Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 078

Wednesday, December 26 2001

• Halachic Methodology
• Halacha methodology - Ikkarim Redux
• Moshiach
• Re: Moshiach
• Re: Pelishtim & R. Soloveitchik as academic
• Rav Ashi's S'michoh
• Re: the fast
• Re: R Berkovitz
• Re: Moshiach Redux
• Re: Rights and Entitlements
• RE: Mi chocHom veyishmor eileh...
• Fwd: Re: Yaakov Karah Keri'as Shma; Rogez
• Fwd: SICHOT62 -12: Parashat Vayechi
• Re: Rambam and REED
• Re: halacha methodology
• halacha and precedent
• Re: halacha methodology

On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 I wrote:
>> I would add that the derech of Chachamim and the mark of a talmid 
>> chacham,which includes being a yireh shamayim and an anav is to 
>> therefore consultwith others.

and on Wed, 19 Dec 2001, R.Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> commented
on the above:
>Such anivus must not get in the way of paskening, however. Treating a
>she'eilah as a safeiq (with rules of rov, safeiq de'Oraisa, etc..) is
>/avoiding/ pesaq. I do not see how the ET considers it a means of
>horaah. Pesaq is a means of birur, not living with the safeiq.

>Chazal give us a cautionary tale against this kind of undue anivus;
>it lead to churban bayis! When the anivus is due, only a ba'al ga'avah
>would run the risk of pasqening wrongly.

ZGG, I strongly agree.

In Y.Y. Brunstein, Avnei Gavit - Chebur Be-Inyanei Horaat Ha-Senhedrin
U-Batei Dinim Ha-Baim Achareihem (Yershalayim:5758) (an anthology )
in the chapter entitled Be-Issur Letamei Ha-Tahor Uletaheir Ha-Tamei:
[quoting TY Terumot end of c. 5, p. 30b (standard editions) and the end
of Chaggigah c.1 ):

"Amar Rebbi Lezar Ke-shem She-assur Letaheir et ha-tamei kach assur
letamei et ha-tahor".

He indicates that this TY is cited in SEMAG Assiin 111 and in the Hagaot
Maimoniot, Hilchot Mamrim, 1:5. Similarly as to Issur Ve-Heter he cites
TY AZ end of c.2: "Ke-shem she assur lehatir et ha-assur kach assur
leasor et ha-mutar".

In a message dated 12/22/01 7:28:48pm EST, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com writes:
> Remember the issue here is dayan shet'aah, it is NOT necessarily the case
> of lechatchila psak or hora'ah.... Rambam Sanhedrin 6
...
> Bepashtus, taking an opinion rejected by the Gmarma is toe'h bidvar
> mishhna taking an opinion rejected by post-talmudic hispashtus hama'seh
> is to'eh beshikkul hada'as - accorign to the Rambam
...

so re: the 13 ikkarim are they: 
Category 1 - psak of Gmara (dvar mishna)
Category 2 - issues in the gmara settled by nispashet later (shiklul hada'as)
Category 3 - Post Talmudic Minhag or psak

I vote for #2 and therefore the Rambam's ikkarim - while stemming from
TB Sanhedrin - are subject to the hispashtus of poskim.

I reject #1 because it is not clear what the bottom line is in the
bepashtus in the Gmara
#3 is possible, but the Rambam has worked very hard to tie this to the
Mishna nd Gmara in Sanhedrin (mostly daf 99)

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

My Uncle I's response.

Changing venue, if Micha consents, to Avodah, as we seem to be migrating
to actual Torah:

>> Thanks for the correction. That answers one of my questions but what about
>> the other questions? E.g. does he agree that the Meshichists belief that
>> the Rebbe will be resurrected... is Shtus? And why defend the belief if
>> he does?

> I think he hopes it is the Rebbe who will be resurrected, but acknowledges
> that it may well be someone else, or, of course, someone living, and, if I
> understand him correctly (as RSK points out, there is often a degree of
> obfuscation in these areas), holds it is unlikely that it the Rebbe who
> will be Moshiach, since most authorities hold Moshiach comes from the living.

