Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 074

Tuesday, August 13 2002

• Basar SheNisalem Min HaAyin
• Re: elu v-elu
• Re: Re: elu v-elu
• RE: definition of chilul Hashem
• An LOR's considerations
• Re: elu v-elu
• Re: elu v-elu
• Re: Can Halakha dictate reality
• Re: An LOR's considerations
• Some Comments on EVe, mostly not from me
• Re: elu v-elu
• Re: Fwd: Can Halakha dictate reality
• 2 aveilus questions
• Re: Some Comments on EVe, mostly not from me
• elu ve-elu - right vs wrong

>>So if one finds a pot of Cholant in the street (on Shabbos) he may eat it?

>I don't know that one would any more than one would eat meat found on the
>ground in front of a kosher butcher.  But lichora it should be mutar like
>the case of teisha chanuyos.

See SA YD 63 where it says that Min Hatorah there is the Chazoko of Tisha
Chanuyois, but the Chachomim were Gozer that it's no good because it was
Nisaleim Min Hoayin.

kol tuv
yosef stern

> Eruv is different, as many of them are pasul. Period. Otherwise it would 
> indeed be like sheitels etc.

Why? There ARE poskim who hold sheitels are pasul. Period.

Akiva

RYGB wrote:
> Perhaps. For better or for worse, the opposition to the LR generally
> explains that he was not a gadol.

If we look through Jewish history, past and present, opposition proves
nothing. By that criterion:

    Moshe Rabbeinu wasn't a gadol because he had opposition.
    They burned the Rambam works so he wasn't a gadol.
    Rav Kook had opposition so he wasn't a gadol.
    Rav Shach had opposition so he wasn't a gadol.
    The Satmar Rebbe had opposition so he wasn't a gadol.
    Rav Yosef has opposition so he isn't a gadol.

[From a conversation on Areivim. -mi]

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org] on Areivim
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 04:31:08PM -0400, Akiva Atwood wrote:
>: A CH can only take place when one's actions are *wrong*.

> I don't know if this is meaningful. After all CH is a major factor in
> defining wrongness. There's a circularity here.

> I would instead have assumed that fulfilling a chiyuv could never be a
> CH. 

Why?  Let's say you have a chiyuv but you're in a predicament that if you
fulfill it, people will definitely misunderstand and think the worst about
religious Jews?  Let's assume further that a posek tells you that
nevertheless you must fulfill the chiyuv.  Wouldn't this be a case of
unavoidable CH?  I.e., the fact that people think negatively about
Yiddishkeit is a chilul Hashem.  According to me, CH is a fact, not a
halachic status.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n067.shtml#10>
RYGB: <<We should note that in Shmuel II:21 Dovid leaves Shaul's sons hanging
overnight - an explicit prohibition in the Torah - because of the Chillul
Hashem that might be involved in insufficient appeasement of the Giv'onim,
see the Radak there.>>

Compare also to the gemara (Yoma 86a) about Rav saying that if he would
take meat from a butcher and not pay immediately, that would be a CH
because people would assume the worst (that he was not going to pay).
Rav himself wouldn't have done anything wrong by not paying immediately;
it is people's perception that counts.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 08:08:49AM -0400, R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
:> To go back to his example of the mezuzah does a layman flip a coin to
:> decide whether to follow RMF or CI since both are recognized poskim. A
:> more practical question to our practicing rabbis - how does a rabbi
:> decide when he is a talmid of neither RMF nor CI?

: That is a very good question - but not the focus of my essay! A rav must 
: attempt to be yored l'umko shel inyan and determine accordingly. If he 
: cannot, well, then he may ascertain minhag ha'olam, who is more of the mara 
: d'asra, etc.

And what if studying the shitos, he is left convinced of a third opinion?

RYGB's list of issues to look at in pesaq is also much sketchier than
it looks, even taking his "etc..." into consideration.

Different derachim well define yeridah le'umqo shel inyan differently.
Does it only include the issues of halachic merit, or also of machshavah?
I could see a chassidishe LOR and a musmach of Brisk giving very
different answers.

Similarly: prioritizing umko shel inyan and minhag olam. RYGB states his
preference, but my bet is that REMT is more likely to look at minhag
ha'olam first. (Rabbi Teitz: would I have lost my money?) This gets to
the heart my never-ending debate with RRW about the relative strength
of sevarah and minhag.

-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

RYGB wrote:
>For better or for worse, the opposition to the LR generally explains that 
>he was not a gadol.

Itmehah!

Certainly Rav Kook faced more opposition than the LR, but would anyone
here doubt his status as a gadol?

On the other hand, while I consider Rav Menachem Kasher to be a gadol
despite, or perhaps because, of the controversy surrounding much of his
writings I wonder if others consider him to be a gadol.

