Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 046

Thursday, May 24 2001

• Rabbi Bechhofer's principle [was: Sheruth Leumi]
• sherut leumi
• Re: TSBP
• Re: Zman Yetziat Mitzrayim
• tefillin
• Re: Lubavitch Tefillin campaign - potential problems
• Re: Lubavitch Tefillin campaign - potential problems
• Re: Lubavitch Tefillin campaign - potential problems
• halachic like beis Shammai in future?
• Re: halocha like beis Shammai in future?
• Re: halocha like beis Shammai in future?
• Re: Avodah V7 #44
• Re: Siege on Yerushalyim and Sefirah (connection)
• tzedaka to those who won't work
• Re: Rabbi Bechhofer's principle [was: Sheruth Leumi]
• Re: Rabbi Bechhofer's principle [was: Sheruth Leumi]
• Re: Rabbi Bechhofer's principle [was: Sheruth Leumi]
• RE: Rabbi Bechhofer's principle [was: Sheruth Leumi]
• RE: Rabbi Bechhofer's principle [was: Sheruth Leumi]
• Re: Rabbi Bechhofer's principle [was: Sheruth Leumi]

I've been musing about Rabbi B's principle, which I would summarize as:

If a prominent Rav gives a psak without explanation it may not be
disagreed with (post mortem) because one cannot disprove an unproven
proposition.

1.  This seems to contradict an explicit passage in Bava Bathra 130b.

2. Rabbi Eidensohn has in these pages (so to speak) cited R. Feinstein
as having said that his tshuvoth have no value as halachic precedents;
their only value is the reasoning (and the argument - if you check the
texts (somewhere in vol. 8 IIRC) - applies not only to Rabbi Feinstein's
tshuvoth but more generally).

3. Anyone who's studied logic knows that a proposition can be disproved
even if the proposition lacks proof.

4. Anyone who's learned Torah has seen many attempts at disproving
assertions even when the assertions were devoid of explanation.

I would like, therefore, to radically reinterpret Rabbi B's proposition
so that it makes rudimentary sense, with the caveat that I know nothing
of sheruth leumi and therefore am not qualified to write about the topic.

My impression is that, in spite of the presence of Rabbi Kahaneman and
other great sages, Rabbi Karelitz was the ultimate posek in Bnei Brak,
and that he was among the founders of the community in Bnei Brak. As we
know, under certain circumstances the rav (=ultimate posek) of a town has
the authority to establish a town minhag, and, indeed, often a minhag
is established even though the rav meant it only as a psak rather than
a novel custom [the difference being that a psak can be disagreed with
by a successor; it is much harder to overrule a minhag].

I suggest that Rabbi Bechhofer meant that Rabbi Karelitz's prohibition
of performing sheruth leumi is now minhag bnei Bnei Brak, and therfore
is binding.

David Riceman

As having started the sherut leumi thread, I think that it degenerated
into pro and con sherut leumi, which was not my intention. My question
was given the intense opposition to sherut leumi, which seemed predicated
on having women outside the charedi environment, what was the substantial
difference between that and having women work in a nonharedi environment,
something that is now widely accepted, and is not viewed as destructive of
the home, zniut, or haredi society as SL was (and still is)? RYGB said in
the name of the CI that it was the fact that it was viewed as equivalent
of giyus banot which is problematic. While (unlike what some would
suppose) I would hardly dare to set up myself opposite the CI, torah hi
velilmod ani zarich (veda'ati kzara - something many here would agree with
:-)). Given the halacha in the rambam that in time of milchemet mitzva,
hakol yotzim, this seems to imply that some form of compulsory service
for women is, under certain conditions, permissible. (Whether that
is for actual zava or ancillary support is irrelevant to the issue of
sherut leumi) For milchemet mitzva, we have certain specific kulot, but
do not have a general heter for arayot. Therefore, that would seem(IMHO)
to imply that the mere notion of giyus banot should not be arayot,
and therefore the question is whether it is related to the specifics
of the particular proposal and the sponsoring organization, rather than
being a general psak that all forms of compulsory service are actually
forbidden. If not, how do we deal with the milhemet miztva issue (not
that I am proposing that we are in a milhement mitzva, a different issue)

With regard to the objection (stated in the name of Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky)
that the opposition is to any form of ba'alut over the isha other than
the father and the husband, I don't see how (IMHO) a boss in a company
or a govenrment job is fundamentally different, especially if the issue
of giyus, where one can not leave, is not part of the equation. (the
jobs that women had in the past most of the time did not involve being
under a male boss - eg having a store)

In so far as the issue of feeling some pressure to continue, the economic
reality is that most people have a difficult time quitting their jobs
even without any governmental issue.

