Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 068

Friday, September 12 2003

• IVF/community acceptance
• Re: IVF/community acceptance
• Re: community approval
• Women and Kaddish (Possible Purpose In Woman Reciting Kaddish)
• Faxing on Shabbos (was: web sites on shabbos)
• Re: Faxing on Shabbos (was: web sites on shabbos)
• Re: Minhag Ashkenaz
• Re: R. Kalir
• Re: Psak
• Re: ikkarim
• Re: mchilla
• ze sefer toldot adam
• RE: IVF/community acceptance
• Re: IVF/community acceptance
• [none]
• halachic consensus
• Re: halachic consensus

Micha writes about AID introducing a safeik mamzer into the community.
But isn't a safeik mamzer mutar to marry?  So it would seem a higher
burden of proof is necessary for those who would asser - that it create
a *vadai* mamzer.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 06:14:25PM -0400, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: Micha writes about AID introducing a safeik mamzer into the community.

Actually, I said that it raises questions of safeiq mamzer.

: But isn't a safeik mamzer mutar to marry?...

Nope. Someone for whom ika rei'usa and you can't simply dismiss the
safeiq can only marry a geir. If he's not a mamzer, then marrying a mamzer
is assur. If he is a mamzer, then marrying a non-mamzer is assur. Only
a geir is mutar either way. But then their kids face the same problem.

This is a reason some poseqim tell people not to adopt Jewish children.
HOwever, nowadays records are open, and you can make sure to only adopt
a child who is known to have a kosher yichus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Rabindranath Tagore

R' Micha Berger explained his views in a lengthy piece where he spoke
of four shuls, named (going from left to right) R, T, Q, and B.

I think much of his post can be neatly summed up as: "Nature abhors
a vacuum. If T moves a bit to the left, then R will tend to go even
further to the left, and Q will be enticed to move leftward as well,
to fill in the gap better."

The way I see it, RMB is in error when he writes <<< Of course B's
practice won't be influenced.>>> Yes, they most definitely will. Maybe
not a lot, but certainly a little. They can't help but be affected by
a secondary ripple effect from Q's movement. If Q does move leftward to
fill that gap, then there will be a bigger gap to the right of Q, and B
will be enticed to move just a little bit leftward to fill it. And even
if Q resists moving, they'll be shaken a bit, and that will rustle B's
feather's too, if only slightly.

Anyway, RMB continued <<< Either Q will be influenced, or there is now a
divide between T and Q. In fact, we noted this divide actually happening
bemitzi'us. If the LOR in T would defer to a rav that all of MO (including
the shuls named R, T, and Q) accept, then the split is far less likely
to occur. Also, the feedback loop pushing T & R toward more and more
innovation has a break, there is someone recognized by both saying ad
kan vesu lo.>>>

I'll agree that this is the mechanics of how it all works, and that a
split will be less likely if all three shuls defer to the same rav.

But I'm concerned about another problem as well: What happens if we change
the beginning of the story. Suppose it wasn't T that moved to the left,
but Q that moved to the right!

Everything is now reversed: If Q moves to the right, then B will move
even farther to the right. And T will be enticed to move rightward to
fill the gap between T and Q. But if the LOR in Q would defer to a rav
that T Q and B all accept, then the split is far less likely to occur.
Also, the feedback loop pushing Q and B away will break, because that
rav will say ad kan v'su lo.

This is all fun armchair sociology, but I think we've said here many times
that although there are many rabbonim who will say "ad kan v'su lo", we
have way too few among us who will actually listen and obey. Each group
will move as it pleases, in accordance with what it feels is proper,
and with due attention to what the neighbors are doing and saying.

Akiva Miller

"Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
<And yet RHM reverts to this language when he writes:
> The Halachic portions about the permissibility of women saying
> Kaddish may well be justified. But is there an Halachic purpose for
> it? Do they build up Zechuyos for the Nifter?>

Reciting Kaddish clearly is tied to kaparah and is a z'chus (merit)
and a toeles (has purpose) for the departed (the meis). See, e.g.,
Rabbeinu B'chai on D'varim, 21:8 "Kaper" [which the Ramah cites as one
source for reciting Kaddish].

