Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 028

Tuesday, August 25 1998

• Avodah List
• Molad
• Mishna Berura
• The Mishnah B'rurah and the Aruch HaShulchan
• Piskei Halachah
• R Dessler & Da'as Torah
• Re: The Mishnah B'rurah and Ba'al Nefesh Yachmir
• Re: R Dessler & Da'as Torah
• Re: Piskei Halachah
• In defense of Rav Moshe's calculations
• RE: Avodah V1 #26
• Re: In defense of Rav Moshe's calculations
• Re: In defense of Rav Moshe's calculations
• SHulchan Aruch's Acceptance
• Re: SHulchan Aruch's Acceptance
• Re: The Mishnah B'rurah and Ba'al Nefesh Yachmir
• Re: In defense of Rav Moshe's calculations
• Re: The Mishnah B'rurah and Ba'al Nefesh Yachmir
• Re: The Mishnah B'rurah and Ba'al Nefesh Yachmir

Rabbosai:

Although baistefila is supposed to be defunct and all of you should have
been transferred en masse to the aishdas avodah list, I received an e-mail
today from an individual who was not transferred. If you have not been
receiving e-mails in a while, then you have not been subscribed to avoda
(and are missing some great discussions). Please let Micha and me know
ASAP if you have been overlooked as well.

If you have been missed, and would like to receive some back issues,
please let me know, and I will ask if that is possible.

Thanks, and sorry!
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

The source is the Gemara in RH 30b, cited by the Kuzari in his famous
discussion of the International Dateline. The problem is is the molad in
Yerushalayim is after 12 noon on the day that should have been RC, because
then there would not have been a full night and day from the new month at
the furthest point from Yerushalayim 18 hours away.

YGB

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Mendel wrote:

> Re: Moled after 6pm
> 
> The Moled for Chodesh Ellul appeared in most calendars as 6 11 14 Motzoi
> Shabbos.  I don't know of a single place in the world (OK Israel Europe
> and USA are my World) that 6 11 was Motzoi Shabbos. I have heard that in
> Moled calculations after 6pm is considered the "next day" does anybody
> have a Makor for this? 
>   

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Clark, Eli wrote:

> >R. Daniel Eidensohn writes:
> >After World War II there was a concerted effort by the
> >Chazon Ish and Rav Aaron Kotler to establish the Mishna Berura as the common
> >denominator of halacha for Klall Yisroel. The Aruch HaShulchan which
> >represented one Gadol's opinion - was not as acceptable as the Mishna Berura
> which was
> >more oncerned with covering all bases.
>
> I have never heard this before.  I would love to see some evidence.
>

Rabbi Moshe Heinemen told me that his rebbe - Rav Aaron Kotler used to carry
around a Mishna Berura - to give it more status.  The emphasis of the Chazon Ish
is stated in his collected letters Volume II letter 41 in which he strongly
praises the Mishna Berura as being in the line from the Sanhedrin and Shulchan
Aruch. My assertion is based on the comments of a number of respected rabbonim -
I have seen nothing in writing.

A number of posts contrast these two sepharim. To their observations, I'd like
to add:

1- R Haym Soloveitchik's distinction between textualism and mimeticism.
   The MB is textualist. He usually goes back to the sources even where the
   hamon am already have a consistant practice. The Aruch HaShulchan more
   often finds sources for the existing practice.

   This may be related to the Chafeitz Chaim's mussar background. The mussar
   movement, like any movement, chooses a consistant philosophy over memetics.

2- The MB was written by a ba'al mussar. His "ba'al nefesh yachmir" isn't so
   much a halachic p'sak as mussar advice. The "ba'al nefesh" is one who seeks
   to go beyond shuras hadin, which to the Chafeitz Chaim means mussar.

2b- Actually, to a true ba'al mussar, there is no real line between halachah
    and mussar. (Halachah is defined as the bare minimum mussar program.) This
    means that the sefer's usefulness to someone following a derech other than
    the mussar movement is suspect. (Rav Dovid actually recommended the Aruch
    HaShulchan over the Mishnah B'rurah for this reason.)