RAA mentioned that Bais Yaakov forbids volunteering at a hospital even
outside of a SL context. What is the difference between such volunteering
and working at a hospital? Is that a function of the age of the girls
(e g, not an general halacha but an appraisal of the vulnerability of
students versus marrieds??

Lastly, some of the posters seemed to view that it was the mere
association of the SL with the government that passuled it, and having
(say) Bais Yaakov do it without the government would be acceptable.
While this is consonant with the Edah hacharedis position, it is not
(on most other issues) the mainstream aguda position, which has not
viewed government involvement in most things as something that's passul.
What is different here? Fuirthermore, as a matter of public relations,
the nonharedi crowd may be willing to accept the oppostion to SL based
on zniut and halachic issues. If it is based purely on the government
being passul, that is something that is guaranteed to worsen secular
dati interactions..

Meir Shinnar

In a message dated 5/21/01 10:38:13am EDT, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> In a recent shiur regarding TSBP, R' H Schachter mentioned sifro shel
> adam harishon which apparently contained information regarding future
> history in general and how halacha would evolve in specific. Does anyone
> know of any sources which discuss this sefer and its use in any detail?

See Avoda Zara 5a, Breishis Rabba 24:2 (on the Possuk) Zeh Sefer Toldos Odom,
and the Pirush MaHaRZV there.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

At 12:24 PM 5/23/01 +0300, Amihai & Tamara Bannett wrote:
>The Iron age is also called the Israelite age, what Prof. Elitzur says is
>that the Bronze (Canaanite) age did not end at the same time in all places.

The reason the Iron Age is also called the Israelite Age is that it's
commonly held that the Iron Age began in 1200 or so BCE.  But Amihai, if
this is so, then people like Israel Finkelstein are 100% right to say that
the Bible is wrong, historically.

The people who came into Eretz Yisrael at the beginning of the Iron Age did
not come from Egypt or the Transjordan.  They came in from northern Syria,
and they came in wave after wave.  First there were massive waves of
destruction, and then waves of migration, settling in the destroyed areas.

These new people settled in the north of the country, primarily.  The
people in the south maintained a continuity of culture from the Late Bronze
Age inhabitants of the land.  These Late Bronze people, who remained in the
south through the Iron Age, are identified by scholars as the Canaanites.
But strangely enough, these Canaanites spoke Biblical Hebrew, had a high
literate culture, and were in every way identical with Bnei Yisrael in the
days of the monarchy.

There is no sign of an invasion of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age or Iron
Age that looks anything like Yehoshua and Co.  There is, however, at the
end of the Early Bronze Age.  Archaeologist Rudolf Cohen noted this in an
article almost twenty years ago ("The Mysterious MB I People - Does the
Exodus Tradition in the Bible Preserve the Memory of Their Entry into
Canaan?" in Biblical Archeology Review IX:4 (1983), pp.16ff.).  His
solution was that we copied the story of this earlier invasion when we
wrote the Bible.  If we put the Exodus as late as you're arguing for, that
seems like the only possibility.

>It fits with sefer Shoftim. that bnei Israel were living in the hilly ares
>of Yehudah and Shomron, and the Goyim were in the vallies and by the sea.
>That's why where the Israelis lived it was already the Iron age, but where
>the goyim were, it was still the Bronze age.

This is a common misunderstanding of a pasuk in Shmuel Aleph (13:19, I
think) that says "there was no smith in Israel, because the Philistines
said "lest the Hebrews make swords or spears for themselves."  So we had to
go to the Philistines to get our farm implements sharpened.  But "charash",
or smith, doesn't mean "blacksmith".  It means a person who takes a raw
material and works it into a finished one.  There are references to a
charash of iron, a charash of bronze, a charash of stone.  When the
Babylonians exiled the Charash and Masger, Chazal say that the Charash were
teachers of young children.  I've always thought that was a wonderful term
for them.  That's what teachers of the young really do, after all.

The problem, Amihai, is that the concept of there having been Stone, Bronze
and Iron Ages is an ancient one.  It originated with the Greeks.  And some
people jumped on this pasuk as evidence of those ages.  But it doesn't say
anything of the sort.  Only that the Plishtim had, violently, one would
assume, destroyed all of our material-fashioning ability in order to
prevent us from making weapons.

