I have learned from HASHKAG there, in his commentary "Hagahath HaTur," that if there is a dispute regarding the practice of any ruling brought down between Maimonides and the Rabbi of the "Beth-Yoseph," we practice the ruling as it is brought down in Maimonides, even in the place [where the majority of the people adhere to] the "Beth-Yoseph." But in the other issues where Maimonides has not disputed, or where he has made no mention of the ruling in his own words but are mentioned in the words of the "Beth-Yoseph," we then practice according to the "Beth-Yoseph," even if all other exponents on the Halacha disagree with him. Look there, [at his commentary]. Now this thing agrees also with common sense, before even looking at the words of HASHKAG."

David

What you seem to be saying is that the French Jewish community, many of whom are North African, that live in Paris must follow Tosafoth/Raavad/Ramah (however that combination works out).

Also...is it even Muttar to Pasken from the Ramba"m today, especially when he contradicts both the Mechaber and Rema.

It would seem that before immigrations started to Israel in the past 100-200 years, the most dominant opinion in the region was neither Ramba"m, nor the B"Y, but rather the Arizal. Hence, Syrians, as I understand it, even today, when confronted with a dispute between Arizal and Shulchan Aruch, Psaken like Arizal systematically. This seems to have been the position of the Ben Ish Chai, as well. (Chacham Ovadia, it seems has tried to reverse not only the influence of the Ari, but even the Zohar to some degree, de-emphesizing, for example, the whole washing-within-dalet-amos dinnim derived from the zohar.)

And on a side note, it seems to me (just a personal reflection) that the Shulchan Aruch, as it was accepted in the Ashkenazic countries as the final and overpowering decisor, with the Rema's modifications, was not given the same sort of weight among the Sephardim. The latter seem to take a far more holistic approach, considering all the Mepharshim, even later mepharshim and not equating halacha with Shulchan Aruch. In fact, this notion of the Authoritarian law book of hte Rishonim in regards to the S'A is foreign among the Sephardim. This is the only way I can explain their willingness to create halacha based purely on Kabbala--two subjects B"Y took great pains to separate.

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:

quote:

Originally posted by Abe:
I presume therefore that you vote for: בפי עמו and not בפה עמו. Welcome to the club.

Yes, Abe. בפי עמו is the version used by those in Yemen.

David

According to Artscroll the "Yitzchak Ya'ir" Hebrew only edition it put "בפה עמו" and says as a footnote to the change of "בפי עמו". So which is correct? Is there a difference between ashkenaz and sefard and yemen?

B"H

Shimon,

You wrote: "Also...is it even Muttar to Pasken from the Ramba"m today, especially when he contradicts both the Mechaber and Rema?"

If you look closely, you will never find two poskim who agree together in all things. The modifications of Rama (Rabbi Moshe Iserlisch) to the Shulhan Arukh basically speak about customs that have long since been practiced by the Jews of Europe (Ashkenaz). In the same way, when a Temani takes up Rambam and says that it's "halacha," he does so in full consideration of his own customs and traditions, without abrogating from what has been passed down unto them from old.

Maharitz, the greatest exponent of Jewish law ever produced by Yemen (1713 - 1805 C.E.), writes these words about Rambam:

…Now you have already known that Rambam (Maimonides) is the lord of our place, just as it was attested in the book "Shalsheleth Ha-Kabballah" that the land of Yemen is the place of Rambam, for they have accepted him over themselves; as also in the book Aguna De'itata whom our teacher the Rabbi, Hayim Shivtai, compiled, he has written in the second section, page 85, folio A, the following words: 'It is known that in all of the land of Yemen they have, in all of the words of the Law, taken upon themselves the words of Maimonides, of blessed memory, as though they had come directly from Moses [our lawgiver] who received them from the Omnipotent, etc.' Refer there [for a more comprehensive view of that statement]. Likewise, our teacher the Rabbi, Yaakov Castro, has testified in Hoshen Mishpat, section 14, and these are his words: 'Rabbi David Ben-Zimra has written that Egypt and its immediate surroundings, and the land of Yemen, and the West, are the places of Rambam, and no petitioner to a lawsuit is able to say that we hold the opinions of the Geon so and so, as opposed to the words of that Rabbi, of blessed memory!' Likewise has Rabbi Yaakov Castro testified [of this] in his responsa, responsum # 93, as it is so marked in my memory, in his book known as "Dan" (an acronym for Dinei Neziqim, or "indemnity laws"), the part of Hoshen Mishpat, in section 15. Refer there [for a more comprehensive view of that statement]. Also in the book Ha-Leket (i.e. "the Gleaning"), volume I, section 182, he has written that he received from his grandfather that in all of the periphery touching upon the land of Israel, no one can say that we hold [the opinions of so and so] against those of Maimonides and those of Rabbi Yosef Karo. … And in the book Ha-Doroth (i.e. "the Generations"), page 54, at the end of folio B, it is written that Ramban (Rabbi Moses, the son of Nahman) has testified in the epistle Ha-hemda which he wrote, that in all of the districts of Yemen it was once enacted that they say in the Kaddish, 'In thy lifetime, and in thy days, and in the lifetime of our lord Maimonides, etc.' Refer there [for a more comprehensive look at this subject]...