> Why philosophize about my views when you can ask me directly. Do I believe 
> it to be shtus? In principle absolutely no. How can I? I would be limiting 
> G-d and run into problems with the views re Moshe Rabeinu, David Hamelech, 
> Daniel, Baal Shem Tov etc. - all of which are authoritative. As for going 
> around and claiming that it will definitely be the Rebbe, yes, that I 
> regard as shtus, because a)it is speculation at best; b)even in context of 
> nassi hador (whatever this term means, which is itself subject to 
> discussion) it can (and will) be the Rebbe PLUS all preceding nesi'ei 
> hadorot (which is what I accept in view of explanation of Arizal and Or 
> Hachayim Hakadosh), and may yet be someone else's body (from the living or 
> the dead); c) I will defend any legitimate proposition and attack its 
> arbitrary rejection - as in the well-known medieval (JEWISH) proverb "Love 
> Socrates, love Plato.. but above all love truth!!!" As for saying "I hope 
> it will be the Rebbe" - frankly, incorrect. I sincerely hope it is not the 
> Rebbe, because I don't want to share him with the "snags" who can't see 
> their own hand in front of them. I prefer him to remain my Rebbe with whom 
> I can continue to retain contact, which I would lose if he will be 
> Moshiach. Even when Moshiach will come, and al the nesi'ei hadorot will be 
> resurrected etc., I will continue going to the Rebbe (though he himself 
> will go to his Rebbe etc.). To me the Rebbe will not be enhanced in status 
> by becoming Moshiach. I don't suffer from the Eretz Yisroel-mentality that 
> I have to enhance the status by throwing wild titles or appointments etc. 
> That is exactly what the Rebbe condemned when he condemned the meshichists 
> a few years before his passing, by referring to them as ego-centrics whose 
> concern is that "MY Rebbe is Moshiach", thinking to gain 
> self-aggrandizement thereby.

> I don't know what you mean by "most authorities hold he will be of the 
> living." This may the "normative view" in general perception, because "of 
> the dead" appears superficially so strange and involves the principle of 
> the resurrection of the great tzadikim before the coming of Moshiach (as 
> stated categorically by the rishonim and elaborated on by Radvaz etc.) 
> which vast majority of even our so-called gedolim were unaware of (or 
> simply pleaded "don't know too much about it" etc.) until the issue of 
> Rebbe as Moshiach reared its head. Remember, lo ro'inu eino ra'ayoh, so 
> statement of "most" meaningless and void. Veda"l.

Kol Tuv,
YGB

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
wrote:
> My Uncle I's response: 
>> Why philosophize about my views when you can ask me directly. Do I believe 
>> it to be shtus? In principle absolutely no. How can I? I would be limiting 
>> G-d 

 From his own words that it seems to be that in fact he does beleive the
ressurection of the Rebbe as the Messiah and to bolster his argument
he cites the argument that denying the possibility would be in effect
limiting G-d. But isn't that the very same argument that Christians
use to explain immaculate conception?

That is the problem with using G-d's Omnipotence as an argument as this
argument can explain any abberation one wishes it to. What makes the
resurrection Shtus, IMHO is the limiting aspect of the dead Rebbe as the
only candidate if from the dead. Why not make it Moshe Rabbenu? What
better candidate can you have? It is also Shtus from the standpoint
of longstanding tradionnal mainstream views as Moshiach being from the
living. This had been the normative view of Lubavitch as well until the
Rebbe died. They would have been the most vocal opponents of a ressurected
Moshiach as too closely resembling Christian doctrine, which is another
reason to call it not only Shtus but dangerously close to Apikursus.

