Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 280

Sun, 03 Aug 2008

• 1. Re: [Areivim] Following Aruch HaShulchan over MB (Josh Skolnick)
• 2. Re: Hating a Meisis to Kefirah, Should be - Hating any Jew (Doron Beckerman)
• 3. Re: Halachic Texts: More Background (David Riceman)
• 4. Re: Following Aruch Hashulchan over MB (Doron Beckerman)
• 5. Re: Can you build a community around Halakhic Man? (David Riceman)
• 6. Re: [Areivim] Following Aruch HaShulchan over MB (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. Re: Halachic Texts: More Background (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. Re: Halachic Texts: More Background (Richard Wolpoe)

I heard Rav Hershel Schechter, when he came to speak, say that you should
follow the Mishna Berurah over the Shulchan Aruch because he includes all
the lomdus of the rishonim (IIRC that was his reasoning, I will check again
on the tape).

Yosef


<<<<<<
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Moshe Feldman <moshe.feldman@gmail.com>wrote:

> Article in Yeshurun by R. Eitan Henkin at p. 159: both R. Y. E. Henkin
> (as reported by many of this talmidim as well as his grandson) and R.
> Moshe Feinstein (as reported R. Dovid Cohen of Gevul Yaavetz; see also
> Or Hamizrach, year 31, choveres 1, p. 324) said that where there is a
> machlokes of AhS and MB, the AhS should be followed.  R. Henkin
> considered AhS "the most important of the later poskim."
>
> >>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080803/8231c576/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Areivim mailing list
Areivim@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org

Some potential differences between hating a Meisis and a regular Rasha:

The hatred toward a sinner who has been warned - most Rishonim hold is not
included in Achicha and outright Sin'ah is allowed (Sheiltos Vayeishev,
Chinuch 80, Yereim, Smag, Hagahos Maimoni Deos 6:1 et al. There is a
contradiction in the Rambam (Hilchos Rotzeach vs. Hilchos Eivel) on this
point) or only as it relates to the Aveira itself (Tosfos Pesachim 113,
Smak, see Tanya 32). Meisis is certainly an all-out hatred.

The Chofetz Chaim at the end of Sefer Ahavas Chessed has a little Kuntress
from Mahar"i Wohlin where it says that nowadays we don't know how to give
Tochacha and the Reshaim are like before Tochacha - but this would not apply
to a Meisis where there is no such limitation.

Everyone agrees by a Kofer or a Mechallel Shabbos B'farhesia that one *must*
hate him based on Mesanecha Hashem Esna.

Dibros Moshe BM Perek 2 note 77, regarding this Tosfos in Pesachim,  is
explicit that the hatred toward other sinners is only allowed L'shem
Shamayim and not out of any Taava to hate the fellow, whereas by a Meisis
you can hate him even if you got into an argument with him and you feel like
hating him.

There is a big debate in the Rishonim whether the hatred toward the Reshaim
is meant to be open or in one's heart. See Tosfos to Pesachim there. A
Meisis is, again, all out hatred.

There is one more major practical  difference between hatred of other
Reshaim and that of a Meisis - and that is that hating a Meisis is an Issur
D'Oraysa whereas other Reshaim are under Mesan'echa Hashem Esna - and so if
there is some Safek today as to the status of the average Chiloni in Eretz
Yisrael, whether he is a Tinok Shenishba or not, perhaps one should be
Machmir and avoid hatred since the Mitzvah of hating him is Divrei Kabbalah
whereas V'Ahavta is D'Oraysa - but by a Meisis it is an Issur D'Oraysa to
love him and a Miitzvaj to hate him and one cannot be Machmir and love him -
the Pashtus is that one should hate them since the CI says they should each
be judged individually plus RMF RSZA and RYSE all say that they are not
Tinokos Shenishbu.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080803/eb0cbee7/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha Berger wrote:
> But according to RALichtenstein, the iqar of RYBS's objection is that if
> one could simply invoke hafka'as qiddushin in this way, we could throw
> out much of Yevamos, Gittin, Even haEzer, etc...
I don't understand this.  Didn't Rabbi Soloveitchik rule that we need an 
explicit tradition about makom hamizbeah, rather than our best 
deduction.  Why didn't he reject that opinion as well, since it requires 
us to throw out much of sidrei kodshim and tohoros?

