Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 092

Friday, August 24 2001

• Kant
• causality
• Re: causality
• Re: knowledge and proof
• Re: Dor Revi'i on tamim tihiyeh im ha-Sheim Eloqekha
• minhag and majority
• Re: minhag
• Re: Minhag was Re: The SR's views on yishuv EYQ
• Re: SR and yishuv EY
• Man Beast Hybrid
• Origin of "besha'ah tovah umutzlachas"?
• uVorei es hakol
• Re: Origin of "besha'ah tovah umutzlachas"?
• ritzon yirei'av yaaseh
• Pig Parts (was: Man Beast Hybrid)
• Re: knowledge and proof
• Re: Minhag was Re: The SR's views on yishuv EYQ

>: One may accept the principle of causality (whatever that means) without
>: any direct experience of causality because without it science is
>: impossible.

> Actually, science is willing to throw causality out. All the equations
> work whether time is a positive or negative number. The "arrow of time"

But we are discussing Kant and he was not.

>: 2. This kind of transcendental deduction can be utilized in a Jewish
>: context if one is convinced of Torah miSinai and then infers that there
>: cannot be a Torah without a G-d who commands it. Such a situation is
>: logically possible, but I'm not sure how much use these ideas have for
>: anyone who is at sea respecting G-d.

> I think they suggest that if one's experience with halachah leads one to
> accept Mesorah as a reliable source, that experience could then lead to
> belief in TmS and therefore G-d.

Again this is very far from Kant in a different direction.

> The Chaveir opens with a key point that philosophy is a necessary second
> best for people (like the Greeks) who lack a mesorah. The Chaveir doesn't
> bring in the rest of it until after the king asks if this means that
> people like him, who come from outside the mesorah, have no place in
> Yahadus. So for the king's benefit, he has to establish the uniqueness
> of our mesorah. For the rest of us, where mesorah ought to be subjective,
> this should not be the foundation of our belief.

What is meant by doing without philosophy? If one means that people
ordinarily don't feel the need to justify propositions that are obvious to
them, and that philosophy is the attempt to provide such justification,
then the Kuzari is not requiring everyone to philosophize, only people
who have problems. In that mesora is NOT the foundation for belief,
because, in fact, the believer is not concerned about foundations at all.

One problem we have today is many people are convinced that foundations
are necessary and the only question for is where to look for those
foundations. Among professional philosophers this is not taken for
granted. Those who insist upon foundations are called "Foundationalists"
and once a group has a name, one can infer that their position is
controversial. (Again, the seminal author is Wittgenstein.)

[Micha Berger:]
> Since I got a few requests, I'll give it a shot. I hope it's not
> too far afield. IMHO, belief in causality touches on too many ikkarei
> emunah to be ignored: hashgachah peratis, the role of hishtadlus,
> bechirah (which implies that causality in physics can have gaps), etc..

Whether physics requires causality or not does not determine whether other
disciplines, such as psychology, biology and last but certainly not least,
Halakha, require the idea of causality. (See R. Soloveitchik's Halakhic
Mind, where he focuses on the concept of time, but the same principle
can be extended to other concepts).

> I was looking over the Kuzari cheilek aleph, and could not find a
> place where he invokes the number of people in dor hamidbar as proof of
> yetzi'as Mitzrayim or ma'amad har Sinai. It does appear as part of his
> argument (par 44-52) that we have a better record of pre-Sinai events
> than others....

I will check. These "minor" points may be quite important in analyzing
Rihal and medieval Jewish thought in general.

On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 10:24:28AM -0400, Shalom Carmy wrote:
: Whether physics requires causality or not does not determine whether other
: disciplines, such as psychology, biology and last but certainly not least,
: Halakha, require the idea of causality...

Halachah and possibly psychology involve things that aren't physical.
I say "possibly psychology" because that involves the question of
the relationship between mind and soul -- if they even are different
things.

If biology requires causality and physics doesn't support the notion,
then it's simply a useful metaphor and not a reality in biology either.

-mi

On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 11:52:45PM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: Tefila is a very important part of my life, but I usually see it as
: a one-way communication from me to HaShem. With enough kavana, I can
: sometimes reach the level of "hitpalel" -- the reflexive form of the verb,
: in which I realize that the purpose of tefilah is *not* to speak to the
: One Who already knows all my thoughts, but rather to impress upon *myself*
: how dependent I am on Him.