>> and run into problems with the views re Moshe Rabeinu, David Hamelech, 
>> Daniel, Baal Shem Tov etc. - all of which are authoritative. As for going 
>> around and claiming that it will definitely be the Rebbe, yes, that I 
>> regard as shtus, because a)it is speculation at best; b)even in context of 
>> nassi hador (whatever this term means, which is itself subject to 
>> discussion) it can (and will) be the Rebbe PLUS all preceding nesi'ei 
>> hadorot (which is what I accept in view of explanation of Arizal and Or 
>> Hachayim Hakadosh), and may yet be someone else's body (from the living or 
>> the dead); c) I will defend any legitimate proposition and attack its 
>> arbitrary rejection - as in the well-known medieval (JEWISH) proverb "Love 
>> Socrates, love Plato.. but above all love truth!!!"

Defending a theory because it is possible may make one intellectually
honest but if that is so why not defend Islam or Christianity as the
possible "Truth". As I said, if G-d is omnipotent then everything is
possible. The answer is that "Truth" after all is said and done must
ultimately fall into the category of belief which by it's nature does
not depend on imperical data or logical deduction. Belief, or Emunah
is as much based on these traits as it is on masoretic traditions and
ultimatly intuition.

Traditonal views must to a certain extent dictate normative
beleif. Otherwise you might as well choose any of the great philosophic
views about G-d you wish as most of them are beyond total refutation.

>> As for saying "I hope 
>> it will be the Rebbe" - frankly, incorrect. I sincerely hope it is not the 
>> Rebbe, because I don't want to share him with the "snags" who can't see 
>> their own hand in front of them. I prefer him to remain my Rebbe with whom 
>> I can continue to retain contact, which I would lose if he will be 
>> Moshiach. Even when Moshiach will come, and al the nesi'ei hadorot will be 
>> resurrected etc., I will continue going to the Rebbe (though he himself 
>> will go to his Rebbe etc.). To me the Rebbe will not be enhanced in status 
>> by becoming Moshiach. I don't suffer from the Eretz Yisroel-mentality that 
>> I have to enhance the status by throwing wild titles or appointments etc.

Is being Moshiach only a title? Is he saying that the Rebbe is so great
that his being Moshiach is somewhat besides the point? This impresses
me as being Shtus as well.
 
>> I don't know what you mean by "most authorities hold he will be of the 
>> living." This may the "normative view" in general perception, because "of 
>> the dead" appears superficially so strange and involves the principle of 
>> the resurrection of the great tzadikim before the coming of Moshiach (as 
>> stated categorically by the rishonim and elaborated on by Radvaz etc.) 

If this isn't a rationalization, nothing is. We all know about Techias
HaMesim. But Techias Hamesim was never intended to be the means of the
ressurection of a "Christ". (Christ is taken from the greek word "Christos"
meaning Messiah.)

HM

RabbiRichWolpoe writes:
> Another example would be Slichos on Shacharis/Musaph /Mincah of YK

> Svara stopped the minhag of Roedelshim and Vilna Kol Bo to say slichos
> and in Teaneck they now re-insert them al pi RYBS. But they do NOT
> restore the old ones, rather they come up with new ones because RYBS
> suggested that Slichos shold be said .IOW the Masorah is overlooked and
> they do what is told to them al pi wvar w/o actually researching to see
> that ther might be a longstanding tradition of how to do this.

> Now you may tell me that RM Soloveichik did it too - so what? I would
> not be surprised that all Briskers went back and reformulated based
> upon their derech in Shas w/o regard to how it played out in Minhaggim
> or Massoros of many including Maharil etc.
 