4- It is possible the Mishnah B'rurah was intended as a layman's guide, and
   therefore didn't provide a p'sak. Instead, where a variety of piskei
   halachah have not been eliminated, he presents the plurality so that the
   individual knows to seek his posek.

   This is a milder form of the suggestion that MB didn't believe in piskei
   halachah. I'm suggesting that he did, however, the MB wasn't a collection
   of them.

   The Aruch Hashulchan reads more like a collection of teshuvos, providing
   background to each p'sak, because they are piskei halachah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5902 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 24-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Just a short note.

The word "p'sak" means a termination. The expression "p'sak halachah"
therefore refers to ending the rejected p'sak, not the choosing of the correct
one.

This would agree with the "eilu va'eilu" position championed by R' YGB, in
that it suggests that a poseik's job is to reject the usefullness of a given
valid option, not the selection of the truth.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5902 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 24-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

The earliest known source for the modern usage of "da'as Torah" is Rav Yisrael
Salanter. It is therefore unsurprising to find Rav Dessler, a ba'al mussar,
endorsing the idea of approaching a rav for everyday decisions.

As I said in my previous email, mussar's philosophy intentionally blurs the
line between halachah and non-halachah.

Also, the concept is very similar to the Besh"t's innovation in the
relationship between chassid and tzadik.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5902 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 24-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

I happen to be working on an essay on chumros, and admit that the ba'al
nefesh yachmir of the MB was causing me grave difficulty. It is clearly
not the ba'al nefesh of R' Chaim Volozhiner, PA Chap. 3, who dsays it
means one who overcomes his material substance with spirituality (nefesh). 
I think, rather, that the MB subscribes to the philosophy of psak espoused
by R' BZ Abba-Shaul, that halacha is hypothetically always open to review
and if you follow the "wrong" opinion - even if now it may be espoused by
a majority of poskim - you may be in for an unpleasant, quite hot
surprise, in Olam Ha'Emes.

Now, even the MB, RBZAS, and our chaverim R' Daniel E. and R' Shraga R.
who fly the banner of the philosophy of psak above have their limits as to
how far back you must go to avoid being roasted. According to their
discussions today, R' Shraga holds that if it's in the Talmud you're safe;
R' Daniel holds that if it's in the SA you can assume that you will have
a spot in the air conditioned area achar me'ah ve'esrim, but, for them
both (leaving out, for now, my family feud with R' Chaim on mis'asek), if
you, say follow one of the mekillim on yoshon and get up there and find a
Beis Din shel Ma'alah presided over by Briskers you are going to have a
tough time!

YGB 

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Micha Berger wrote:

> 2- The MB was written by a ba'al mussar. His "ba'al nefesh yachmir" isn't so
>    much a halachic p'sak as mussar advice. The "ba'al nefesh" is one who seeks
>    to go beyond shuras hadin, which to the Chafeitz Chaim means mussar.
> 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 98-08-24 22:28:30 EDT, you write:

<< 
 The earliest known source for the modern usage of "da'as Torah" is Rav
Yisrael
 Salanter. It is therefore unsurprising to find Rav Dessler, a ba'al mussar,
 endorsing the idea of approaching a rav for everyday decisions.
 
 As I said in my previous email, mussar's philosophy intentionally blurs the
 line between halachah and non-halachah.
 
 Also, the concept is very similar to the Besh"t's innovation in the
 relationship between chassid and tzadik.
 
 -mi
 
 -- 
 Micha Berger (973) 916-0287  >>

I've heard it said a number of times that mitnagdic roshei yeshiva are now
like chassidic rebbes.  Has anyone posited a theory as to why 2 diverse
movements have resulted in this approach in the same historical time frame(eg
outside sociological developments, 'trasference' from one movement to the
other,etc.)?

Kol Tuv
Joel

In a message dated 98-08-24 22:35:01 EDT, you write:

<< 
 The word "p'sak" means a termination. The expression "p'sak halachah"
 therefore refers to ending the rejected p'sak, not the choosing of the
correct
 one.
 
