IF I SAW YOURS I WOULDNT HAVE POSTED MY OWN... CHAZAK U BARUCH. Simachot, Tiskoo LeShanim Raboth, Neimot Vetovot, AM YISRAEL CHAI, THE NATION OF ISRAEL WILL ENDURE FOREVER AND EVER. but we have to make teshuva to enjoy ”OUR INDIVIDUAL” survival

What a shame that R. Yosef Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch, was not as wise in Torah as Rabbi Bar Hayim, and wrote that the lulav should be taken on Shabbat -- even though he lived in Eretz Yisrael. We should all be thankful for learning that the Talmudic sages based their hakachic decisions on petty feelings of inferiority, and therefore we can blithely ignore their rulings. Who knows what other laws are based on such pettiness, and can be disregarded?

Who are you to lecture Louis Gordon!! It states in Ketubot 110: He who lives outside the Land has no G-d.

We will never know what motivated earlier sages to decide what they did. Peer pressure exists in every generation. Changing a minhag in some places is the equivalent of eating treif. Breaking the tradition might be heresy. Simply, we do not know what was behind the decision. But if the Mishna clearly states that in earlier times, everyone shook their lulav if the first day fell on shabbat, then that should be enough of a precedent to guide every Jew in the right direction. Yes, there will always be Jews that continue to avoid kitniyot on Pessach regardless of the fact that it makes no sense at all and if anything, is an averah because it divides the nation as well as adds something to the Torah that never existed.

Those who follow the Rav's psak have fulfilled the DeOraita Mitsva of Lulav this year. The rest didn't. The Mishna is very clear about this. Back then they acted on common sense.

B"H - Gentlemen, there is a simple explanation at hand: Only few people realize that the Jews in Eretz Israel are at a historic junction today. Our unique situation is determined by the fact that we are returning to repossess our G-d given Homeland after 2000 years of exile. Yet, we are coming back as a changed people: as Ashkenazim, as Sephardim and as Temanim. This is why most of our experts are ill-equipped to address the specific issues and challenges we face only in the Land: our elites, and I do have my reasons to avoid the term "rabbis", tend to look at things through a lens that distorts their vision: through their respective traditions, formed in the exile. Machon Shilo head HaRav David Bar Hayim is one of the few Torah scholars in Israel today who accepts our coming home for a fact. As a consequence of this approach he spent a lifetime learning, elaborating, deliberating and writing on nusah Eretz Yisrael and he is an authority on the relevant source, the Jerusalem Talmud. His shiurim should not be missed. They give an insight on what authentic Judaism in Eretz Israel - IS. For more on this and related issues, MP3s, events, etc. please visit www.machonshilo.org

Most of your message is true. However, the changes in the Teimanim from ancient times cannot logically be lumped in with the changes that occured in ANY other branch. The Teimanim are unique in that they were sequestered and isolated in the Middle East and not permitted to interface with the surrounding influences. They were forced to remain pristine. In fact, with the exception of very limited access to Rambam, et al., it is arguable that the Teimanim have not changed at all since Har Sinai in any way that cannot be attributed to modernization and technology until they were brought to Israel and forcibly shaven, their peiyot forcibly cut off, etc. in an effort by EuroJews to secularize them. Thus, the Teimanim are the most pristine living Torah on earth. Logically, Makhon Shiloh seems to be on the truest path to recovering and restoring Torah practice as understood and practiced at Har Sinai outside of the Teimanim, but respectful deference must remain toward the Teimanim as the most pristine living ideal on the planet. The Teimanim have earned it and it cannot be wrested away from them.

Research before typing.

get your research right because teh pakeed is documenting this (no, really he is) and will remind you of your error years from now. he might even threaten you with a lawsuit, as is his wont. only serious scholarship of the highest order is accepted on these talkbacks, so get up to speed, pal.

Please don't go over board. The Teimanim are very far from Har Sinai. They have all the chumrot that were added by the Bavli that came way after Mt Sinai. The Baladi Teimanim follow the Rambam and it is true that the Rambam is much closer to the Mishna/Talmud than the Shulchan Aruch/Mishna Brurah. The Rambam was not as influenced by practices that came later. But even the Teimanim don't always follow the Rambam and most of them were also influenced by practices that came later , just not as much as Ashkenazim and Spharadim.

the mishna sukkah 4:2 says מצות לולב כיצד כל העם מוליכין את לולביהן להר הבית. the intent is only when the beith hamikdash is around. otherwise the mitzvah does not push off the shabbath.