Yes, that's tefillah. What about tachanunim?

I've raised the subject a number of times in the past:
	http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n133.shtml#06
	http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n133.shtml#08
	http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n105.shtml#03
	http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n007.shtml#16

In short, the Gra defines tachanunim as an expression of what's on your
mind. "E-lokai Netzor", Tachanun, and the "Harachaman"s were written as
tachanunim. Of course, once standardized they serve more as trellises for
tachanunim.

Not to mention Yiddish collections of techines for women.

And yet today, outside of Breslov, few pay attention to the idea.

The well-known principle in mussar is that if one wants to feel ahavah for
another one should start by acting as though the ahavah is already there.
I would think, therefore, that techinos are a critical part of developing
one's ahavas hashem.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

To be posted soon on the Dor Revi'i website, www.dorrevii.org

tamim tihiyeh im ha-Sheim Eloqekha: Rashi comments:
    walk before Him wholeheartedly, put your hope in Him and do not
    attempt to investigate the future, but whatever it may be that comes
    upon you accept it wholeheartedly, and then you shall be with Him
    and become His portion

The Ramban, however, explains that we should direct our hearts toward
Him alone and we should seek after the future from His prophets, those
who are beloved by Him, from the Urim and the Thummim. It seems that
he inferred this from what is written below (Deuteronomy 18:15): "The
L-rd your G-d will raise up for you, a prophet like me from among you,
from your brethren - - him shall you heed." This seems to suggest that
we may seek after the future and ask what will happen to us, but may
do so only from a prophet. However, Rashi went along a different path
concerning this matter and understands "you shall be whole-hearted"
(tamim tihiyeh) to mean that you shall not attempt to search the future
at all. Only then can one be "whole-hearted" with the Eternal.

Although the verses below (Deuteronomy 18:14-15): "For these nations,
which you are about to dispossess, give heed to soothsayers and to
diviners; but as for you, the L-rd your G-d has not allowed you so to
do. The L-rd your G-d will raise up for you, a prophet like me from
among you, from your brethren - - him shall you heed" do contrast the
"soothsayers and diviners," who may not be consulted, with a prophet of
G-d, who shall be heeded, the contrast is to a prophet who will speak
in the name of the Eternal concerning any of the commandments. Thus,
even if a prophet should, under some extraordinary circumstance (hora'at
sha'ah), command you to act contrary to the law, as Eliyahu did at Mount
Carmel, you must listen to him. And by saying that these nations give
heed to soothsayers and to diviners, Moshe meant that even though these
nations have soothsayers and diviners who claim to be able to foretell
the future, no knowledge of the future is brought to them except through
their machinations of secret arts, magic and sorcery. Only then can they
grasp, as did the magicians of Egypt and their ilk, some fragment of the
future. However, we, the children of the living G-d, must have nothing
to do with this. Rather, the Eternal will communicate to His prophets
and they will tell us what we must know. But we may not search after
the future. Thus, Moshe said from this fact you can understand that the
Eternal does not want you to search after the future. While the nations
have soothsayers and diviners who perform their various machinations to
grasp some fragment of the future, to you the Eternal has given prophets
who will prophesy in His name when He confers His spirit upon them at the
time of His desiring. But He has not empowered those prophets to perform
any action by which they can bring prophecy down upon themselves. You
therefore must be whole-hearted with the L-rd your G-d and listen only
to the prophet who will speak to you in the name of the Eternal.

And the words of Rashi appear more reasonable than those of the Ramban,
because below it is written (Deuteronomy 18:16-19): "Just as you desired
of the L-rd your G-d at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said:
'Let me not hear the voice of the L-rd my G-d, or see this great fire
any more, lest I die'... I will raise them up for them a prophet like
you from among their brethren; and I will put My words in his mouth, and
he shall speak to them all that I shall command them. And whoever will
give heed unto My words which he shall speak in my name, I will require
it of him." From here it appears that the Scripture is speaking about
a prophet of the law who is giving prophecy in the name of the Eternal
that they should do this or do that, but not about a prophet who will
reveal that which is hidden. For (Deuteronomy 29:29) "the secret things
belong to the L-rd our G-d; but the things that are revealed belong to
us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this
law." This means that whatver is revealed to us from the secret things
is revealed only so that we may do our duty, and to warn the people what
will befall them should they not take heed to fulfill the Torah.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

>BTW in VM the SR discusses the topic of 'Ach'rei Rabim Lehatos"
>several times.
...
>He answers that maybe Chazal are telling us that only when the 'Yochid' -
>Yechido shel Olom  - is with the Rabim - then the Halocho is with the
>Rabim... (See VM pgs. 55-6)

cute but as even you imply not the halacha - we follow the majority not
the daas yachid.