 This would agree with the "eilu va'eilu" position championed by R' YGB, in
 that it suggests that a poseik's job is to reject the usefullness of a given
 valid option, not the selection of the truth.
 
 -mi
 
 -- 
 Micha Berger  >>

Interesting, are there any sources that define psak this way? Also why( to the
best of my knowledge) does the expression psak halacha not appear in the
gemora( I think it just says 'amar ...halacha c...'?

Kol Tuv
Joel 

From what I have seen, there seem to be two approaches among the poskim
on how to calculate Tzeis Hakochavim. One is based on a gemara which says
that a person can walk 40 mil in a day; this will yield 18, 22.5, or 24
minutes per mil when various interpretations are used. (Details available
on request.) The other approach is based on the darkness of the sky
and/or the appearance of the stars.

Once the sun has set, it takes 4 mil for the sky to get dark enough that
Rabenu Tam will hold that Tzeis Hakochavim has occurred, and he considers
the last 3/16 of that time to be Bein Hashmashos. The Gra holds that the
*first* 3/16 of that period to be Bein Hashmashos.

As far as I know, just about everyone (except the Yereim?) agrees to the
above. Rav Moshe's only chidush is that he is calculating the duration of
a mil as 1/4 of the time it takes to get dark, whereas everyone else
calculates the time it takes to get dark as 4 times the duration of a
mil. I understand that many people might consider this to be a baseless
innovation, but please consider the alternative: If, at 50 minutes after
sh'kia, the sky is already dark as midnight and full of stars, doesn't it
seem a bit ridiculous to *require* waiting an additional 22 minutes?

(Interesting note: Rav Moshe uses this 12 1/2 minute mil for calculating
Bein Hashmashos, but I have not seen him suggest it for any other
halachos, such as for dough to become chometz, or for salting meat, or
whatever.)

Akiva Miller

PS: In regards to my reference yesterday from Rav Reuven Feinstein, <<<
that his father had given him 3 distinct figures on different occasions,
those being 40, 45 and 50 minutes >>>, it is interesting to note that the
Igros Moshe, Even Haezer 4, Siman 84:5 says that the time for Krias Sh'ma
in New York is about ("erech") 3/4 of an hour after sh'kia.


_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

> 
> Actually I have a few questions on this subject that have been bothering me
> for a while 
> Didn;t the siege of the ChorBon Bayis Shini begin PeSach time when people
> were in Yerosholim for Pesach and couldn't get back home because of the
> siege on Yeroshloim I vaguely remember reading this in Josephus. 
I don't know whether or not this is true (I haven't read Josephus) but it
wouldn't bother me because Israel was already under Roman rule, what I'm
refering to is the invasion from outsiders during a holiday when Israel's
borders were unprotected, the specific raid on Jerusalem wouldn't be
relevant to this point.

> A second point is that there was never a time when ALL kcal yisroel went up
> to Yerosholim. They didn't all go up when Yisroel split up from Yehuda. The
> only time when ALL Klal Yisroel went up Alias Regal was perhaps in Shlomah
> HaMelach's time.
Whether all of klal yisroel went up or only all of malchus Yehuda the
point is the same, then malchus Yehuda should have been attacked,
especially by its enemy Malchus Yisroel (during the years that there was
actual civil war) Furthermore, the mere writing of the command in a book
which you are trying to prove is divine is evidence (as mentioned in the
original post) regardless of historical events which happened after.
> Now I don't know this for sure, I'm sure the Talmidai Chachomim here will
> put me right, but weren't people who were "far away" Potor from Alia Regel,
> and apparently "far away" is only a few days travel on foot. 
> So what percentage of Klal Yisroel were actually Alia Ragel at the best
> times?      
  see Rambam hilchos chaggiga perek 2 halacha 1 where he
lists the paturim from
chaggiga and far away isn't included. If you have a source for this patur
by alias Regel please let me know
Elie Ginsparg

On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Kenneth G Miller wrote:

> As far as I know, just about everyone (except the Yereim?) agrees to the
> above. Rav Moshe's only chidush is that he is calculating the duration of
> a mil as 1/4 of the time it takes to get dark, whereas everyone else

But that is the point: The mil is static and cannot change based on locale
and observation!