That concept fits well within the context of the entire aveilus
process which may be viewed as a process of doing t'shuva. For example,
according the Rav ztl, in a lecture entitled "Sitting Shivah is Doing
Teshuvah" [re-published in "Man of Faith in the Modern World", edited
by R' Abraham Besdin, p. 125]: "The observance of shivah, sh'loshim,
and yud bais chodesh (for parents) not only is a catharsis of sorrow,
but also an experience of self-judgement and teshuvah. The aching heart
is a contrite heart, and a contrite heart seeks atonement." Thus, the
Rav holds the t'shuva in the aveilus process is for the living (the chai).

However, based on the Rabbeinu B'chai, it would seem that the necessary
t'shuvah may very well be for the departed (meis) and it is achieved,
somehow, through the living (chai) doing mitzvos and other things --
including, as Rabbeinu B'chai states, reciting kaddish -- which is a
z'chus and kaparah for the meis. [Precisely how Kaddish "works" as a
z'chus is certainly beyond my ken and beyond the scope of this post,
but clearly that is what the Rabbeinu B'Chai holds. Cf. Shabbos 119b.]

At least in the case of the passing of a parent, it may be that the
child assumes, or *inherits* (is yoresh), the sins of the departed, cf.,
"HaKadish: M'koro, Mashmauso V'dinav" 153-54, thus necessitating the
need for t'shuvah on the child's own part (according to Rav) and/or *for*
the *deceased* since the deceased can no longer perform mitzvos and has
no ability to do t'shuvah himself. [Indeed, according to one p'shat,
we use the plural form for Yom HaKippurim to include the departed in
the kaparah that we hope to achieve and pray for on that day.]

Under that construct, if the departed leaves no son, then perhaps the
daughter is the inheritor of the sins -- and thus, she would be the one
to say kaddish to effectuate the kaparah for the departed. On the other
hand, if there are sons, then perhaps she would/should not be reciting
the kaddish. [This also fits with the early t'shuvos which dealt with
recitation of kaddish by a daughter in the absence of a son.]

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< BTW, faxing causes a shinui sheim. A piece
of paper becomes a fax. They are therefore arguably nolad, and can't be
read on Shabbos even when faxed beheter. CYLOR, of course.>>>

I did CMLOR, Rav E.M. Teitz, who said that a fax is *not* nolad. I
don't remember his exact moshol. It might have been that if the paper
is transformed into a "fax" when ink gets on it, then bread will get
transformed into a "sandwich" when mustard and pastrami gets on it. Or
maybe it was tomato and cucumber which becomes something called "salad";
I don't remember.

There *is* a concept of "shinui shem" to nolad, but its application is
severely limited. Of course, as RMB wrote, CYLOR.

Akiva Miller

RAM writes:
> I did CMLOR, Rav E.M. Teitz, who said that a fax is *not* nolad. I
> don't remember his exact moshol. It might have been that if the
> paper is transformed into a "fax" when ink gets on it, then bread
> will get transformed into a "sandwich" when mustard and pastrami
> gets on it. Or maybe it was tomato and cucumber which becomes
> something called "salad"; I don't remember.

Here's the version REMT gave in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n089.shtml#12>:
> Would chocolate syrup poured into milk on Shabbos create a "new"
> creation" of chocolate milk?

Yet, there are poseqim (when looking up the Avodah reference, I saw
the Debreciner was cited on mail-jewish) who say it /is/ nolad. I
stand by my CYLOR for everyone not in Elizabeth. FWIW, my poseiq holds
lequlah, but noted that it's rare to get a non-business fax on Shabbos
anyway.

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (413) 403-9905      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

In a message dated 8/31/2003 7:12:23 PM EDT, ddcohen@verizon.net writes:
...
> 1.  Accept that the Bavli is the ultimate authority, but assume also, like 
> Tosafos did, that Minhag Ashkenaz must be correct -- thus, it must be 
> reconcilable with the Bavli, and Tosafos, when they engaged in their 
> "pilpulistic methods," were arriving at an accurate understanding of the 
> intent of the Bavli.