You also wrote: "Syrians, as I understand it, even today, when confronted with a dispute between Arizal and Shulchan Aruch, Psaken like Arizal systematically."

This might be true about the Syrians (Jews of Aleppo), but today, Rav Ovadiah Yoseph rules that whenever one is confronted with a dispute between the Kabbalah and the Shulhan Arukh, he is to follow the Shulhan Arukh.

David

As I said before, uptil the time of the Shulchan Aruch, you adapted the customs and nusach of the area you lived in, i.e. a Sephardic jew going to live in Poland would take the Askenaz minhag. In those places, like Italy where there was a mix, there were separate Askenaz and Sephardic (and Italian) communities and this was not considered Lo titgogdado. With the rise of Hasidut and the "practical" kaballah of the Ari, the whole thing was turned on its head. This resulted in following the minhag of your father depending whatever your father chose.
When you come to a new place, the community can decide for themselves what the minhag will be. After the massive migrations of the last century, besides the land of Israel, I doubt if any area has definitive minhag anymore. Give it a few hundred years.
In any event, the only book we are all agreed on is the Shulchan Aruch. (and that was after a hundred year of intense debate).
That the Chafetz Haim would be the last posek for Poland and the Aruch Hashulchan would be the last posek for Lithania, is probably just of historical significance today.


Aryeh Shore

B"H

Aryeh,

You wrote: "In any event, the only book we are all agreed on is the Shulchan Aruch."

Indeed, the Shulhan Arukh has enjoyed relative success, more than any other code of Jewish laws. Still, this is not saying that it is without its disputed areas of halacha. The Ashkenazim will continue to slaughter chickens on the eve of Yom Kippur and make "kapparos" with their blood, a thing strongly detested by the author of the Shulhan Arukh.

David

David,
you mentioned...

This might be true about the Syrians (Jews of Aleppo), but today, Rav Ovadiah Yoseph rules that whenever one is confronted with a dispute between the Kabbalah and the Shulhan Arukh, he is to follow the Shulhan Arukh.

1. Not all Syrians are Halabi....some are Sepharadim (i.e. from Spain per se...not just the odd way we define it as anyone that follows Mechaber, or certainly not the way the common Sabra stereotypes it as anyone from an arab country)
2. I specifically mentioned Chacham Ovadia, who though very well respected among all people is not followed by all so-called sepharadim accept on issues that are common to all Sepharadim. I believe the Syrian community has very recently begun to follow Chacham Ovadiah with the passing of their Chacham whose name escapes me--even in these common matters. However, the Brooklyn and the Argentinian community still does not accept converts. Chacham Ovadia has never made such a psak. More importantly...Chacham Ovadia's very objective is the superiority of the Shulchan Aruch. That is exactly what I am saying hte Syrians do not accept. Proving something about the Syrians by what Chacham Ovadia holds is begging the question.

Also, a major portion of the Baladi Yemenite (if anybody holds of the Rambam, its them) is not the particularly popular among all Yemenites or Sepharadim--especially the Dor Daim--whose descendants have even in recent times been marred by their historical tie in the eyes of Yemenites and many others.

B"H

Quote: "Not all Syrians are Halabi....some are Sepharadim (i.e. from Spain per se...)"

Shimon,

Thanks for clarifying this matter for me. I had just assumed that all were from Haleb (Aleppo).

As to your final statement, "a major portion of the Baladi Yemenite (if anybody holds of the Rambam, it's them) is not [so] (the) particularly popular among all Yemenites or Sepharadim--especially the Dor Daim--whose descendants have even in recent times been marred by their historical tie in the eyes of Yemenites and many others."