> calculates the time it takes to get dark as 4 times the duration of a
> mil. I understand that many people might consider this to be a baseless
> innovation, but please consider the alternative: If, at 50 minutes after
> sh'kia, the sky is already dark as midnight and full of stars, doesn't it
> seem a bit ridiculous to *require* waiting an additional 22 minutes?
> 

That is an excellent question on Rabbeinu Tam, one of many. The Tos. Rid
is meyashev RT by saying that it is not the sky overhead that must be full
of stars, but the western horizon - and that is a later time.

Personally, it seems that RT was influenced by living in France. If you
look at Leo Levi's tables, you will notice that in Northern latitudes, it
never gets fully dark in the summer. Take Paris, for example. From Jun. 25
until Jul. 18, the sun does not go 19.8d beneath the horizon (the 90 min
RT shiur) and barely hits 16.1d beneath the horizon (well after 11 pm ST
with dawn only slightly after 2 am ST) (the 72 min RT shiur). I think that
it is also this phenomenon that led to the generally accepted custom -
clearly difficult - of waiting a fixed time on the clock, such as 72 min. 
- without seasonal adjustments. This is essential, to take another
example, in Gateshead, where, from May 16 until Jul 30, there is no 72 min
RT either! (Same problem in London - from Jun 3 until Jul 9 - I guess if
you are an ardent RT chassid there, you can just schedule a three week
vacation then.) Since it doesn't ever get "really"  dark, you are forced
to arbitrarily pick a fixed time after sheki'ah.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

The Biur Halacha in 261 (based on the Gra and other achronim) in a few places
says that the zman of 4 mil was for a particular place - Bavel in Tishrei and
Nissan.  In different places and different times of the year it is going to
change.  Once the zman is changing then the length of a mil in regard to zmanei
hayom also should change - or I am missing something.

Kol Tuv,
Shraga

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
>
> > As far as I know, just about everyone (except the Yereim?) agrees to the
> > above. Rav Moshe's only chidush is that he is calculating the duration of
> > a mil as 1/4 of the time it takes to get dark, whereas everyone else
>
> But that is the point: The mil is static and cannot change based on locale
> and observation!

-
>
>Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 23:36:25 +0300
>From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
>Subject: SHulchan Aruch:Acceptance
>
>
>The understanding of the acceptance of the Shulchan Aruch is a subset
>of  the understanding of the acceptance of the Talmud. There was in 
>fact
>no clear cut historical event that the Talmud was universally 
>accepted.
>The  Kesef Mishna asks in Hilchos Mamrim 2 1 "Why an Amora does not
>argue  with a  Tanna (since the Rambam says in dealing with doreissa
>issues a later court  can disagree with a previous one)". The Kesef
>Mishna answers:"It is  possible to speculate that from the end of the
>Mishna
>it as accepted that  the later generations would not disagree with the
>revious  ones. And they  did the same thing at the end of the period 
>of
>the gemora -  that from the  day it was ended no one has permission to
>argue with it".

This understanding of the Kesef Mishnah and the Rambam is not universally
held. R' ELchonon in Kuntres SOfrim Siman Beis os hey etc. seems to
understand that the Kesef Mishnah means a formal takanah. The Chazon Ish
in his haghos seems to understand the process the way you described, that
it was just a natural development. (That is also the way R' Elchonon
understands the Rambam's introduction)
>