The fact is, Amihai, that Iron Age and Bronze Age aren't even terms having
to do with metals usage.  They were once, but for the past century or so,
they have become nothing but fossil terminology.  For example, iron was in
heavy use in Asia Minor (Turkey) during the Bronze Age.  While it didn't
come into regular usage in Egypt until very late in the Iron Age.

>There were even places where
>they found Bronze age and Iron age archaeology together, just like it says
>in the tanach, that BY were following the goyim in some places.

Tanakh says nothing of the sort, I'm afraid.

>Another problem with dating YM in the early bronze age, is the time of 480
>years to binyan BHM. It is much longer from the early bronze age. You could
>bring Velikovsky's taana about changing all of the chronology, but it is
>possible but not probable.

Changing the chronology is not "Velikovsky's taana".  It's a simple
necessity.  Amihai, there is no solid foundation for the current dating of
the archaeological periods.  Archaeology cannot give us absolute dates.  It
can only give us a sequence.  It is like a map without a scale.  Suppose
you were to find a map of Israel with no scale on it, and you'd never been
there and never heard anything about it.  You could tell from the map that
Jerusalem is to the east of Tel Aviv, but you couldn't tell if it'd be a 45
minute drive or a 4 hour drive.  The same is true of archaeology.  It
requires absolute dates from elsewhere.

Today, it takes those dates primarily from Egyptian history.  Which itself
is a modern reconstruction.  There is no other place in the world where the
archaeology of a place is dated according to history from elsewhere.
Particularly when there is a local history that has fixed dates.  This is
solely because people consider Tanach to be non-historical and unreliable.

But there is no reason to think that.  Particularly for us.  And Tanakh is
the best thing to use as a method for putting a scale onto the map of
archaeology, because it is a local history, and it is not a modern
reconstruction of shards and partial inscriptions.  And, more than
anything, because it matches the archaeology.

If you accept the conventional dating, you have to conclude that while
there was an empire stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, it wasn't
ours.  We never had one.  While there was an invasion of Canaan that
matches the story in Yehoshua, it wasn't us.  We never did that.  There was
a highly literate Hebrew speaking nation living in Eretz Yisrael, but it
wasn't us.  It was the Canaanites.  Everything goes topsy turvy if you
insist on the conventional dating.  And there is honestly no basis for the
conventional dating.  None whatsoever.

>>> There are many other subjects, like the possible mention of Bnei Israel
>>> entering EY, in letter from the Canaanite kings to Pharaoh, in the letters
>>> found at Tel El Amarnah.

>> The Mari letters, as well.  These letters, dating from the Middle Bronze
>> Age, speak of a tribe called the Banu-Yamina, who lived in the south of
>> Eretz Yisrael.  A Syrian governor complains that he can't take a census of
>> these people, because if he does, their related tribe the Rabbayanu, who
>> live on the other side of the river, will attack them.  There are other
>> such documents, most of which don't receive the attention they should.

>What is their date?

Their date is the Middle Bronze Age.  The period of the Judges, according
to what I've been arguing here.  The period of Avraham Avinu, according to
what you've been arguing here.

Kol Tuv,
Lisa

> I''ll just note some of his 'headlines' on the problems he has with the
> tefilin campaign:
> Guf Noki, Nikoyon Hamachshovo, Sofek hirhur, Hesech hadaas, Bizu
> Hatefilin, Lo Siso, Kavono V'emuna, Mul Erva (on the streets), Brocho
> Levatolo, Yodayim nekiyos (the 'leigee' not having washed negel vasser
> etc.) Blurias, and a few more points.

I am confused by these points.
What if we have a (potential) ba-al teshuva.
Do we tell him not to wear tefillin until he gets all the details right?

Eli Turkel

At 01:22 PM 5/23/01 +1000, SBA wrote
>Lat week, someone showned me a sefer called "Yelamed Do'as" by a
>R' Yeshaye Binyomin Holzer of Kiryas Yoel - 5744 - which seems
>to be aimed at many of the Chabad Mivtzaim (650 pages).

>The author is obviously a TC with an agenda - and has about 14 pages
>on the Tefilin subject alone. He brings rayos to all his points from
>Shas and poskim (although I have no doubt that Chabadniks can also find
>rayos farkert).