David Riceman

The testimony about Rav Moshe Feinstein holding of AhS over MB is
interesting. In the Igros Moshe the most deferetial term toward the AhS is
"Kvar Horah Zaken" (OC I:39) which he also uses toward the MB (OC II:28),
but the whopper is reserved for the MB, where he says that one can be Meikil
(against RMF's own Netiya) like the MB, since: "Harei Hu Maran D'doros
Basraei B'Horaos D'inyanei Orach Chaim (OC V:13).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080803/b07c8086/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha Berger wrote:
> It's not just a matter of HM, it's
> how HM is expected to navigate the ramatayim tzofim. The 2 peaks are
> to provide conflict, which then forces choice and creativity. One of
> those peaks is the calling to be the HM.
>   
I'm handicapped here, since I haven't found a copy of RT.  Once he 
becomes a scientist (or historian or philosopher) he's no longer HM.  In 
addition to the citations from HM see Mah Dodech Midod, the section 
entitled Mitzvas H Barah, Me'iras Einayim, #5 (on p. 233 in BSod HaYahid 
V'haYahad).
> : I don't see a large emphasis on choice in HM; it is you, not the author, 
> : who links creativity and free will.
>
> Remember, this creativity is his way out of being torn by the dialectic.
> It's not just comprehension, it's comprehension of the conflict as he
> confronts it as each moement in time.
>
> (It is probably of a piece with telling his students who are LORs to
> make up their own minds, as they see the community and its issues,
> rather than necessarily always following his own pesaq.)
>   
This isn't behirah.  See MDM, in the section I cited, #1 (pp. 230-231).  
Clarity leads to inevitability, not to choice.  How would you react if 
Gauss had told you, "It's true that I proved that a degree n polynomial 
has n roots, but had I chosen differently I could equally well have 
proven that it has 3n roots", or if Newton had told you "It's true that 
I proved that a cannonball travels in a parabola, but had I chosen I 
could equally well have proven that it travels in an ellipse."  The 
creativity of HM is precisely in understanding a sugya so clearly that 
he has no choice about how to explain it or pasken from it.
> My blog entry as a whole was about following HM and RYBS's plan in
> general. Yes, at times I worked with the sloppy assumption that MO (in
> the US) was a group of people who are trying to live by RYBS's hashkafos.
>   
In spite of being a graduate of Maimonides, I had practically no contact 
with Rabbi Soloveitchik, so I have no idea what his plan was.  The 
institutions he influenced, however, were not designed to produce HMs.  
They were aimed at producing more rounded people.
> But this critique of HM as it plays together with his other works --
> particularly in how he handles the confrontation with olam hazeh -- is
> not the "Mussar objection". It's simply that you can't teach the masses
> to be creative until after you teach them how to tell when they're
> creating, and when they're destroying. Creatively finding a way for
> conflicting goals to coexitist, whether you use the word "synthesis"
> in some non-Hegelian sense (as RNLamm does) or harmonious coesistence
> (RARR's term), looks too much like an invitation to compromise. It's
> not something to encourage in amateurs.
I wan't clear.  The mussar critique is directed against the assertion 
that "in Volozhin we're healthy".  Following the Rambam, ikkar halacha 
induces the golden mean in an already harmonious person living in  
already harmonious society.  Every person has to adjust it to his own 
personality via humroth and kuloth, and every society has to adjust 
based on the tendencies that society instills in its inhabitants.  HM 
rejects that.

Your critique in these posts is that HM can function only with a very 
high level of expertise, and I think that's false.  Even someone who 
slavishly follows the MB or SSK is capable of doing with them what HM 
does with Hazal and rishonim.  That's enough to enable a person or a 
community to implement HM as a master plan for how to live.  They may 
not all be poskim, but they can all try to devote their lives to 
understanding the world via the a priori categories of Torah.

Another critique of HM, irrelevant to this thread, is that the 
categories of Torah are not really a priori, v'od hazon lamoded.

David Riceamn

On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Moshe Feldman <moshe.feldman@gmail.com>wrote:

> Article in Yeshurun by R. Eitan Henkin at p. 159: both R. Y. E. Henkin
> (as reported by many of this talmidim as well as his grandson) and R.
> Moshe Feinstein (as reported R. Dovid Cohen of Gevul Yaavetz; see also
> Or Hamizrach, year 31, choveres 1, p. 324) said that where there is a
> machlokes of AhS and MB, the AhS should be followed.  R. Henkin
> considered AhS "the most important of the later poskim."
>
> Shavua tov.
> Moshe
>

Rabbi Harvey Senter is a Talmid of RYBS and the founder of Kof-K.  He quoted
the Rav who quoted his grandfather that the AhS wast"*The* poseik hador"

In Lita, the legacy of Poskie hador goes roughly as follows:

   1. R. Yitchok Elchanan Spektor [Kovno]
   2. Aruch Hshulchan [Nevardok]
   3. R. Hayyim Ozer [Vilna]

There were perhaps greater lamdanim.  R. Hayyim Brisker probably was deemd a
bigger illuy than any of the above, but I am not familiar with his Teshuvos
as being widely accepted [unlike his father th4e Beis Halevy.]