I fully admit that the majority has to be qualified. As we all agree
the majority includes only shomre mitzvot. Also by majority I explicitly
said that this means an overwhelming majority, otherwise it splits into
distinct customs. Hence, it terms of heter mechira there still exists
two approaches to the topic. Calling names to one side does not change
the fact that many rabbaonim still hold of the heter.

Also everything depends on time. A majority at any time in history is
menaingless, psak and minhag are esteablished by those things that having
staying power over the years.

For example, can anyone explain why Ashkenazi psak is like the Rama and
not the Levush. After all the Levush is later and so we should pasken
ke=basrai. After all we do usually pasken like the Mishnah Berura against
Chaye Adam. Similalry most people pasken like Mishnah berura against
Arukh haShulchan.

The answer is that for whatever reasons one can give, the facts are
that certain poskim were accepted by klal yisrael and others fell
into disuse. How people on this list have ever looked up a Levush?
I previously mentioned that R. Yizchak Elchanan Spektor has fallen in
favor though at one point he was considered posek ha-dor.

This again proves that one needs to wait more than one generation to
make decisions.

One can argue if 50 years is long enough but I believe that the shitot
of SR have been rejected by the overwhelming majority of Torah Jews.
I would strongly suspect that in EY there are more followers of the
opinions of Tzvi Yehuda Kook which is diametrically opposite of SR
compared with members of the satmar community in Israel.

Eli Turkel

Re the back-and-forth in Avodah V7 #91 on Alainu's "u-moshav y'karo":
In minhag Frankfurt, this phrase _is_ replaced by "v'kisai k'vodo,"
but only, AFAIK, for the RH davening -- that implies to me that there's
nothing wrong with it per se but that the replacement phrase is more
appropriate for Yom HaDin. (In addition, the first "ain od" [i.e. not the
quoted second one] is replaced by "ain achair" -- there's no forgetting
the experience of the entire tzibbur loudly responding "EMES!" when the
SHaTZ says "ain achair"!)

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 01:35:00PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
:                                             Halacha should be more or
: less OBEJCTIVE not SUBJECTIVE This is similar in concept to why a Navi
: cannot add nor subtract to mitzvos although he can give all the mussar
: and Hahskafah he needs to say

Li nir'eh, determining what is TSBP is objective, but determining from
that what to pasken must be subjective. Which is why I think it's
important to have a poseik and a moreh derech who are on the same page
(typically, the same person).

: B) Reform: Do not be swayed by Svara to overturn Mesorah - otherwise
: you are on the slippery slope. IOW what is NOT subject to change?

Simply, things which are assur to change don't change. Ignoring the
halachos of change is dangerous, not change itself. This is getting
repetitious, as I think you've made this same claim at least twice
each volume so far. However, I noticed that I have actually given
to discrete answers, so I thought I should for once put them down
in the same place.

1- Hil Mamrim 2:1-3 speaks of when a beis din can overturn another.
It was suggested here that the authority of a poseik WRT an earlier
poseik should parallel that of a B"D in comparison to an earlier B"D.
Simply subtract from that authority the fact that with rare exception,
we assume that a rishon has "gadol mimenu bichachmah uvminyan"-like
power compared to an acharon. (With one or two possible exceptions.)

In any case, it would be hard to argue that the earlier B"D's ruling
is /less/ mutable than an earlier posek's pesak.

2- Looking at the Gra's examples (if we put aside the current "variq"
for a moment) they are all cases where the Gra found a halachic problem
with the status quo. Not merely that he preferred the other pesak.

E.g. the Ari's ke'arah violates "ein ma'avirim al hamitzvos", three
matzos defies "lechem oni", etc...

Back to "kisei kevodo"... this is why the sevarah I heard from RYBS
at a "yarchei kalah" in Boston is so important to me. Because saying
the Gra switch to avoid a gematria defies my "status quo must be
wrong" criterion".