Gil Student

At 04:24 PM 8/9/02 -0400, Akiva Atwood wrote:
>> Eruv is different, as many of them are pasul. Period. Otherwise it would
>> indeed be like sheitels etc.

>Why? There ARE poskim who hold sheitels are pasul. Period.

Not analogous.

The analogy would be precise if there were poskim that gav precise 
guidelines for sheitels  - let's say that they cannot extend below the 
shoulders -  and women on a routine and widespread basis wore sheitels that 
reached several inches below the shoulders.

Kol Tuv, KVCT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

[Fwded by RYGB. He promises "Will respond IY"H under separate cover
later this week." I deleted a full repeat of the article. -mi]

Dear Rabbi Bechhofer,

I read your piece on "Mezuzos, Machlokos and Eilu va'Eilu..."
(quoted below) which you posted on Avodah. With you permission I would
like to make several comments. I can't post to them to Avodah because
I am at NASA for the summer (Home: 216-297-0096; work: 216-433-3221).
Perhaps you would be kind enough to post my comments and your response
to them together - as you like.

(1) You cite the view of the Ritv"a on Eilu va-Eilu. I must admit,
that it is a very problematic Shit"a. Indeed, the vast majority of
Rishonim and acharonim who discuss the issue of Eilu va-Eilu reject
his view outright. In their eyes, there can only be one Emes - one
divine truth. We may have trouble determining what it is, but that's a
question of psak. In Psak I do my best to approximate the Ratson Hashem -
and as tanu debei Achnai demonstrates - I sometimes don't succeed. But Lo
bashamayim hi and HaShem wants us to do our best without Koach hanevuah.

In a machlokes, only one view is emes. The other is sheker. Both opinions
do NOT have the same validity. Both views however are essential to the
process of determining and honing the truth. Both are using their
powers of logic and analysis. Both are le-shem Shamayim - but only
one is emes. I refer you to the outstanding book of Rav Zvi lempel,
"The art of dispute" for the marei makom.

The case of Rabbi Eliezer is an issue dealing with psak not emes.
The question of punishment is one of enforcement not emes. There is only
one ultimate divine emes.

(2) You deal with the issue of who is a posek. I don't know what a
"devoted" Talmid Chacham means. One who learns all day (that would rule
out many of the TANNAIM, AMORAIM AND RISHONIM). And hashkafot, now that's
a troubling area! I agree with you about those who like the conservatives
question the validity of Torah she-be-al peh and the mesorah. But I
know that anyone who is determined to have "ferkrumte hashkofos" - like
a zionist or one who supports secular learning as an ideal - has been
"passuled" as well; Notably Rabbanim Soloveitchik zatsal, Rav Aharon
Lichtenstein shlita, etc.!

(3) The story about the Hasam Sofer and psak bothers me no end. What is
this "feeling"/"Intuition" - Divrei nevuah? Even if it were bona fide
nevuah - Harei Lo baShamayim hi! Specific proofs CANNOT be secondary -
they are the essence of Torah she-be-al Peh and Psak. If you cannot
articulate a reason, a proof, your psak may ultimately be correct -
but it's luck- better siya'at dishma'aya - but it is not Torah!!! It's
prophecy at best - and lo baShamayim hi rules it out as a basis for
further discussion.

                 Kol Tuv
		 Aryeh

At 11:43 AM 8/11/02 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
>Different derachim well define yeridah le'umqo shel inyan differently.
>Does it only include the issues of halachic merit, or also of machshavah?
>I could see a chassidishe LOR and a musmach of Brisk giving very
>different answers.

I doubt it. They may think differently, but they will almost always deal
with the issues on a pure halachic basis (See ROY's teshuva, YD vol. 1,
on Birchas Ilanos on Shabbos and how Kabbalistic issues have to be weeded
out). There are, of course, exceptions. From my "Forks" essay:

Halacha

Perhaps the most apparent distinction may be found in the relative
attitudes toward Halachic standards. Chassidus occasionally stresses
values that are downplayed in the more general Halachic process. This
phenomenon is manifest most famously in the area of zmanei tefilla -
the time frames for prayer. Chassidus tolerated minor deviations in
the pursuit of greater dveykus. Misnagdus is completely intolerant of
such liberties. The pursuit of perfection demands meticulous attention
to Halachic parameters. As with all neat and simple definitions, this
is an over-generalization. Many great Rebbes observed zmanei tefilla
meticulously. Rabbi Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev warned not to delay the
fulfillment of Mitzvos because one feels a lack of fervor (hislahavus),
lest the time frame of the Mitzvah pass. (1) Yet other outstanding Rebbes
justified their not abiding by the clock. Rabbi Yisroel of Ruzhin said
that time frames for Mitzvos are a result of the sins of Adam,Chava
and the golden calf. Tzaddikim were not involved in those sins, and are
therefore not restricted by time. (2) Other examples include the issue of
dancing and clapping on Shabbos and Yom Tov, that seems to be forbidden
by the Gemara in Beitza 36b. The Minchas Elazar (3) allows the practice,
basing his conclusion, in part, on the rationale thatChazal only forbade
these practices for those who do not utilize it for the purpose of
hislahavus. In forbidding the same practices, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (4)
notes that almost all non-Chassidic sources take no such distinction
into account. (5)