> 2.  Accept that the Bavli is the ultimate authority.  When Minhag Ashkenaz 
> appears to go against the Bavli, acknowledge that this may very well be the 
> case, since its roots are in the Eretz Yisrael tradition, and we need not 
> make any assumption that it can or should be reconciled with the Bavli. 
> Since we accept the Bavli as authoritative, we must reject the Minhag 
> Ashkenaz in such cases.

> 3.  Acknowledge that Minhag Ashkenaz often stems from a non-Bavli tradition, 
> but say that we Ashkenazim have the legitimate mesorah to accept this 
> tradition as equally authoritative, rather than regarding the Bavli as 
> always having the last word.  If a minhag contradicts the Bavli, that's fine 
> -- our minhag is not like that of the Bavli in this case.

> In a nutshell, Tosafos, quite possibly, assumed that both the Bavli and 
> Minhag are correct since they reflect the same one, accurate mesorah.  If we 
> say that they actually reflect different traditions, then we are forced to 
> pick which one is authoritative.  This would seem to be the crux of the 
> dispute between those like the Gra and RYBS who would reject aspects of 
> Minhag Ashkenaz when they went against the simple peshat of the Bavli 
> (approach #2), and those would would oppose such a stance (approach #3).

> I'm aware that this is an oversimplification, and that the dispute already 
> existed to some extent among the Tosafists themselves -- particularly 
> between Rabbeinu Meshulam (approach #2) and Rabbeinu Tam (approach #3).  But 
> in general, it does seem that the general approach taken by the Tosafos to 
> this issue is approach #1, and that both sides of this dispute may be less 
> comfortable relying on this approach today.  I recognize that it is no small 
> matter to suggest that Tosafos were working on a mistaken premise, but those 
> far greater than I, on both sides of this dispute, have already implied as 
> such by even having to use approach #2 and approach #3.

I don't think the Gra v'sayyaom's rejection of {some of } minhag ashkenaz
was based on any of the above models

Rather it goes more like this.
We have a rule.
The rule is apparently violated by Minhag Ashkenaz
ergo the minhag should be set aside in favor of the rule and the minhag
is presumed to be a minhag ta'us

Let's give this an American example
The Supreme Court of the US rules one man one vote. This is the law of
the land as of circa 1964-something
Hundreds of years later some genius figures out the following:
"hey the US Senate villates this rule! It MUST be an error!" So they
THEN rule that the US Senate MUST now conform to this "holy rule1"

Overlooked in the process is that in 1964 the US supreme court
specifcically grandfathered in the US Senate as a bona fide exception.

So it is with Tosafos
Since Tosafos {and Rashi} worked to make the Bavli ahtoritative in
Ashekneaz, it was {at least ususally} done while grandfathering in
parallel minhaggim.

Nu, so if the minhaggim are after all correct why bother with the
Bavli at all? So Tosafos comes to show that you CAN reconcile the 2!
Why bother? Because the yare - after all - selling the Bavli to the
masses. Without this device of reconcilliation the Bavli goes out with
the bath water

Point? The minhag - at least those EARLY minhaggim kadmoni'im - were
NEVER expect to fit into the Bavli.

Upshot?
If the minhag is a later minhag - certainly a post Rema minhag- then it
CAN be overulled by the Bavli because the Bavli is authoritative on a
go-forward basis

If the minhag is an EARLY minhag - say like making kiddush in shul Friday
night even without guests - then the minhag is not a ta'us. I guess that
it might still be deemed obsolete in our time, but it cannot be rejected
as a ta'us.

So - for example - if you think that based upon the Bavli that the
Bracha Baruch Hashem L'olam does not belong in ma'ariv you have done
the US Senate 1 man 1 vote mistake....

Some people think that minhag Ashkenaz can over-ride a Bavli when it
is lechumra. this is a popular mis-perception, and has probably became
even more popular in the post-Reform Reaction. Let's take the Sephardi
shavuo sehcol bo vs. the ashkenaz 9-days 3-weeks model... So even though
Rava rules in the Bavli that ONLY shavuo shechol bo tisha b'av has the
cumros of no laundering and no haircuts, they assume it is an Ashkenazic
chumra that was beyond the Bavli instead of a Minhag that was paralle to
the Bavli. but we see die's IN THE BAVLI that more-or-less match this
minhag. It is IMHO NOT a chumra but a different tradition. The Minhag
Ashkenaz in such as case is a Minhag to PASKEN a certain way even though
the Bavli says otherwise.....