I think that more is being read here into the matter of Slichos on
Yom Kippur than should be. As I understand the situation, it was the
minhag to say slichos at all the t'fillos of YK, but unlike ma'ariv,
which had its own special ones, and unlike n'ilah, which is primarily
borrowed from other sources (mostly the slichos of the preceding two
weeks, but two lines -- "Rachem na" and "Sha'arei shamayim p'sach"
-- from Hoshana Rabba) but were again fixed, the ones for shacharis,
mussaf and minchah were borrowed from the previous weeks' slichos
but not standardized, different k'hillos saying different selections.
As a result, machzorim printed for general distribution, as opposed to
specific-kehillah machzorim, did not print specific s'lichos, but only the
framework which was common to all: Zchor rachamecha, Zchor lanu bris avos,
Shma koleinu, etc. (It should be borne in mind that the slichos that are
followed by the sh'losh esrei middos were originally intended for the
shat"z only, as the language of many of them indicate; e.g., the entire
"M'rubim tzorchei amcha" we say in n'ilah.) I recall reading that old
machzorim, right before Zchor rachamecha, would have the instruction
"Omrim kan s'lichos kanahug." With the passage of time, that line, and
with it the saying of s'lichos, was eliminated--not because of s'vara.
RYBS was machazir atarah l'yoshnah. I don't know what basis was used
for the specific ones said, but I suspect it was those of a specific
k'hillah with which he was familiar. In any event, it represents not
the overriding, but rather the restoration of m'sorah.

Elazar M. Teitz

RKmiller writes:
<... it includes statements made by Amoraim who lacked real
semicha. And in fact the editors themselves - Ravina and Rav Ashi -
lacked real semicha. If we *are* bound by them, I... On the other hand, 
there *are* many cases where we *don't* pasken like the Bavli. This could be 
because the Amoraim involved lacked semicha. Or...>

nope. the presumption that rav ashi/ravinoh/bavli amoroim lacked a
s'michoh (and presumably got by on one of those ersatz ner yisroel
creations) is essentially incorrect- though the impression surely stems
from the g'moroh's seemingly poshut assertion that there is no s'michoh
in chutz lo'oretz (B.sanhedrin 14). But the poshut understanding is
contradicted, and the reality of babylonian s'michoh is affirmed,
by numerous and quite explicit talmudic and geonic statements. there
was only one difference between bavli and israeli s'michoh and that was
with regard to dinei q'nosos, which was reserved for israeli musmochim,
but in all other ways they were of equal status. I would refer you
to J. Breuer's article in tarbitz - i don't quite have the precise
reference but will try to check - on the maimroh "godole me'rav, rabbi,
godole me'rabbi rabbon, godole me'rabbon sh'mo".

breuer advanced the suggestion - backed by source texts - that "rav"
and "rabbi" were precisely the same word, but in bovel - influenced by
the eastern aramaic habit of dropping final vowels - rabbi morphs into
rav. but the babylonian title of rav conveyed the same authority and
implication of s’michoh as the same word rabbi in eretz yisroel (except
for q'nosos - but then a number of the israeli musmochim, i.e. rabbis,
also had limited authorization without degrading their titles, so rav
should not be considered "lesser' than rabbi) .To deal with the maimroh of
"godole me'rav rabbi" as i recall, breuer advanced the notion that it was
simply a temporal description, not an ordering of titles. as a matter of
precedence, the tannoim (all of whom are israeli and thus called rabbi)
were perceived as greater than succeeding generations (i.e. godole me'rav
rabbi). but contemporary israeli and bavli amoroim -ravs and rabbis -
were all musmochim and equal (except for q'nosos).

breuer's suggestion re the origins of the term rav as realizatiuon of a
local dialect which dropped the final vowel, was also deployed to solve an
otherwise puzzling linguistic anomaly. to wit - calling someone e.g. "rav
ashi" is troubling since in hebrew and aramaic titles generally follow
the name, and with a definite article thrown as well - after the paradigm
"dovid ham'melech", or "hilni malch'soh". if rav is really the dialect
corruption of rabbi and was used identically, the anomaly disappears,
since rabbi is in s'michus (rav she'li) - as though one is actually
directly addressing the individual rov. “My master,....”