Rabbi Yitzchok Weiss (6) issued several rulings that reflect unique
issues stemming from Chassidic values, including a responsum on whether
the custom of offering a tikkun (a drink of whiskey) in Shul on a
yahrzeit supersedes the potential problem of chametz she'avar alav
haPesach (chametz that was owned by a Jew over Pesach). He rules that
the value of a tikkun does not override the potential prohibitions -
but not until after some discussion on the holiness of the custom to
drink l'chayim. A similar thread may be discerned in a responsum (7)
concerning whether an individual may leave his Shul in order to spend
yom tov with his Rebbe even if as a result no minyan will remain.

1. Ta'amei HaMinhagim U'Mekorei HaDinim p. 518.

2. Ibid., p. 519 (see also p. 27 there). Rabbi Leibele Eiger of Lublin
asked Reb Tzadok if he was justified in forsaking the Hiddur Mitzvah of
zrizin makdimin l'Mitzvos (those who are meticulous perform a Mitzvahas
soon as possible) in order to muster greater kavana and tahara. Reb Tzadok
(end of Levushei Tzedakaand the Yad Eliyahu Kitov ed. of Tzidkas HaTzaddik
p. 16) was firm in stating that this is indeed the case. Many Misnagdic
sources agree, although others disagree. See Encyclopedia Talmudis vol.12
pp. 416-421.

3. (Munkatch) 1:29.

4. Yechaveh Da'as 2:58.

5. Although beyond the scope of our discussion, it should be noted that
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe 2:100) allows clapping and dancing
for other, fascinating, reasons.

6. Minchas Yitzchak 6:136.

7. Ibid., 9:12.

>Similarly: prioritizing umko shel inyan and minhag olam. RYGB states his
>preference, but my bet is that REMT is more likely to look at minhag
>ha'olam first. (Rabbi Teitz: would I have lost my money?) This gets to
>the heart my never-ending debate with RRW about the relative strength
>of sevarah and minhag.

That's Dr. C. Soloveitchik's implicit preference, which may have even been 
the case before his forbears came on the scene and changed matters...

In response to RAF's comments, one correspondent writes succinctly:

>Excuse me for daring to comment, but re Chatam Sofer, "intuition" or 
>"Ruach Hakodesh" or "nevuah" are min Hashamayim but I wouldn't consider 
>them Bashamayim.

Another correspondent, a talmid of RYBS, writes:

>First, the story attributed to the Chsam Sofer is very much in line with
>contemporary cognitive psychology (as is the frequently maligned and
>misunderstood notion of Daas Torah).  Modern cognitivists have supported the
>notion elaborated both by philosophers like Polanyi and psychologists like
>Rieber of the importance of tacit knowledge or unconscious cognitive
>processes (to be distinguished from the Freudian unconscious, vakm"l).  The
>data support the ability of experts in a field to arrive at cognitively
>correct conclusions even if they are often temporarily (or perhaps
>permanently)unable to demonstrate compelling proofs.  Much of the work has
>demonstrated that such individuals have knowledge of which they themselves
>are often unaware but which address the issue at hand.  The implications for
>our issue are that the conclusions of such individuals are likely to be
>correct even if at the moment they may not be able to fully communicate
>their reasoning to others.  In situations where we are unable to arrive at
>clear conclusions probabilistic reasoning surely leads us to follow the
>conclusions of those whom we consider most steeped in Torah knowledge and
>values.  This has nothing to do with prophecy.
>
>Second, I am uncertain what you mean by there being only one truth.  You are
>right if by truth you mean ascertaining what Hashem initially intended, as
>in the case of tanuro shel akhno'i. One can, however, take issue with your
>reading of the conclusion of that Gemoro.  Once God concludes that
>"netzakhuni bonai" one can readily see the source of YGB's view that the
>truth has now been changed, as per God's intention that not only conduct but
>absolute Halakhic reality are the outcome, at last sometimes, of the
>decision of Khazal.  This too is consistent with contemporary philosophical
>thought (which I don't hold up as an ultimate measuring rod but simply as an
>indicator that there are multiple perspectives on the issue).
>
>Third, I would take issue with your assertion that poskim of the stature of
>those referred to by YGB automatically invalidate the views of Rav Aharon
>Lichtenstein or Mori Rabi ztvk"l.  Over the years I have found such persons
>more than willing to address the specific arguments raised by them and to
>agree or disagree as the issue merits.  On the other hand, there are clearly
>many issues that are based not only on strict Halakha but on Hashkafa as
>well (should one join the Mizrachi, is the study of secular subjects
>desirable, etc.) and clearly the views of those who are not of your camp on
>basic principles are presumably irrelevant.  This is not to say that that
>there is not much katnus hamokhin in all camps, with the attendant
>insults,etc.  It would be hard, however to find any expert on hilkhos
>shmitta who was not familiar with Shabbos Ho'oretz [RYAHK's sefer on 
>shemittah - YGB].