Actually, in Yemen, both Baladi and Shami (Spanish-rite) congregants made use of halachic rulings passed down by Rambam (e.g. making blessings over each of the four cups of wine which are drunk at Passover, as prescribed by Rambam; reciting the Hallel in the manner as prescribed by Rambam, etc.) Though, some might argue that these practices predate Rambam. Rambam was, nevertheless, held in great esteem by both communities in Yemen, though more so with the Baladi congregations.
Rabbi Hayim Kessar, who was an avid Shami, made his famous commentary on the Rambam (Mishne Torah)!

Rabbi Amram Korach, in his book "Sa'arath Teman," has written the following:

"Behold, while as yet their dwelling [place] was in the city of San'a, prayer books came unto them printed in the Sephardic version, and it was known by them that the inhabitants of the land of Israel prayed in such a version, as also did it become clear unto them that the said inhabitants of the land of Israel had taken upon themselves the instruction of Maran in his Shulhan Arukh, and practiced according to his judgments in matters formerly disputed. Then did those individuals [who had this cognizance] feel it obligatory to observe the same practice as the inhabitants of the land of Israel, [whether] in the version which they made use of in prayer, or in the blessings, or in the other halachic rulings, and so thereby many were drawn unto them and were made to follow after them. Thus was the congregation divided into two parts, the one calling themselves Shammi, while the remaining part who held on to the more ancient custom, [namely], to pray by the rite found in the 'Tiklal,' and to go by the other halachic rulings according to Maimonides, of blessed memory, are called Baladi.
Now since the land of Israel was beloved [unto them], and its Sages and their mores & manners precious unto all, the Baladi congregations came to make many additions to their 'Tiklal,' such as which are found in the prayer books of the Sephardic rite, and also exchanged a few of their own versions in the blessings for the versions found in the prayer books of Sepharad (i.e., Spain), just as the Baladi prayer books of Rabbi Yitzhaq Wena and Rabbi Pinhas b. Gad will attest, as I have mentioned, as well as others besides them. And when they eventually made their way back from their exile in Mawza', anyone who built a synagogue in the new quarter did so after his own custom and the custom of his congregation, whether Shammi or Baladi."

As for the Dor Daim (דרדעים), a word taken from the root דור דעה, these were, indeed, initially from the Baladi congregations. But not all Baladi congregants were Dor Daim. A case in point is Rabbi Yehiya Yitzhaq Ha-Levi who made use of the Baladi-rite, but was adamantly opposed to the Dor Daim. Actually, he was the one who coined them this phrase!

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

What we mean that the Shulchan Aruch (the mechaber and the Ramah) were universially accepted means that if you want to go against the shulchan aruch, you need compelling arguments and can not ignore it. This is because the Shulchan Aruch is not the Mechaber's opinion (since the Bet Yoseph is not authoritive) but because he decides between the all the major opinions known to him. If you find a Rishon like the Meiri which was not known to the Mechaber, then you can argue forcefully against the Shulchan Aruch.
On a more practical level, a Rav, when confronted with conflicting minhagim, can always say that we go by the Shulchan Aruch.
As for Kapporot, the Mechaber sort of waffles however in the Bet Yosef he brings the Ramban that it is Darchei Amorim. The power of this superstitious custom (besides being sacrificing animals outside of the Temple) is immense as we see that in Morrocco the Rabbis protested against the custom as people would borrow money they had no way of paying back to do it and should be considered theft.
Another category we ignore the Shulchan Aruch is some of the laws of mourning. We do not cover our faces anymore as the non-jews would laugh at us (Magen Avraham).

Aryeh Shore

B"H

Quote "...This is because the Shulchan Aruch is not the Mechaber's opinion (since the Bet Yoseph is not authoritive) but because he decides between the all the major opinions known to him."

Aryeh,

I was always told that the Shulhan Arukh is only a condensation of the "Beth Yoseph," and the "Beth Yoseph" was made by taking the majority of three opinions -viz., Rabbeinu Asher, Rambam and Rav Alfasi, just as Rabbi Yoseph Karo explains in his introduction to the "Beth Yoseph." Anyone looking there will see that Rabbi Yoseph Karo writes explicitly that he has not come to do away with customs of individual communities, and that if someone practices stringencies other than those mentioned by him in his "Beth Yoseph," he is to continue with those same practices.

I have heard it explained by scholars (Rabbis) that Rabbi Yoseph Karo's intention here was not limited to mean "stringencies" alone, but also applied to leniencies.

You also wrote: "...we ignore the Shulchan Aruch in some of the laws of mourning. We do not cover our faces anymore as the non-jews would laugh at us (Magen Avraham)."

