Cancel Simchas Torah!

llevine · October 12, 2015, 6:13pm

--=====================_1313991687==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read
in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar
every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per
the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week,
from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews

It is estimated that in the 11th century Ashkenazi Jews composed only
three percent of the world's
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country>Jewish population,

Now as I understand it, the 3 year cycle had pretty much disappeared
by this time. The synagogue in Egypt that is reported in the 12th
century to have leined based on the 3 year cycle was an
exception. Thus, how can you assert that "Once Ashkenaz started
becoming a major community, most of them too read n a 3 year
cycle." It seems that once Ashkenaz became a majority community, no
one was following the 3 year cycle.

Again, the 3 year cycle was used in EY.

Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas
Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early.

See the marvelous sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah by A. Ya'ari for
the history of the development of Simchas Torah. R. Avraham Yari in
his sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah comes to some interesting
conclusions about when the Zohar was actually written. His
conclusions are based on when the name Simchas Torah was first used
to designate the second day of Shemini Atzeres. See

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zohar_yaari.pdf

and, in particular, see what he writes on page 30.

Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many
of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're
saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than
the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just
assumed they were identical.

I again I cannot understand this given that the 3 year cycle was
abandoned before Ashkenaz became a dominate force in the Jewish nation.

--=====================_1313991687==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<body>
At 12:43 PM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger wrote: 
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Once Ashkenaz started becoming a
major community, most of them too read 
in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in
Mussar 
every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as
per 
the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that
week, 
from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on
Shavuos.</blockquote> 
From
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews" eudora="autourl">
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews</a> 
It is estimated that in the 11th century Ashkenazi Jews
composed only three percent of the world's
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country">
Jewish population</a>, 
Now as I understand it, the 3 year cycle had pretty much
disappeared by this time.  The synagogue in Egypt that is reported
in the 12th century to have leined based on the 3 year cycle was an
exception.  Thus,  how can you assert that
"Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most
of them too read n a 3 year cycle."  It seems that once
Ashkenaz became a majority community,  no one was following the 3
year cycle. 
Again,  the 3 year cycle was used in EY. 
 
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Machzor Vitri (from
before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas 
Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY
early.</blockquote> 
See the marvelous sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah by A. Ya'ari for the
history of the development of Simchas Torah.  R.
Avraham Yari in his sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah comes to some
interesting conclusions about when the Zohar was actually written. 
His conclusions are based on when the name Simchas Torah was first used
to designate the second day of Shemini Atzeres. See 
<a href="http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zohar_yaari.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zohar_yaari.pdf 
</a>and, in particular, see what he writes on page 30. 
 
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi
3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many 
of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're 
saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than 
the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just 
assumed they were identical. 
</blockquote> 
I again I cannot understand this given that the 3 year cycle was
abandoned before Ashkenaz became a dominate force in the Jewish
nation.</body>
 
</html>

--=====================_1313991687==.ALT--

zev · October 12, 2015, 8:29pm

Why would Jews, arriving in a place where there was no established
kehillah, abandon their own minhagim and adopt those of Jews who once
lived there, *even if they knew* these minhagim (which they would have
had no reason to do)? I asked you this before, and I know you read
the message, but you chose not to reply. Do you think that when Jews
once more settled in Recife in the 19th or 20th century they should
have converted to S-P, just because the previous kehilla there had been
S-P?!