For examples of kullos, see Tosafos on clapping on Shabbos and Yomtov,
mayyim acharonim, a possible kullah is not including women in for
a ziumn...

Accepting the Bavli as authoritative while rejecting these old minhaggim
would imply the following:
Since minhag ashkenaz is now NOT the over-riding principle then things
like kitniyyos or bigamy would not be binding any more - although many
people do find forms of kitniyyos binding anyway!  <smile>

So the chumra-niks would say - "hey we can add chumras to the basic
bavli!" but let's face it, if the Bavli is the final arbiter of Halachah
then the minhag is simply not binding, only the Halachah as based in
the Bavli is authoritative...

The very fact that Ashekenazim presume minhag to be binding is itself
an ashkenazi concept to begin with. Irincally, the Beiur Gra often cites
a Yerushalmi that "minhag okeir din"

It is clear to me that the Rema follows this methodology for the
most part. It is rooted in Tosafos but most of all in the Maharil.
The Maharam miRothenburg is the keystone for most Minhag Ashkenaz, and
the Maharil is one of the final designers of what we call Nusach Ashkenaz.

[Email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 8/26/2003 7:50:29 AM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> In the few cases across all of shas that they discuss halachah
> lema'aseh. Again, my complaint is turning this into a major motivating
> factor. Very few Tosefosim refer to minhag -- whether or not it agrees
> with shas. Most resolve problems between suguyos without any need to
> reinterpret to fit extant pesaq.

true but do take a look a zimun including women

[Email #3 -mi]

In a message dated 9/12/2003 2:11:34 AM EDT, RabbiRichWolpoe writes:
> true but do take a look a zimun including women

2nd post...
Whoops!!! Of course in Tosafos itself you might not see this! Agus's
MAIN sources were Tshuvos! and Ta Shma cites books such as Sefer Hayashar
and or Zarua which are written by ba'alei Tosafos but are not IN Tosafos
itself

[Email #4 -mi]

Let me preface my remarks with my underlying shita

I learned in Day School, Yeshivas Ner Israel, YU/RIETS etc. And all of
my learning left me with a certain element that kept me puzzled as to
waht was going on sometimes.

As far as how the relatoinships between the Gmara we have and the way
we actucally practice Halachah, Agus is the first person to successfully
explain to my satisfactoin what the underlying dynamics make it tick. I
was not a fan of Agus the person, and It certainly wasn't charm or beauty
that made me a devotee. Au contraire. I found much of HOW he said things
to be abrasive. The point is that deep-down it clicked.

I have been quite skepctical ever since. I have a nagging doubt that
somehow it is too pat to be true, Nevertheless, no one has said anything
to me so far that makes better since, and believe me I still look.
I have been in this process for 30 years and so far Agus basic shita
explains the facts on the ground better than anyone else till perhaps
Ta Shma who takes it a bit further

OTOH, after understanding Basic Agus, then Tosafos, Rema, Maharil
etc. make a lot of sense.

I challenge all of the Eastern Eurpoean Ashkenazim on this list to deal
with the following:

1) While you were {or still are} single, did you wear a Tallis Gadol
for Davening?
A) If no why not?
B) If yes, why?

2) have you seen the source for a bachur NOT to wear a Tallis?
3) have you seen the Mishna Brurah and the Bair Heiteiv on this?
4) was your decision based upon research or the prevailing practice?

For sources explicitly backing up Minhag Ashkenaz over Bavli See Ta Shma'
Minhag Ashkenaz Hakadmon p. 17 fn 7 p.21 fn 17 citing the Or Zarua

As far as the Bavli not being exhaustive Ta Sma cites Rabbeinu Tam on
page 17 from Sefer Hayashar

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 8/26/2003 5:32:14 PM EDT, MPoppers@kayescholer.com writes:
> Were the Amidah b'rochos of "v'liYrushalayim" and "es tzemach" one
> b'rocho at that time (6th c. CE)? I ask because I seem to recall that
> the K'rovetz (K'rovos, for those who say k'rovos at other times, too
> ;-)) l'Purim was authored by HaKalir, and it (as I'm sure we all know)
> only includes a stanza for the one (former) b'rocho. Thanks.