BTW, that same gematria was given for a reason (in addition to the pun)
why one should spit when saying "hevel *varik*" a couple of lines
previous. However, the censors took that line out, not us.


: This is why - WADR - I totally disagree the Gra. The fact is that the
: nusach was used by gedolim for a number of generations ipmlies that
: they all argued with this Gra...

Except that both nusachos date back to the rishonim. He was arguing against
the choice of nusach that later became the status quo. And that could have
been a publisher's preference.

This is another possible explanation as to how "kisei kevodo" doesn't defy
my second criterion.

: So when RYBS protests a Bracha in Hallel when it first happens then
: you have a classic case of mach'ah...

You can't cite RYBS on the berachah for Hallel on Yom ha'Atzma'ut without
noting that he also did away with the "amein" after that berachah whenever
Hallel is said. RYBS clearly had some notion of the value of permanence
of nusach, but it wasn't his only value in making these decisions. His
nusach is /far/ from standard Litvish.



On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 05:29:10PM -0400, R' Elazar M Teitz wrote:
: As for anthropomorphism, why is "moshav y'karo" any different from
: "yoshev al kise rom v'nisa"? For that matter, how does it differ from
: the Gra's nusach, "v'chisei chvodo"? After all, "Hashomayim kis'i" does
: not refer to a seat in Heaven, but to the heaven itself being the seat
: (which is the reason given for substituting our nusach for that of the
: Tur and the Gra in the first place).

First, I should remind others that I'm repeating something besheim RYBS.
He didn't address this question. Therefore, while I'm proposing defenses
for the idea, the maskanah's authority should be taken as greater than
my sevaros for it. Feel free to object my own da'as, RYBS's OTOH is
more formidable.

Two objections come to mind:

1- Connotation. Is a "moshav" a "sitting place" or a "dwelling
   place"? Doesn't it actually have implications of both while "kisei"
   only denote the former? Also, while a "shevet" is a form of "makeil",
   the former denotes leadership, the latter does not. Yeshaiahu 1 would
   never have said "shevet shakeid ani ro'eh", it would ruin the whole
   mashal. Similarly, "kisei" connotes a throne, "haMelech yosheiv al
   kisei ram venisah". Using another word with the same translation
   doesn't do that.

2- Without knowing how anthropomorphication is mutar altogether, how can
   we argue that an equivalent term but one not used in Tanach is or
   isn't equivalent? We lack any idea about what it is we're looking
   for.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

In a message dated 8/21/2001 10:05:17am EDT, turkel@icase.edu writes:
> Thus, most of us would admit that the Gra was greater than CI.
> Nevertheless it many ways the impact of CI on actual practice is
> greater than the Gra....
> Similarly, R. Yitzchak Elchanan (Spektor) was considered the major
> posek of his generation. However, today his piskei halacha do not seem
> to carry the same weight.

The influence of psak is often a function of community.  As I have posted 
before, even if the whole world were modeh that the Beis Yosef were MUCH 
greater than the Rema, Ashkenazim would have followed the Rema anyway.

RYE Spektor was dominant in Lita in his, as was R. Chaim Ozer Grodzensky 
about 2 generations later in his day.  But Lita is not the entire velt.

At one time (pre-WWI) R. DZ Hoffmann was THE poseik in Germany, but his 
influence outside of Germany was probably limited.   

Shana Tovah
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

What would be the din on this?

Man-beast hybrid beyond talking stage
Human DNA in cow egg
Scott Foster
The Edmonton Journal

<http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/stories/20010822/659629.html&qs=Scott%20Foster>

Melding man and beast may sound like the stuff of science fiction,
but it's not.

Amid all the advances in genetic manipulation, the idea of combining
the DNA of animals and humans has gone beyond the talking stage --
it's been attempted.

Indeed, many scientists and academics are wondering how far it might
go and what the ethical implications would be. If a human were crossed
with a chimpanzee, for example, would it still be human? And if not,
then what would it be?

The first publicized case of animal-human hybrids took place in 1996
when Jose Cibelli, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts, took
DNA from his white blood cells by swabbing the inside of his cheek. He
then inserted the DNA sample into a hollowed-out cow egg.

...