Mechy Frankel                          H: (301) 593-3949
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com            W: (703) 588-7424
michael.frankel@osd.mil

The m"b(550:6) basing himself on earlier sources says that a baal nefesh
should keep all the inuyim (except if it's leil tvilah) and leather
shoes(due to chucha and tlila).

The reason given seems to be that the tzibbur did not accept the same
level of inuyim as tisha baav(implying that the rabbanan had originally
attempted to establish the same level, or would have but judged that
the people wouldn't have accepted it)

Is anyone aware of the earliest source for this supposition(I don't
remember seeing this in taanit)?

Is anyone aware of another case where the rabbanan wanted to establish
something that the tzibbur would not accept and do we see in any of those
that a baal nefesh should be concerned to keep the original intent? For
example, should a baal nefesh fast on both the 9th and 10th of Av?

Does adding on to a rabbinic takana ever have any implication similar
to bal tosif ?

Tzom Kal (and a meaningful one as well)
Joel Rich

RRW wrote
> afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
>>  Also, RRW mentioned the idea that it may be ok to say that TSBK is
>>  very harsh because it deals with an ideal, din ready world, and 'Hazal
>>  softened it because they were commanded to infuse ra'hamim as we are
>>  unable to exist otherwise. This was offered as a possible limud zekhut
>>  on reb Berkovitz's ideas of drashot.

> Plz allow me to clarify
<smip>
> 2) This was made up by Chazal out of a sense of politcal correctness or
> Rachmanus.  This might be {boredrline} heresy. (Extreme Historical School)
<snip>
> My GUESS is that the objections to Z Frankel or E .Berkowitz were that they
> said something like #2 or it at least what was pereceifed was #2..

I am no expert on R Berkovitz, I just wanted to show that RRW's idea
that it ios possible to interpret RB thinking of TSBK as (seemingly)
harsh and TSBP softening that harshness, or infusing it with ra'hamim. The
power of the theory I quoted, namely the shmitot idea of some mekubalim,
is that the harsh vs. merciful nature of TSBK and TSBP is NOT in TSBK,
rather it is in the Divine Torah, written be-eish she'horah al gabei
levanah. TSBK as we know it is merely the primordial Torah of which only
one sefirah at a time is visible.

The idea of shmitot is controversial, and I am not claiming to accept
it or to reject it. There are many other cosmogonies to be found in
kabbalistic sefarim which do not claim such extreme idea of shemitot as
presented above. However, the existence of the theory demonstrates that
it has been acceptable, in some circles, in years past, to state that
TSBK is harsh and 'Hazal infused it with ra'hamim/softened it in TSBP.

However, such notions of Torah still do not leave IMHO any place for
political correctness. It may, however, make it possible to strive
for yosher and ra'hmanut. Thus, there may be still more cushioning for
reb Berkovitz.

Of course, I have already stated that I know very little about RB. In
fact, all I know about him is from Avodah/Areivim and a conversation
or two since the thread started; I cannot opine about RB's view of the
relationship between TSBK and TSBP.

Arie

In a message dated 12/24/01 8:59:59am EST, Akiva atwood@netvision.net.il writes:
> OTOH, Ani Ma'amin DOES dwell on the comng of Moshiach -- and it doesn't
> mention the Beis HaMikdash.

> To use modern terminology, I suspect Ani Ma'amin has gotten a lot more
> "airtime" over the centuries than either of the two songs you mentions.

True

But Ani maamin is NOT a plea for the coming of Moshiach, it's an
affimation of faith
Now Yishalch lekeitz hayamin MIGHT be construed as a plea or an
affirmation.

Do we have a tune to Sheyishlah lanu es mshicheinu the way we do to
Sheyibaneh Beis Hamikdash?

We all concur that Moshiach is going to come. The question is how to
focus our yearnings. On a persona or upon an event, process or project?
 
Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

> One overriding thought that day, through burial, and well past shiv'ah,
> was "Why me?" I think this is when I formed a position you have heard
> me mouth off about numerous times, my disdain for the psychology of
> entitlement.