>To a lesser degree the Shulchan Aruch with the Rema developed a 
>similar
>status i.e. presumed to be the Halacha unless proven otherwise. This 
>is
>stated most clearly by the Chazon Ish (Choshen Mishpat Liktutim simnon
>I). "...Halacha is always decided on the the basis of which proof is 
>the
>most convincing and even though we conduct ourselves according to the
>Shulchan Aruch, nevertheless we typically deviate from the Shulchan
>Aruch because the Achronim deviate with correct proofs according to 
>the
>understanding of the chochmim in each generation. In every halacha we
>are required to study the decisions of the Achronim because chochma is
>the deciding factor - however when things are deadlocked we go after 
>the
>one who is bigger and in this we have accepted the decisions of the 
>Beis
>Yosef and the Rema"
>
>
>The difference between the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch seem to be one of
>degree. The Talmud became such universal practice it can not be
>abrogated by proofs while subsequent practices whether Gaonim, 
>Rishonim
>or Shulchan Aruch was accepted but not absolutely and therefore can be
>displaced with proper proofs. Without proofs the Shulchan Aruch can 
>not
>be discarded.


I am not sure then what the specialness of the SHulchan Aruch is. It
seems from the way you described it that it just means that any halachah
that Klal Yisrael has accepted for a certain amount of time carries the
same weight as Shulchan Aruch. It  seems that the SHach etc. would then
get the sam e weight, we assum e him to be correct unless proven
otherwise since Klal Yisrael has accepted him as a binding authority. One
would imagine that this will eventually become the status of R' Moshe (at
least in AMerica). So then if I understand you correctly, the point is
that any contemporary posek who poskens a halachah that has been well
established and accepted, or relies on an earlier posek who has been well
established and accepted and has not been proven wrong in this particular
instance then by definition the p'sak must be "correct". I guess similar
to the idea in the Gem. "my ama debar".  I am not sure that this idea is
universal. JUst to give an example we find that the CHazon Ish had no
problem rejecting the heiter of mamid demamid in building sukos and
poskened that at least lechatchila it should not have any "metal" even
though the heiter was based upon the Magen Avrham and no one ever
challenged it before the Chazon Ish. 

SHraga ROthbart

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

In a message dated 98-08-25 07:12:05 EDT, you write:

<<  am not sure then what the specialness of the SHulchan Aruch is >>
SHraga ROthbart

I've heard it said(not sure by whom) that the reason for the universal
acceptance of the shulchan aruch was that R' Yosef Karo had 'real' smicha.
This was at a period of time where an attempt was made to restart smicha based
on rambam's statement that perhaps if all chachmei yisrael agreed.....>
However this attempt did not gain momentum and fizzled out- R' Yosef Karo was
one who did receive it then. i'm not sure this holds water but it's an
interesting historical note and one that was redebated within our own century.
Of couse there are those that say if all israel agreed on something smicha
would have to restart because we'd need a sanhedrin for mashiach to come and
he'd certainly be coming if we could all agree on anything :-)

Kol tuv
joel

>>>I think, rather, that the MB subscribes to the philosophy of psak
espoused by R' BZ Abba-Shaul, that halacha is hypothetically always open to
review and if you follow the "wrong" opinion - even if now it may be
espoused by a majority of poskim - you may be in for an unpleasant, quite
hot surprise, in Olam Ha'Emes....but, for them
both ... if you, say follow one of the mekillim on yoshon and get up there
and find a Beis Din shel Ma'alah presided over by Briskers you are going to
have a tough time!<<<

          YGB

Do you mean to suggest that if one adopts the framework of the MB it means
that the entire yeshiva of Bais Shamai is being roasted?  So basically if
you are a lamdan or a posek you basically risk gehennom every time you
pasken?   B'mechilas kvodcha, to me that is a reductio ad absurdum of such
a model.

We already agreed psak means that a final resolution is clear to the posek
as emes and not just a viable option among other viable options.  For most
of us, learning through a sugya and doing the proper research can give us
the confidence to make such  a decision.  For a "ba'al nefesh' it seems the
yirat shmayim, the fear that perhaps he has not learned properly, outweighs
the confidence needed to draw a conclusion, and hence even minority
opinions are not rejected.  I don't understand the tumult.