AFAIK Yes

[Email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 8/20/2003 2:52:45 PM EDT, Mlevinmd@aol.com writes:
> [RRW:]
>> FWIW, Kallir deserves his own thread and let me state that we have some
>> evidence that he lived 580 CE based upon his kinna citing a thousand years
>> have passed since the churban....

> Comment: This year on Tisah B'Av I saw the note in Artscroll kinnos that
> this particular kinna is found in manuscripts to say " a few hundred
> years" and that it was updated by the printers to say one thousand years.

of course we COULD say
that OUR girsa refers to Bayis rishon and the manuscript's girsa to
Bayyis Sheini and that they are both right!

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 8/26/2003 10:43:18 AM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> The SA claimed to set out to pasqen algorythmically. Yet we know the
> mechaber made many exceptions to his rule.

You could set up a psak system with an SA type algorithm
Then you have poskim over-ride the excpetional cases.

In fact it has been my assertion that various "rules" set up in Shas
and Poskim are actually DEFAULTSs and are not RULES as we use the term.

So the algorithm would not DECIDE but it would propose a resolution.

Example:
Rule: we pasken like Rava over Abbaye
Exception: Ya'AL KaGaM

Example 2:
Rule: We Pasken like Rif
Exception: Unless Tosafos comes to a different conclusion
{source: Trumas Hadeshen 170 and Sefer Me'iras Einayim on Choshen Mishpat 25)

So all formulaic rules are really defaults. They are really useful for
Rabbanim to pasken in a vaccuum. But the system is itself quite flexible
in that it is not "stuck" with the rule.

Here is another - lossely based upon the Ri migash
Rule: follow the precedents of poskim and do not go back to the Gmara
itself to make a decision
Exception: If you are a bona fide baki in shas you MAY go back to Shas
Proof: Ri Migash ignores his own rule, yet he imposes this rule for
"average" rabbanim who were not likely going to be true okeir harim...
Source: Article by Rabbi dr.  E. Kanarfogel:
            Progress and Tradition in Medeival Ashkenaz 

So if any Rav or Poseik follows the Rules he would IMHO never be
considered as a To'eh in Halachah, but certainly certain rabbanim are
capable of setting aside the rules when they have strong proofs...

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 9/8/2003 5:18:05 PM EDT, Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu writes:
> Rav Goren therefore argues that the concept of the thirteen ikkarim as
> formulated in the perush hamishna (and as commonly understood) was not
> given halachic force even by the rambam.

I argue that it has been give force by nearly all the bati dinim who
rely on these ikkarim in the process of converting geirim...

If the reality is that most batei dinim DO NOT rely on these ikkarim, then
ein hachi nami to Rav Goren, but my guess is that the reality is that the
ikkarim have been implemented as a practical set of sine qua non emunos...

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 9/11/2003 3:59:15 PM EDT, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> The generally accepted practice seems to be to ask mchilla during asseret
> ymei tshuva.

Question:
Where is the original of the term Mechillah as a process of forgiveness?
In Tanach, the meaning of M-CH-L is usually "dance" or having to do with
sickness when the Mem is a prefix.

OTOH the term mechei M-CH-H appears in Tanach with the meaning to wipe
out sins -e.g. machis ko'ov pesho'echo.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

> There are no Rishonim on Yerushalmi and I fail to see why the
> interpretation of any other Acharon is more valid than mine. Because odf
> the nature of the text and the manner of interpretation, most Acharonim
> who write on Yerushalmi are of the opinion that they are entitled to
> present pshat, and to this principle I am no exception.
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

but there are rishonim on the sifra, where the identical discussion occurs
(on the pasuk ve'ahavta lere'acha camocha), and the rishonim on the sifra
(raavad for one) do not learn it that way, but learn it the regular way.
While technically not on the yerushalmi, they are rishonim too. I also
add (as I ahve mentioned), that breshit rabba has a far more extensive
discussion of ben azzai and rabbi akiva (on ze sefer toldot adam) -
where this pshat seems completely untenable.