What a ridiculous waste of obviously prodigious talent.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

In a message dated 5/23/01 7:38:47am EDT, sba@blaze.net.au writes:
> And BTW the Al Hageula v'al Hatemurah by the SR z'l also has a page or
> 2 criticising this mivtza.

See the response of  the L. Rebbe himself, in (among other places) Sefer
Shaarei Halacha Uminhag Vol. 1.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

I wrote:
> There were those during the time of the rishonim who argued that guf naki was
> a reason to patur people *entirely* from tefillin because one had to be a
> tzaddik before putting on tefillin. The rishonim strongly disputed this and
> said that anyone, whether tzaddik or rasha, is obligated to wear tefillin. Guf
> naki is a very limited concept and, in the few moments someone wears tefillin
> in these campaigns, is hardly an issue.

My source for this discussion is R. MM Kasher in his Torah Shelemah,
addenda to parashas Bo 41. He cites the Chinuch 421, R. Bachya in Kad
HaKemach erech tefillin, and Shu"t Min HaShamayim 26 who argue for
limiting the concept of guf naki. I think that R. Reuven Margolies
discusses this also in his footnotes to Shu"t Min HaShamayim.

One of our chaveirim sent me a private e-mail that R. MM Schneerson
discussed this in his Sha'arei Halacha uMinhag.

I also seem to recall that the Aruch HaShulchan writes that really today
no one can have a guf naki which is why only those who are obligated in
tefillin wear them for a short time during davening, while those who
are not obligated (i.e. women) are not allowed to wear them. Clearly,
a stam male Jew off the street is obligated to wear tefillin. A Non-Jew,
however, would be a problem according to the AH.

Gil Student

RRW:
>This Hassidic ideal is imho a warning NOT to denigrate LEARNING Beis Shammai
>in the context of lamdus, because on a spiritual level it is just as
>important as learning Beis Hillel

From: Eli Linas <linaseli@netvision.net.il>
> Why Chassidic? Are Litvaks mevazeh BS?!

Why Chassidic?
Because the thread started that way!

And why NOT Chassidic?  <smile>



From:  Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
> Since eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chayim
> therefore it is imperative to put effort into learning Beis Shammai's
> opinion EVEN if it is NOT lemaase in this world
> Because in the next world the LIMUD is what counts NOT the lemaase

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> Thanks for the interesting thought.
> However, using that sevara, one might say that all disputed halochos
> should be changed to be according to the losing side liosid lovo - why
> only is this stated WRT beis Shammai and beis Hillel (if that indeed is
> the case, as I believe it is).

Ein hachi nami

So if I give you an azhara to regard BS on par with BH do I also need to
give you an Azhara to make Abaye on par with Rava?

How about a bas kol taht says eilu v'eilu? Was that not beniddon didan BS
and BH?  So would not this be THE paradigmic case for eilu v'eilu?

The point re: BS is not just stam nice thought.  It's about how to approach
learning shittos we KNOW in advance are not lehalachah - expecially legabbei
Tannaim.


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

Nu, so tell me HOW do you know that Torah that has been rejected from
Halachah is still valid?
Perhaps non-Halachic Torah is ipso facto invalid?

Illustrations:
Do we learn the Apocrypha?
Do we learn Torah from Tzadukkim?
Karraim?

Please articulate:
What is NOT kehalacha and yet is still Torah?

Kol Tuv
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


Shalom and Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Mordechai wrote:
> I asked a friend of mine as well Rav Tzvi (Herschel) Schachter when I saw him
> a few nights ago about this and they both said that the source for the idea
> that liosid lovo the halocho will be like beis Shammai is from the Zohar - so
> it is not a gemoro.

> Anyway, the question is, would all authorities agree with this Zohar, as we
> know that we do not always pasken like the Zohar.

I'm wondering if this Zohar is not contradicted by the gemara that Beis
Shammai bemakom Beis Hillel einah Mishnah (Berachos 36b, Beitzah 11b,
Yevamos 9a)? Consider the two Mishnayos in Eduyos (1:5-6). According to
the first, the Mishnah includes a minority opinion in case a later beis
din decides the minority opinion is correct. According to the second, the
Mishnah includes a minority opinion so that a later authority arrives at
the same opinion, people can tell him that his opinion has already been
rejected. Lichora, the latter is what the gemara means by "einah Mishnah".

Gil Student

In a message dated 5/22/01 12:48:21pm EDT, Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
> therefore it is imperative to put effort into learning Beis Shammai's
> opinion EVEN if it is NOT lemaase in this world
> Because in the next world the LIMUD is what counts NOT the lemaase
> as ANY valid Torah!!

