UTJ Viewpoints

Rav Herschel Schachter states:

“A matter of halacha which has been accepted for centuries can not be overturned, unless one can demonstrate that there simply was an error involved from the very outset.” – On the Matter of Masorah, RHS.

Given:

1. Rambam paskened 2 matzos at the seder as per simple read of the Talmud.
2. Gaonim have a tradition for lechem mishnah on yom tov.
3. Rosh/Tosafot say 3 matzos – that sugya is superseded by the requirement of lechem mishneh.
4. Rema says 3 matzos – thereby ratifying minhag Ashkenaz.
5. Bet Yosef says that minhag is like Tosafot and Rosh and paskens 3 matzos despite his stated rule regarding Rif/Rambam – minhag Yisrael prevails nevertheless.
6. Sh’lah – as cited by Kaf Hachayyim says the only way to be yotzei lechol hadei’ot is to use 3 matzos.

Question: How did the GRA reverse it back to 2 matzos?

1. Were Rosh, Rema, Shulchan Aruch, Sh’lah all beta’ut?
2. If so does this impact their reliability on other matters of Halachah?
3. Did the GRA feel bound by the norms of minhag Yisrael, or by his read of the Talmud?
4. For those who have already switched to 2 matzos, should they switch back to 3 – since the Sheeta of 2 matzos goes against the norms of Halachic canons as posited by RHS? “one can demonstrate that there simply was an error,” i.e. the error here is going against minhag Yisroel.
5. Is there ever a time limit on over-tuning minhag based upon error? In other words, how many centuries of practice makes perfect or is it ALWAYS subject to revision based upon a better read of Talmud?
6. How do recently discovered girsaot of old manuscripts play into this? Are they demonstrative of earlier errors and therefore dispositive of minhaggim?

–
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

A visitor recently shared this story…

In an early version of the “seed program” circa 1963 talmiddim asked R. Hutner’s advice re: whom to focus upon and who was a waste of time. R. Hutner suggested asking them about the origins of WWI.

If they expressed curiosity about the assassin Princip’s motives, they were the desirable students. If they poo-poohed Princip and said he was just “a nut” – then don’t bother…

———————————————————————————

In Zen the applicable maxim is:

First you need to empty your cup in order to fill it.

And so people may be either too much:

1. know-it-alls
2. full of themselves
3. cynical or skeptical

…to learn something new. With these people, one simply wastes one’s time teaching.

R. Akiva had held a cynical view of hachamim before he changed his attitude. Once he dropped this “holier than thou” posture Torah flowed to him as rivers flow to the sea.

Kol Tuv,
Rabbi Rich Wolpoe