A critique from another correspondent:

>I enjoyed your essay very much.
>
>As you know far better than I, the greatest modern authority on how halacha
>dictates reality is RYBS, who was devoted to the subject. RYBS grasped the
>question on a number of planes, including those of the great European
>idealists and neo-Platonists, whose work he had mastered as a graduate
>student in Berlin.
>
>I think I know why you didn't, or couldn't, cite RYBS, as familiar as you are
>with his work on the subject. I've tried to explain to a number of outsiders
>(Conservative Jews, interested non-Jews, etc.) why RYBS's insights don't pass
>muster among today's traditionalist Orthodox Jews, even on those particular
>subjects (e.g., halachic ontology) where RYBS's genius is especially awesome.
>No one understands my explanation. *I* don't understand my explanation, to
>tell the truth.
>
>This is terribly discouraging. I hope that one day you, in particular, will
>gain such eminence in Orthodox Jewish circles that you can freely remind all
>of us of what our heritage really is.

I would like to note my disagreement with the last correspondent's 
characterization of RYBS's philosophy. To the best of my understanding, 
RYBS, consistent with his shittah on tzimtzum, holds that Halacha is a 
manner (perhaps the only legitimate manner) by which the Halachist deals 
*with* reality - existing within its contours and functioning optimally and 
coping as best he can with them - it is not a means of shaping reality or 
molding creation.

I must take issue with RAF's critiques, of course.

1. I know of no Rishonim, or Chazal, who do *not* hold like the Ritva.

2. To paraphrase Ramchal, the purpose to Beriah is the manifestation of the 
unity in multiplicity. Hence, multiple true perspectives.

3. In metzi'us there is, perhaps, on truth and everything else is false 
(although to the best of my limited understanding quantum mechanics belies 
that notion). Halacha is the realm, however, of the metaphysical and not 
comparable.

Kol Tuv, Kesivah va'Chasimah Tovah,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

> The analogy would be precise if there were poskim that gav precise 
> guidelines for sheitels  - let's say that they cannot extend below the 
> shoulders -  and women on a routine and widespread basis wore sheitels that 
> reached several inches below the shoulders.

This happens to be the case in EY.

Akiva

From: Aryeh Frimer <Aryeh.Frimer@grc.nasa.gov>
>> (3) The story about the Hasam Sofer and psak bothers me no end. What
>> is this "feeling"/"Intuition" - Divrei nevuah? Even if it were bona
>> fide nevuah - Harei Lo baShamayim hi! Specific proofs CANNOT be secondary -
>> they are the essence of Torah she-be-al Peh and Psak. If you cannot
>> articulate a reason, a proof, your psak may ultimately be correct -
>> but it's luck- better siya'at dishma'aya - but it is not Torah!!!
>> It's prophecy at best - and lo baShamayim hi rules it out as a basis
>> for further discussion.

How does one deal with "nira le"?

You are working with a godol's entire understanding of the tora that he
has absorbed.

I think of it like a neural net. Questions and facts go in on one side,
and an answer comes out the other. The net does not have an answer but
the entire system "understands" the problem space.

But in the end it seems like most proofs are disprovable. If all proofs
were absolute how could we have machlokes the answer would be obvious.

<chaim>

-- 
Chaim Frenkel					     Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
chaimf@pobox.com				               +1-718-236-0183

Two aveilus questions:

I think these two were discussed recently on Avodah, but I am not sure.
1. I think someone pointed out a Yekke minhag for how an aveil terminates
his aveilus that ends on shabbos. There was some active termination. What
was it?

2. May an aveil start shabbos early?

ari

In a message dated 08/11/2002 11:24:17am EDT, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:
> First, the story attributed to the Chsam Sofer is very much in line with
> contemporary cognitive psychology

Undoubtedly true, the real question to me is - Does halacha recognize the
Lev hatora(as articulated by R'YBS) in the absence of "strict halachik
proofs". If yes, what are the criteria by which one may claim(or be
granted) the ability to determine halacha based on the lev?

KVCT
Joel Rich

I recommend seeing this dvar Torah on Shoftim by Rabbi Ari Kahn that
discusses right vs wrong
<http://www.aish.com/torahportion/moray/From_Left_to_Right.asp>

Eli Turkel

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


[ 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         ]