The sifra, yerushalmi, and breshit rabba have commentaries - some
rishonim, some early acharonim, some later acharonim - what is the
earliest time this pshat occurs?? I am not denying RYGB's right to
interpretation -eyn bet midrash bli hiddush - but there is for this
statement a tradition of pshat, and this interpretation is quite radical.

(I would add that I find RYGB's pshat on ben azzai difficult, because
besides accentuating some solipsistic current trends, there are many
better psukim to choose for that pshat - because the pshat says that ben
azzai emphasizes our zelem elohim -but that pasuk is precisely the one
for the ra'avad's pshat - which pshat emphasizes we are all descended
from adam).)

Meir Shinnar

[RJB:]
> But isn't a safeik mamzer mutar to marry?

No -- a sufeik mamzer can *not* marry.

Who cold he marry? Someone kosher? Maybe he IS a mamzer. Another mamzer?
Maybe he's kosher.

(based on the experience of a friend)

Akiva

On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 05:33:07PM +0300, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: > But isn't a safeik mamzer mutar to marry?
: 
: No -- a sufeik mamzer can *not* marry.
: Who could he marry? Someone kosher? Maybe he IS a mamzer. Another mamzer?
: Maybe he's kosher.
: (based on the experience of a friend)

Was I wrong when I wrote that someone in your friend's situation could
marry a giyores? Assuming he could find one willing to deal with marrying
off her children who will also only be able to date geirim.

This is why it's crucial that when there are suspicions, one not find
a rei'usah! One needs to preserve the chezkas kashrus.

:-)BBii
-mi

I had wriiten that a par is a male cow while a shor is a different animal.

Enclosed is a response I recived from R. Mordecai Kornfeld of the kollel
iyun hadaf in Har Nof.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, I disagree, see Shoftim 6:25, Tehilim 69:32; they are the same
animal. However, your distinction is still correct according to what I
wrote in my letter. Shor is a castrated animal, which was castrated in
order to use it for plowing or pulling carts etc. It is the animal that
would be more damaging, and the one that would be more likely to find
in a field. Par is simply a bull, kept for slaughter.

See also the Midrash in vayikra raba 27:6 etc., that makes of point of
showing that the Torah did *not* ask us to bring wild beasts for a Korban.
And the verse there calls it a Shor despite the fact that it is discussing
a matter of Kodshim.

Good luck with the Rash. He is agreeing to pythagorus regarding a square,
but not with a rectangular shape.

Be well, and regards
Mordecai

Micha writes
"These questions are akin to your complaint about my invoking the idea
of slippery slope. I'm not banning because of the slope. I'm saying the
impact on these kehillos (via precedent or marriage pool, as examples)
needs to be considered as part of the she'eilah.

And once you do, the typical LOR would be assuming a HUGE burden to take
it on himself."

It still seems to me that the upshot of this is that the LOR should not
pasken anything at least le-kula (which seems to be the position of daas
Torah proponents).

Given Micha's example when I lived in teaneck R. Gordon allowed the use
of electrical appliances on yom tov (turning on a dishwasher) based on
his hearing such a psak from RYBS (others claim that RYBS never said
such a psak but that is not the issue).

Should we say that a LOR should not issue such a psak because it
pressures other kehillot to do likewise. I am purposely picking a less
controversial topic.

The upshot of Micha's position is that a LOR should basically avoid
any public kulot that not everyone accepts because it might influence
or pressure someone else, chumrot are legitimate but not kulot.

kol tuv, Eli Turkel

On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 12:25:36PM -0400, Eli Turkel wrote:
: It still seems to me that the upshot of this is that the LOR should not
: pasken anything at least le-kula (which seems to be the position of daas
: Torah proponents).

How? I said the LOR was accepting upon himself to either set precedent
for others, or be the potential cause of division. While I believe
the LOR has the technical authority (there being no halachic chalos
distinguituin him from the gadol hador), I think either question is a
pretty big burden for the typical LOR to assume.

Few issues are hot enough for a contraversial qulah to cause talk of
communal split. As I said in my first foray into this discussion, it's
unfair that such sociological mess is involved, but it is, and that's
the metzi'us the poseiq must take into account when speaking.

And then there's inyanei geirus veyuchsin, where an LORs decision
has communal impact. There too I would be very wary, and expect him
to differ.

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (413) 403-9905      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

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


[ 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         ]