R' Emanuel Feldman makes the same point in his book "Tales out of Shul."
He mentions that, during his years as a pulpit rabbi, he was asked "Why
me?" by many people in times of sorrow. Not once was he ever asked during
times of joy "Why me? Why is Hashem blessing me with such happiness?"
Ayin sham for elaboration. (I forget exactly where in the book, but I do
remember that is the first paragraph of a chapter.) Ever since reading
the book, I have made it a point to ask myself this question during
happy times.

(FWIW, I just saw an ad for another book by R' Feldman entitled "The
Shul Without a Clock." From the ad, it seems like a sequel to "Tales
out of Shul.")

KT
Aryeh

> The BST says that whilst those who are in the "Arbo'o tzerichim
> lehodos" category must indeed thank and praise Hashem for saving and
> rescuing them...but how much more should we thank Him for not putting
> us through the difficult times in the first place!?

> And 'dos iz pshat' - "Mi chochom veyishmor eleh - a chochom, who realises
> that he has been safeguarded and kept away from all these unpleasant
> happenings, "veyisbonenu chasdei Hashem... - should understand and
> appreciate the chasodim of Hashem..

This reminds me of RSZA's nusach for Birchas Hagomel (that I recently
shared with R' Carl). RSZA was never comfortable with the word "kol" in
Birchas Hagomel ("Hagomel leChayavim tovos shegemalani *kol* tov," and the
listeners answer: "Mi shegemalcha *kol* tov, Hu yigmalcha kol tov selah."
(Because it doesn't make sense to thank Hashem for giving us "all good"
when we just went through an experience that obviously wasn't so good.)

After RSZA saw a nusach (Nusach Ari? I forget; I can check if someone
wants to know) that omitted the (first two) "kol(s)", he changed his
minhag and from then on, he benched gomel without "kol". (And he also held
that using this revised nusach wasn't changing the minhag of the shul,
since bentching gomel is a private matter, not a congregational one.)

I suppose the explanation for the common nusach is that "Kol ma d'avid
rachmana, l'tav ovid", so even what seems to be not-good events in our
lives are really "tov" after all.

KT
Aryeh

[Fwded by RYGB. -mi]

I was thinking more of this and would add one nekudah: Yosef=kiddush
shamayim b'seiser, Yehudah=b'geluy (e.g. the gemara of adding a
letter to Yosef's name, etc. - I think this is a well known idea
so I won't elaborate). The 2 derachim of avodah correspond to shem
Havayah=giluy, beyond=tava, derech of Yehudah; shem Elokim=toch
hateva, derech of Yosef. At the moment of witnessing the reconciliation
(shalach lefanav *el Yosef*, meduyak) bet. Yehudah/Yosef, Ya'akov says
Hashem/Havayah=Hashem/Elokeinu, the 2 derachim are together one emes,
Hashem Echad.

(Compare with the hesber of Sefas Emes to the Maharal that Ya'akov read
k"s as avodah).

[2nd email, also fwded by RYGB. -mi]

> It is a true anachronism! Hachi hayah ad halom a Keri'as Shma that had a
> zman, etmahah?!

What's the kashe - if zman is d'oraysa, of course the avos kept the zmanim
(after all, they kept zmanei tefila). I guess I am too much a Brisker
to even see a problem here.

Anyway, the k"s here is connected with meeting Yosef, as is the
establishment of yeshiva - hence the diyuk in the pasuk shalach lefanav
*el Yosef*. Tif. Shlomo (Radomsk) writes: "Vayeitzei **ha-echad**
m'iti" = Ya'akov lost the power to be meyacheid the Shchina properly when
Yosef was lost. At the moment he meets Yosef he regains that ability.
(maharal already says this is not a k"s b'toras kiyum mitzvas k"s and
everyone prob. picks up on that).

Once I am on the topic of the Radomsker, one other nice point, courtesy
of Ariella [my sister, Chaim's wife - YGB].