-CB

I believe you are missing something. Of course the zman of 4 mil is
static, as hiluch mil is static. And, of course, the measurement is taken
on an equinox day - perfectly proportioned - and extrapolated from there.
That is what Leo Levi did in his book (so have others). On an eqinox day
in EY or Bavel after zman hiluch 4 mil the sun will be 16.1d beneath the
horizon if a mil=18m or 19.8d beneath the horizon if a mil=22.5m (there is
another shitta for a mil - 24m, and another shiur for bein hashemashos in
Pesachim - 5 mil. Multiply those and you have the Brisker shitta of 120m).

You are not changing the zman hiluch mil, however, at all, ever. That
cannot change. What can change is the amount of time it takes for the sun
to reach that degree beneath the horizon.

YGB

On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Shragai Botwinick wrote:

> The Biur Halacha in 261 (based on the Gra and other achronim) in a few
> places says that the zman of 4 mil was for a particular place - Bavel in
> Tishrei and Nissan.  In different places and different times of the year
> it is going to change.  Once the zman is changing then the length of a
> mil in regard to zmanei hayom also should change - or I am missing
> something. 
> 
> Kol Tuv,
> Shraga
> 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 cbrown@bestware.com wrote:

> Do you mean to suggest that if one adopts the framework of the MB it means
> that the entire yeshiva of Bais Shamai is being roasted?  So basically if

Not "being" - you do not suffer eternal damnation for this sin. "Were"
would be more like it! I do not, of course, purport to know how much
gehinnom one gets for following a "wrong" psak according to the RBZAS et
al school. Maybe yisurin in Olam HaZeh suffice! The point was to bring out
a point.

Yes, I *do* mean exactly to suggest that RBZAS et al's perspective on eilu
va'eilu implies exactly that.

> you are a lamdan or a posek you basically risk gehennom every time you
> pasken?   B'mechilas kvodcha, to me that is a reductio ad absurdum of such
> a model.

'Tis indeed. Kindly disprove it. Bear in mind: This is not *my* model. If
it is yours, well, then defend it!

> We already agreed psak means that a final resolution is clear to the posek
> as emes and not just a viable option among other viable options.  For most
> of us, learning through a sugya and doing the proper research can give us
> the confidence to make such  a decision.  For a "ba'al nefesh' it seems the
> yirat shmayim, the fear that perhaps he has not learned properly, outweighs
> the confidence needed to draw a conclusion, and hence even minority
> opinions are not rejected.  I don't understand the tumult.
> 

*I* certainly agree with you - but you have, not explicitly, but
implicitly - accepted the concept of multiple truths in halacha. Shades of
our old Ritva in Eruvin. We already know that others have had grave
difficulty with that Ritva. Again, l'shitasam, they are always in peril -
and, it follows, in your example of Beis Shammai - retroactive peril as
well.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

I also don't think the M"B thought he was fomulating a specific philosophy
when he wrote his work and said B"N yachmir, but in true deconstrctionist
spirit that shouldn't stop anyone from analyzing such  statements.

YGB: I agree with that statement - I like it - could you please post it. It
probably is true - were the MB to have philosophized, he would have
realized that he had created a whopper of a conundrum.

ME: Do you mean to suggest that if one adopts the framework of the MB it
means that the entire yeshiva of Bais Shamai is being roasted?

YGB: Yes, I *do* mean exactly to suggest that RBZAS et al's perspective on
eilu va'eilu implies exactly that.

ME: you are a lamdan or a posek you basically risk gehennom every time you
pasken?...that is a reductio ad absurdum of such

YGB: Tis indeed. Kindly disprove it. Bear in mind: This is not *my* model.
If it is yours, well, then defend it!

Its not my model either, as I posted the Ritva in past occasions on
multiple truths.  Reducing something to an absurd proposition is a disproof
- that's the whole point of reductio ad absurdum - reducing an argument to
a premis that is untenable.  I still don't follow the point of all this.
Who says the M"B doesn't accept a notion of multiple truths, dependent on
one's level?  He didn't create the conundrum; its forcing him into a model
of elu v;elu that assumes absolute truths that is creating the problem.

-CB

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]