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
<< Does anyone know the makor for saying "besha'ah tovah umutzlachas"?>>

        'ppears to me to be the same as saying mazal tov, sans astrology.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In the past, I suggested that the parallel in the pasuk:
    yotzeir or, uvorei choshech
    oseh shalom, uvorei es hara
... indicates that "ra" is the absence of shalom, just as or is the absence
of or. Since there are a number of places, such as makas choshech, in which
choshech is treated as a beryah, not an absence, I chouldn't make that strong
of a case for it.

This morning I caught myself saying "yatzar es ha'adam bichachmah uvara
vo nekavim..." And I realized it was an example where "bara" is used for
the creation of a hole, an absence. Which might be a point in favor of
my peshat in Yeshaiah.

(I also wonder if the navi was specifically addressing Zoroastran dualism
when he denies that there is one god of light/good and one of dark/evil.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
>> Does anyone know the makor for saying "besha'ah tovah umutzlachas"?
> 
> 'ppears to me to be the same as saying mazal tov, sans astrology.

Let's try and analyze the phrase.

Beshah Tovah can be translated to mean "In a propitious time" which
implies that any type of positive occurance in life has a possibility
of happening at any point in time that m,ay be good or bad or anything
inbetween, and that a wish that it happens at a propitious, or "good"
time has an impact on the event itself. This is also another way of
saying Mazal Tov which translates to mean ""Good Luck" or as Gershon
implies,"May the Mazalos impact you (or this event) for the good. Most
people who say Mazal tov usually mean to say "congratulations" or "I'm
happy for you". But in point of fact as I indicated above, (IMHO),
"BeShah Tovah" and "Mazal Tov" have virtually the same meaning.

The question arises, Does a given moment in time really impact a given
event? If so, is it because of the physical reality?... the spiritual
reality?... or both?

Physical reality does, of course impact on events. For example, a
baby born to a Jew in Europe during the Holocaust most definitetly
impacted on the physical being of both the child and his parents. In
some extreme cases children were smothered by hiding parents who were
afraid a crying baby would reveal them to their oppressors, the Nazis
or their sympathizers.

Spiritual reality also impacts on an event, I suppose, only I'm not
quite sure how we gauge that.

U'Mutzlachas transaltes to mean "and it should be successful". That is,
there should be no problems with the event refferenced now and forever.

Nothing wrong with that.

HM

From: Phyllostac@aol.com [mailto:Phyllostac@aol.com] on Areivim
> I don't know that 'ritzon yireiav yaaseh' applies here. We recently read of 
> HKB"H refusing the request / pleading of Moshe Rabbeinu to enter EY. Why was 
> he refused if rizton yireiav yaaseh means as expressed above?

This may be a machlokes Chazon Ish and Rav Dessler.  CI at the beginning of
Chap. 2 of Emunah U'Bitachon says that Hashem conducts the world according
to His plan and a person should not have bitachon that the person's desires
will be fulfilled, because maybe Hashem has other plans.  Rav Dessler in
Michtav MeEliyahu chelek 5 (somewhere between pages 50 and 100; look in the
table of contents) says that "some" say like the CI (w/o mentioning him by
name), but in Rav Dessler's view, if a person is deserving and prays for a
specific thing, Hashem will fulfill that person's desire.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

--- Stuart Klagsbrun <SKlagsbrun@agtnet.com> wrote:
> What would be the din on this?

> Man-beast hybrid beyond talking stage
> Human DNA in cow egg
> Scott Foster
> The Edmonton Journal
...

I am virtually certain that such a hybrid is not possible. But what
is more interesting is that, through genetic engineering, pigs can
be altered to produce human blood and other body parts such as human
hearts. I beleive this has already been attempted succesfully. I always
wonder though if they really are producing human parts. Eventhough they
might seem to be human, maybe our methods of measuring the "humanness" of
a body part only goes so far. Maybe if we develop more refined techniques
of measurement, we will detect here-to-fore unmeasurable "pig" attributes
which might in some way be detrimental to human existence.

I wonder what the Halachic ramifications are for these types of implants.
Obviously if Pikuach Nefesh is involved we go ahead. But how does
one measure acceptable risk when confronted with this new frontier in
medicine? Indeed... what are the risks?