Tif. Shlomo writes that the tikkun for galus is through arvus.
Ya'akov tikkein tefilas arvis = a lashon of arvus (Meshech Chochma
46:3 also discusses arvis as corresponding to Ya'akov and davka galus).
Only when Yehudah says "anochi **e'ervenu**" is Ya'akov assured that
there is a hope of tikun and gives his consent to send Binyamin (that
was the chiddush over Reuvain). Baba Basra 173 this promise is the
makor for the shibud of arvus. So when I told this idea to Ariella,
she had a chap: even women who daven shacharis and mincha regularly
skip ma'ariv (tefilas arvis reshus), and we also find that women may be
excluded from the din of arvus (mach. r' akiva eiger/dagul m'revava).
I thought it was a sharp point.

Re: rogez - you could discuss al tirgezu b'derech.

Note RAL's comparison of Radak and Rabbeinu Peretz and his observation
that one must first have a grounding in SAhas and Poskim.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com


Dedicated in memory of Sgt. (res.) Michael Sitbon, 23, of Beit Shemesh,
HY"D. Refuah sheleimah to the wounded in recent attacks.

                            
				PARASHAT VAYECHI
		   SICHA OF HARAV AHARON LICHTENSTEIN SHLIT"A
			   The Symphony of Tradition
		       Summarized by Rav Yosef Tzvi Rimon

   "All these are the tribes of Israel, twelve of them; ...each according
   to his blessing he blessed them." (Bereishit 49:28)

Two factors combine to form a person's character. On the one hand, "All
these are the tribes of Israel, twelve of them" - the individual must
see himself as part of the community. On the other hand, "each according
to his blessing he blessed them" - each individual has his own destiny,
his own personality. There is no standard model that applies to everyone.

The Or Ha-Chayim explains that Yaakov blessed his children each according
to his innermost spiritual characteristics. Early psychologists
and the deterministic psychology that they expounded, following the
French Revolution, held that we are all born equal - each like a blank
page. Chazal never accepted this theory, and believed that each of us
is born with his own personality and destiny. Modern psychology, too -
le- havdil - agrees with this assessment.

A person needs to recognize what is special about himself and to develop
himself accordingly. At the same time, he needs to remember that he is
part of a society, and therefore if he is capable of several different
things he should choose his direction based on the needs of society.

An orchestra is made up of violinists, pianists, a percussion section,
etc. If all the musicians had chosen the same path for themselves and
all ended up, for instance, in the strings section, the strength of the
orchestra would be greatly diminished.

The same applies to learning. The Jewish world would not have been any
the richer if the Radak had been another Rabbeinu Peretz. The Radak
specialized in Tanakh, and his teachings are very valuable to Am
Yisrael. It must be remembered, though, that the basis must always
be retained - "all these are the tribes of Israel;" in our case - the
tradition of Abbaye and Rabba. All the gedolei Yisrael, whether they
specialized in Tanakh or in Philosophy, were great also in their study
of Gemara.

It is only once a person has built his foundations that he can branch
off onto the route for which he is destined.

(Originally delivered Shabbat Parashat Vayechi 5753.
Translated by Kaeren Fish.)

YESHIVAT HAR ETZION / ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH /
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433 / E-MAIL: YHE@ETZION.ORG.IL or
OFFICE@ETZION.ORG.IL

Copyright (c) 2001 Yeshivat Har Etzion
All Rights Reserved.

[In response to an off-line comment from Micha]

You are saying that schools should be designed to make everyone a chacham.  
REED would probably counter that this is impossible and will end up making 
no one a chacham.  He would also say that the role of non-chacham is 
under-rated.  Better to have a few chachamim with many other meshamshim than 
no chachamim with a lot of top-quality meshamshim.

I'm not sure that REED's method can produce chachamim and that the 
alternative cannot.  But I believe that he arrived at his principle directly 
from the Rambam's.