Here, you must be referring to the practice of Ashkenaz. However, in Yemen, they still cover their faces when sitting in mourning. This practice is seen with the Yemenites even to this day, and is obviously an ancient custom. It is implied by Shemuel in the Talmud (Moed Katan 24a), when actually he spoke there only about a mourner, and how that the custom is to wrap himself in his shawl like an Ishmaelite, covering up his beard and mustache. (Cf. Targum Onkelos on Vayikra 13:45 ועל שפם יעטה , who translates: "…and over his mustache, he shall cover himself like a mourner."). For thus, indeed, is the custom by all Yemenites who sit in mourning, to drape themselves in their shawls, and to cover up most of the face.

David

That is correct that technically the Shulcah Aruch is a condensation of the Beit Yoseph. However what became authoritive is the Shulchan Aruch, i.e. if the Shulchan Aruch differs from the Beit Yoseph we go like the Shulchan Aruch and if the halacha only appears in Beit Yoseph, then it is not authoritive. This is because the Shulchan Aruch became accepted because of the commentaries on it which became widely available. (something like "How dare he poskim for all of the people of Israel? This is totally unacceptable. However, if you use it with my commentary, then it is acceptable)

Glad to hear that the Temanim still wrap the face when morning. It always disturbed me to think a custom which is mentioned in Tanach was abandoned.



Aryeh Shore

Aryeh, what about a Halacha that is brought in the Beis Yosef but not in the Shulchan Aruch, but is then brought by the Rama in the name of the Beis Yosef? Is that because the Mechaber didn't think the Halacha was worth bringing, or that he paskened against himself (when basing himself on the rules he made for what should be the Halacha in the Shulchan aruch) and the Rama then brought it as the correct Halacha?

I haven't seen anyone address the Beit Yosef brought in the Ramah and not mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch. One would have to collect all of the examples and see if there is a common thread.
I would think the phenomena is technical. The Shulchan Aruch is a condensation of the Beit Yoseph with a effort to make the pesak clear without bringing so many opinions. The mapah is a condensation of Darchei Moshe which was a commentary on the Beit Yoseph so it would be natural for the Ramah to bring whole comments from Darchei Moshe unrelated to the Shulchan Aruch. There is another technical problem in that the Darchei Moshe that appears in the printed editions is not what the Ramah wrote but condensed. One would have to go back to the long Darchei Moshe to find out the exact context.

Aryeh Shore

Aryeh Shore

Yosef Caro expected everyone who followed the Shulchan Aruch to also be knowldgeable in Beit Yosef since these were the soruces for his rulings in the Shulchan Aruch. The Remma notice that most of it is geared towards sephardic practices. and decide that his edition of the beit yosef (Darchei Moshe) is still useful. it is important to note that Remma wrote oringally Darche Moshe indepented of Beit Yosef, however R' Caro beat him to the printing press.

I have a query on this portion of the thread involving the Shulchan Aruch. As part of my learning, we learn all Shach and Taz with the Mechaber and Rema. The more I learn, the more I see how they are essential (at least to me) to see what even pshat meant sometimes. When we say that this group holds by the Mechaber or Rema, are we including the commentaries that make clarification? Both in Melicha and Basar B'Cholov (not at Teruvas yet :-) ) I find the commentaries essential to my getting it.

It seams that many of your readers really have no idea about what the "real" nussach Ari really is. No one today really davens the nusach. Chabad do not daven pure Ari because the Alter Rebbe did not have access to all the writings of the Ari. Recently a friend of mine Rabbi D. Remer put out the authentic Nussach Ari copied from the handwriten manuscripts of Rabbi Chayim Vital. {The two volume set is called Toras/Tefillas Chayim}.
Secondly besides a very few families who can trace their geneology and of course the Cohanim and Levi'im no one for hundreds and possibly thousands of years know which tribe they are from so what did people do before the Ari, did they all daven the wrong nussach ? This idea about the Ari's nussach is a big disagreement amongst major halachic authorities.
Thirdly there many nuschaos that over time became extinct. In fact from looking at the various Gaonim and Rishonim there many more we may think. In fact I know of about 80 different versions of the Shemoneh Esreh based on recentky discovered gaonic manuscripts.
Finally regarding ברוך שאמר and whether the נוסח is בפי or בפה there are many Rishonim who write בפה (there is even a manuscript copy of סדרע"ג that wrires בפה). The French Rishonim for example The Siddur Rokeach, Siddur Rashi Etz Chaim Raviyoh, Or Zaru and the new coorected edition of the Machzor Vitri all list בפה. As for the grammar question there are various ways to answetr the problems, see לוח ארש page 593.