... and even if you come to Israel, you can bring your tuma from Chutz La'Aretz and try to live your life as if you live in voluntary exile. Or you can start anew... with www.machonshilo.org. Their classes are for both men and women.

Mr. Gordon, To put this issue down as a simple "rivalry" between the Chachamim of EY and Bavel is to remove any validity from the halachik process of the entire Talmud! Although as a Talmud student, your question as to the flow of the passage is good, your answer leaves much to be desired. The passage is obviously meant to teach us something, yet you would have us believe that it is, simply put, "We can't, so you can't either, Nah, Nah!" Rambam tells us that any decree made by Sanhedrin is considered as binding on all of Israel. His language here seems to tell us that this is one of those cases. He tells us that, "The Chachamim FORBADE the taking of the Lulav on shabbat, EVEN on the first day! You ignore the fact that even the Jerusalem Talmud seems to find no need to argue this point. I would hazard to say that even though you may have picked up your Lulav this past Shabbat, you did not fulfill any Mitzvah. We are taught elsewhere in the Talmud that the Chachamim have the power to take away our right to do a mitzvah with the "Shev V'al Taseh" rule. This seems to be a classic case... Saruk Eshel

1. The Sanhedrin did not decide this decree. 2. The Jerusalem Talmud clearly does not agree with Bavli on this. It leaves the psak of the mishna as it is.

Mishan 3:13 יום טוב הראשון של חג שחל להיות בשבת כל העם מוליכין את לולביהן לבית הכנסת "On the first day of the festival that fell on the Sabbath all the people would bring their lulavim to the synagogue......." As can be from Mishna 3.12 (which is previous sentence) this Mishna was written after the destrcution of the Beith Hamikdash. (After the Temple was destroyed, .....)

I have known Rav David Bar-Hayim for many, many years. He is an authentic, monumental Torah scholar who can go head to head with any other great Torah scholar. His only fault is his creativity and originality.

Indeed he is a great scholar, but he operates on false premises: The "competition" between Bavel and Eretz Yisrael, and the supremacy of Talmud Yerushalmi over Bavli. The first is conjecture, the second is false. The chain of Mesorah passed from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel and from there to Spain and France. This Bavli oriented scholarship also cast its influence over the community in Eretz Yisrael, hence the two days Rosh Hashana. . Rav BC also freely quotes from the Rambam, without noting the Rambam's directive: ( in the introduction) "but all things in the Bavli, all Israel is duty bound to follow, and we cause every city and state to follow the minhagim that they held and the gzerot that they issued and their takanot....)

I suppose you shook a Teimani Etrog on Shabbat then? Or do you just pick and choose where it's convenient for your self-righteousness?

Menachem, How do you know that the Sanhedrin did not rule on this? I agree that my view is conjecture, but based on the words of Rambam, the usage of the term "FORBADE" has those implications. Your statement about the stam statement of the Jerusalem Talmud has some merit, but the bigger question would be why they did not answer the obvious pasak of the TB. One could go either way on that... This is not the same case as only one day Rosh Hashanna, there at least we have clear early support for the facts on the ground. Here too, I would want to see clear statements rather than assumptions. Saruk

It is clear from the Bavli that it was their decision in Bavel to not take Lulav on Shabat. That is why they initially even say that in Israel they do take the Lulav. The Sanhedrin was in Israel The Jerusalem Talmud does not need to argue with the Bavli. It is a work on its own. It includes the Mishna and when you read it you are left with that Mishna. My assumption is that the Chachamim on the Jerusalem Talmud did not even see this psak of the Bavli. The reason I say that is that it seems that this gzeira came later. (because as pointed out the Bavli initialy says that they did take the Lulav in Erets Israel) Very oftern the Jerusalem Talmud does not argue statements made by the Bavli or even get into the discussions that the Bavli gets into as their is no reason to do so. The Mishna is very clear in this case. I can't give you facts on when they stopped taking lulav in Erets Israel because we just don't have enough information. But again the Jerusalem Talmud does not mention this Gzeira and this gzeira only came later even in the Bavli.