HM

I wrote <<< I was never aware of any "longing or yearning" for a
connection with a Higher Power. I *was* aware of many contradictions
between the Judaism as practiced by my family and the Judaism that I
was taught >>>

Rabbi Wolpoe asked <<< But didn't you notice that OTHERS did not seem
bothered by these contradictions. >>>

On the contrary, many others were also bothered by the hypocrisy (or lack
of knowledge) in people who would fast on Yom Kipper yet drive to shul,
just for one example. There is even a common joke that if one is kosher
at home but eats treif out, then his kitchen will go to heaven but his
stomach will go to hell.

I am not the only person who was moved towards Torah by a desire to clean
up this hypocrisy. (I *am* aware that other people resolve the hypocisy
by dumping Judaism altogether.) I do not know what the statistics are:
there may be more or fewer of my kind than either of us think. My purpose
in responding to this thread is mainly to say that baalei teshuva are
not a monolithic group, but span the spectrum of motiviations.

Rabbi Wolpoe's post concluded <<< YOU chose at some level to be bothered
by contradictions and to act on that impulse. You might think this was
reasonable yet we know it was NOT normal in the meaning of "socially
normal" - because very few people choose that route. >>>

I think that "typical" might be a better word than "normal". In any case,
we seem to agree that there is indeed a small group who come to emunah
through a route other than the more popular one. It might be worth noting
that I received a personal email from another poster who told me that
he too started out as a Pascal's Wagerer.

Akiva Miller

RMB: 2- Looking at the Gra's examples (if we put aside the current
"variq"for a moment) they are all cases where the Gra found a halachic
problemwith the status quo. Not merely that he preferred the other pesak.

RRW: Your are pre-supposing another psak was a valid alternative.
My point is that it was rejected - kinda like Tefillin derabbeinu Tam.

RMB: And that could have been a publisher's preference.

RRW: This pre-suppposes that every Rav and Gadol were oblivious to what
they were saying and too kno note of errors that crept in. Quite an
implicit indictment of long-term massive negligence.

RMB You can't cite RYBS on the berachah for Hallel on Yom ha'Atzma'ut
without noting that he also did away with the "amein" after that berachah
whenever Hallel is said.

RRW: Sure I can because your point is really irrelevant to my point
about Mach'ah...

RMB: RYBS clearly had some notion of the value of permanence of nusach,
but it wasn't his only value in making these decisions. His nusach is
/far/ from standard Litvish.

RRW: You mean "Clearly RYBS was eclectic and so far no one has pinned
down RYBS so far." And I would add that is probably why RYBS avoided
publishing.


RMB: In any case, it would be hard to argue that the earlier B"D's ruling
is /less/ mutable than an earlier posek's pesak.

Indeed this is a basic C thesis. That every turn and precedent in history
Can be revisionastically revisited. Well here is a revisionist version
of the Gra. I say had the Gra seen C Teshuvos he would have agreed with
my shita because - Since he opposed greenery in Shul because it was too
Xtian, therefore he would oppose chaning Halachiah w/po Precdent because
it is too Reform. As midgets on the shoulders of the Gra, we have 200+
years of history to show how the C movement has exploited this loophole.
Are you aware that C's look to the Gra as a metnor? Probably because of
this opening.

Furthermore: I see Halachah like a ship with a ballast. Revisions from
right will only lead to revisions from the left as a counter-ballast.
While some progress and evolution is necessary, I would be wary of
following anyone's subjective view of Halachah w/o considering the impact
upon precedents and stability.

Truly we have been over this many times. The Reason I respond is that
I detect fundamental misperceptions of basic premises. Flawless logic
based upon shaky premises will yield errors. - GIGO. Therefore it is
easy to notice the same popular and pervasive misconceptions appaering
in various guises and forms.

Illustration: One group might consider their Gadol to be Moshiach.
Another group might find their Gadol to be Infallible. Another group
might find their Gadol to be Omniscient. But the underlying error of
idolizing humans is the common denominator. The difference of how that
same errors manifests is only in the details.

The point is we do not have a Sanhedrin nowadays. The Halachic system
is dependent upon building upon precedent. If you can jump around and
revise all the way back to a Mishnah and move forward again based upon
a fork in the road never taken, you have a model for how C and Masorti
re-work Halachah.

I am not in favor of using this methodology by right or left. It
is anti-Minhag Avoseinu Beyadeinu which is fundamental; AISI it is
encroaching upon Sanhedrin style powers.

Shana Tovah
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard

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


[ 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         ]