> So le'ossid lavo - when there is no practical Halachah but only the world of
> learning - Beis Shammai's' opinion is as much correct as Beis Hillel's.

Then the term Halacha KBeis Shamai is not correct.  (BTW The Tos. Y"T in
Tmura says that WRT a reason there is not Shayich to issue ruling and see
Rashi Ksubos 57b).



In a message dated 5/23/01 9:03:11am EDT, Phyllostac@aol.com writes:
> I asked a friend of mine as well Rav Tzvi (Herschel) Schachter when I
> saw him a few nights ago about this and they both said that the source
> for the idea that liosid lovo the halocho will be like beis Shammai is

The Mokor (AFAIK) for all this is the ARIZAL on Pshat of the Mishne Ovos
5:19 that Machlokes B"S and B"H Sofoh L'hiskayeim, this is brought by
the Ramaz (a Poseik as well as a Mkubal) in his Pirush Mikdash Melech
on Zohar (Breishis 16a), and see Lkutei Torah of the Baal Hatanya D"H
Vayikach Korach end of Ois 4.

> Anyway, the question is, would all authorities agree with this Zohar,
> as we know that we do not always pasken like the Zohar. Also, would this
> idea of a change in halocho not conflict with the idea / principle of

Among the answers given is that if there could be a new Minyan and
the Halacha would be changed, (there is a TShuva in the Sharis Yehuda
(brother of the Bal Hatanya) where he quotes the Bal Hatanya, that the
reason a Das Yochid can be added as a Snif is because there is always
the posability of a new Minyan and what was once Das Yochid becomes Das
Horov). However there is a Sicha from the L. Rebbe L"S Vol. 2, on this
issue who learns a different way in this ARIZAL, Vein Kan Mkoimoi)

> To argue the other side - there are teachings that the chazir will become
> kosher liosid lovo (a gemoro?) (but does that mean that the issur of
> chazir will become bateil somehow or perhaps that the chazir will change
> and become maalei geira, hence kosher?) and that certain yomim tovim
> will become bateil liosid lovo (but perhaps thses teachings are aggadic
> / midrashic and maybe not taken literally by all, etc.). Nevertheless,
> despite the above, I believe the basic operative principle is that the
> Torah will not change.

Much has been written on this see Sdei Chemed Klolim Ches.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 5/23/01 9:02:25am EDT, linaseli@netvision.net.il writes:
> Question: If there was a town of 100,00 people, and a plague began,
> continuing until 50,000 were dead and then stopped, that would obviously
> be reason for simcha. However, if it continued until all 100,000 died,
> well, it's true that after the last person died, the plague would have
> stopped, but it wouldn't be a sign of anything, and no reason for joy...
>         That being the case, what is the simcha of Lag B'Omer over the
> fact that that was the day R' Akiva's talmidim stopped dying? ...

See the Pri Chadash Al Asar.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>> Alternatively, perhaps we can say that these two dates became ra'ui likach
>> in the calendar, and therefore have a historic pattern of being yemei
>> tzarah. So, we do mourn the later events, but it's no coincidence that they
>> coincide with this earlier one.

In a message dated 5/22/01 5:52:07pm EDT, CMarkowitz@scor.com writes:
> My impression of the vort was along the lines of what you wrote above. Not
> that there is any halachic nafka mina, but rather that these days are ra'ui

Both were Mchavein, the L. Rebbe writes Al Derech Zeh, see Sefer Sha'arei
Halacha Uminhag Vol. 1 WRT Lag B'omer.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

See kli yakar - shmot 23:5 re:ki tireh chamor.....azov taazov imo -
He says that you're only chayav if the individual makes an effort.
I didn't find this brought down anywhere in the sifrei halacha

KT
Joel

David Riceman wrote:
> I've been musing about Rabbi B's principle, which I would summarize as:
> If a prominent Rav gives a psak without explanation it may not be 
> disagreed with (post mortem) because one cannot disprove an unproven 
> proposition.
> 1.  This seems to contradict an explicit passage in Bava Bathra 130b.

This was given as a pesak halachah lema'aseh!

For what it's worth, R. Hershel Schachter once told my chavrusa that if
he understands why RYBS said something and disagrees with it, he will
not follow RYBS's pesak. But if he does not understand why RYBS paskened
some way, he will follow the pesak even if he does not disagree with it.