Gil Student

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 09:59:49PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: There are 2 broad schools of thought (as I wax Brisker <smile>)
: 1) Those of a fixed Text
: 2) Those of a continuous process

You repeatedly state this chakirah, and I repeatedly try to correct it.

The two schools are closer to textual vs mimetic. Or to be less
absolutist, they have different thresholds for how much justification a
hanhagah needs (be it minhag or inherited pesak) before we allow it to
override what we find in sepharim.

One can not be absolutist. There are practices that even if they became
the norm would never become halachah. To be ad absurdum: Asheirah worship
was assur during bayis rishon even if rov of the Benei Yisrael that rov
B"Y would mutually consider observant did worship her. (And in Menashe's
day, that could have been true lima'aseh.)

That's what I was saying about Shechter underplaying the importance
of constitutional law: there are topics not open for discussion or
evolution. Also, constitutional law includes the laws about how to
make laws.

So, the question is the nature of sifrei halachah and their impact on the
halachos about how halachah evolves. If you feel they are very binding,
then many minhagim and pesaqim become questionable and overrulable. If,
however, you feel their bindingness is less so, then one is effectively
giving more weight to minhag.

: RYBS was OTOH someone who went back to Shas - regardless of what the SA
: said - and re-constituted psak. His shita legabei 5 shevarim instead
: of 3is IMHO a case in point.

: Yet RYBS - who felt that Minhag was easy to set aside was adamant that
: dictums such as Tav lemeisavv were immutable and permaent and never
: subject to change....

: Thus RYBS was fixed re: Shas, but flexible about anything else subsequent
: to Shas. I would guess REB might have bee nable to abrogage anything
: in the SA that was not fixed in Shas onthe same basis...

Because to the Brisker, including RYBS, halachic evolution is from the
textual sources only. Not from gains in secular knowledge, not from
minhag. Therefore, anything justifiable from the texts is "okay" fluidity,
anything else is not.

We find the same thing earlier in the Gra, where he recommends abandoning
various nuscha'os that are not found in Shas. Because to the Gra, Shas
has that higher threashold, but rishonim do not.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

RMB>And yet the SA and Rama assume that someone who contradicted precedent
> is a dayan sheta'ah!

This is the chiddush of the Rema that precedent is not necessarily halachah.

Shlomo Goldstein

I wrote <<< I said a binding psak obligates me how to act, he says a
binding psak obligates how to pasken. Same thing. >>>

In Avodah 8:77, Rabbi Wolpoe responded <<< Not quite. I am bound by my
poseik - and If my poseik is toeih THEN what? >>>

Why would different rules apply to the balabos than to the
posek? Conventional wisdom is that a balabos is bound by what his posek
says, but I have been unable to find a source for this. YD 242 and the
Rivash are often cited as the sources, but I find that they have two very
different main points: (1) If the posek assurs a specific object, then
that object becomes assur; but this is because of Shavya Alav Chaticha
D'issura, and not because the p'sak is binding, and it does not apply
when there is no specific object to pasken on. (2) Rules are set up to
prevent turf wars and in general ensure kavod among the chachamim, but I
did not see where a psak would be binding except where such jurisdictional
problems arose.

Either both (the balabos and posek) are bound by what their
poskim/precedents say, or neither is. If they are not bound, then each
does their best to to the "right thing", and each must answer for their
actions if wrong.

And if they *are* bound, then each must do as they are told, without
regard to the possibility that the teacher may be mistaken. This is the
essence of Lo Sasur. If it is later determined that the teacher did err,
and paskened incorrectly, then the teacher brings a korban ON BEHALF of
the student who committed the aveira at his instruction.

I recall this being the conclusion of one of the very first discussions
when Avodah was started, but I cannot find it in the archives. Perhaps it
was on our predecessor, BeisTefila, whose archives I cannot find. (I'm
fairly certain that this was *not* a Mail-Jewish discussion that I
am recalling.)

Does anyone else remember this?

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]