Gil Student

David Riceman wrote:
>> I've been musing about Rabbi B's principle, which I would summarize as:
>> If a prominent Rav gives a psak without explanation it may not be
>> disagreed with (post mortem) because one cannot disprove an unproven
>> proposition.
>> 1.  This seems to contradict an explicit passage in Bava Bathra 130b.

At 02:45 PM 5/23/01 -0400, gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
>This was given as a pesak halachah lema'aseh!
>For what it's worth, R. Hershel Schachter once told my chavrusa that if he
>understands why RYBS said something and disagrees with it, he will not follow
>RYBS's pesak.  But if he does not understand why RYBS paskened some way, 
>he will follow the pesak even if he does not disagree with it.

Baruch she'Kevanti

I believe if you peruse the Rambam in Hil. Mamrim about when you need a BD 
gadol b'chochmo u'b'minyon and when you do not (to argue on prior Battei 
Din) you will find the source for Rabbi Bechhofer's Principle :-) .

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

In a message dated Wed, 23 May 2001 3:55:50pm EDT, gil.student@citicorp.com
writes:
> For what it's worth, R. Hershel Schachter once told my chavrusa that if
> he understands why RYBS said something and disagrees with it, he will
> not follow RYBS's pesak. But if he does not understand why RYBS paskened
> some way, he will follow the pesak even if he does not disagree with it.

I assume you mean even if he disagrees. Which is interesting as I got
the impression from his shiur on TSBP that a posek is supposed to pasken
against earlier poskim if he understands different(ie how can R' Moshe
go against the chafetz chaim) even if the earlier are greater(yiftach
bdoro etc.).

KT
Joel

From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
> I believe if you peruse the Rambam in Hil. Mamrim about when you need a BD 
> gadol b'chochmo u'b'minyon and when you do not (to argue on prior Battei 
> Din) you will find the source for Rabbi Bechhofer's Principle :-) .

Does Rabbi Bechhofer's Principle (RBP) apply even when the original psak was
given a great rav (in this case the Chazon Ish) rather than a Beis Din whose
psak is binding on all klal yisrael?

Yilamdeinu rabbeinu.



From: gil.student@citicorp.com [mailto:gil.student@citicorp.com]
>> If a prominent Rav gives a psak without explanation it may not be 
>> disagreed with (post mortem) because one cannot disprove an unproven 
>> proposition.
>> 1.  This seems to contradict an explicit passage in Bava Bathra 130b.
...
> For what it's worth, R. Hershel Schachter once told my chavrusa that if
> he understands why RYBS said something and disagrees with it, he will
> not follow RYBS's pesak. But if he does not understand why RYBS paskened
> some way, he will follow the pesak even if he does not ...agree with it.

Yesh l'chalek.

RHS is kafuf to his rebbe muvhak and will therefore not argue unless he is
absolutely sure that he understood RYBS' reasoning.  In contrast, klal
yisrael considered CI a great posek but not the only posek (as a matter of
fact, it seems that he often wasn't followed) and certainly (aside from a
certain sector klal yisrael, perhaps) klal yisrael wasn't kafuf to him in
the same way that a talmid muvhak would be kafuf to a rebbe muvhak.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

At 04:20 PM 5/23/01 -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>Does Rabbi Bechhofer's Principle (RBP) apply even when the original psak was
>given a great rav (in this case the Chazon Ish) rather than a Beis Din whose
>psak is binding on all klal yisrael?

Excellent point.

The *principle* is still in effect - although not the halacha.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

In a message dated Wed, 23 May 2001 3:55:50pm EDT, gil.student@citicorp.com
writes:
>> For what it's worth, R. Hershel Schachter once told my chavrusa that if
>> he understands why RYBS said something and disagrees with it, he will
>> not follow RYBS's pesak. But if he does not understand why RYBS paskened
>> some way, he will follow the pesak even if he does not disagree with it.

On 23 May 01, at 16:11, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> I assume you mean even if he disagrees. Which is interesting as I got
> the impression from his shiur on TSBP that a posek is supposed to pasken
> against earlier poskim if he understands different(ie how can R' Moshe
> go against the chafetz chaim) even if the earlier are greater(yiftach
> bdoro etc.).

I think you need to differentiate between where the later posek feels
that he understands the reasoning behind the earlier posek's psak (in
which case he may go against it), and where he does not understand the
reason (in which case he may not go against it).

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]