The MB no doubt as a Sefer was weidly promoted by Roshei Yeshiva - perhaps
for many reasons.   This is not the first time that a Sefer that has been
promoted mostly as a superior textbook has superceded perhaps superior
"poskim."

Illlustration: The Maharam miRothenburg commisioned the authorship of
Hahgahos Maimopniyyos on the Mishneh Torah because of the tremendosue value
of the Sefer as a textbook. In no way was the Maharm going to chnage his
PSAK based upon the Mishneh Torah, it was simply in defernce to the
superiority of the composition.  And that is exactly WHY Hagahos Maimoniyyos
was commisioned, to accomodate LEARNING the Mishnh Torah w/o scarificng
Ashkenazic practice. Anyone can connect the dots to other Seforim similarly
composed.

FWIW, Asie from Rabbi Senter's testimony, the few surviving Litvisher
Rabbonim whom I met in my youth were unifromly devotees of the AhS.  And
from most Semicha Students I have talked to, MOST have confirmed that the
AhS teaches a DERECH in Psak - like R. Haayyim Brisker teaches a Derech in
learning.

I have not met anyone who has told me that the MB has taught them a Derech
in learning, but they have learned it for beik'us and for Halachic
Principles.  As a limud it is immensely popular.

To me it is like Rashi and Gmara. If you are first sitting dow nto learn
Gmara learn it with Rashi. If you are interested in getting the PSAK from a
daf, you will probahbly consult Tosafos, Rif, Rosh, Ran etc.  Similarly if
you are sitting down to learn Orach Hayyyim perhaps,the MB is the most Rashi
like. But if you want an in depth view, then I would say see
BY, Taz, MGA, AhS, etc. [I also would say the Levush is the most under-rated
of all of the above]  And of all the above the BY and the AhS will most
likely give you a derech in p'sak.

To reiterate, when I was once learning Kitzur SA a fellow remarked:
"Hassidim learn Kitzur"
I replied: "you mean they PASKEN like Kitzur?"
"No, they jsut LEARN it"
IOW it is the text of choice.

The BY paskensare  MORE like the Rambam than he does like the Tur but he
built his magnum opus around the Tur instead.  And in his hkadamah he
explains why.

I think this is part of the nature of popular mis-conceptions...
That said, certainly one can be SOMEICH on the MB. But I could probably say
the same for the Kaf haHayyim.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080803/6d5086f2/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 4:49 PM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:

>   From: "Richard Wolpoe" rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com
>
>
> >
> >>>>>
> Without getting into whether this would work halachically, I would like to
> point out that if you are working on the assumption that human nature has
> changed, I believe that assumption is incorrect.  For financial and social
> reasons, women find it easier to bail out of a bad marriage than they used
> to, but you still find that a majority of women would rather remain in an
> unhappy marriage, or stay with an abusive boyfriend, rather than be alone.
> You see this every day, among both Jewish and non-Jewish women.  *
> *
> *--Toby Katz
> =============*
>

I would say things have changed. Call it circumstances or nature. It is
documented inthe Gmara that the lishma re: Yibbum changed. Such Changes are
clearly recognized by Shas in other cases.  Look at takkanos that kept on
morphing re: kil'ayyim because ha'aramas changed.  And Sanhedrin ditched
misas beis Din because of increased violence. Our halachic literature is
replete with changes inattitudes, etc.

That does not mean that poskim have to repsond to EVERY last nuacne of
change. But to be mattir agunos, it is certainly plausible.

Furthermore, it is clear from Choshen Mishpat that communites and batei
Dinnim are exmpowered to do many things in the realm of hora'as sho'oh.
Think of the execution of 80 witches in 1 day as a Talmudic precedent for
over-riding 1 execution per shemita.



-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080803/ffec1355/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> If we cared about how people could construe things, then eilu va'eilu is
> altogether out.


How so? Specifics please!

> Once you allow plurality, anyone will argue that their position is simply
> another "eilu".
>

Inded you havearuges just so  many times to me. Please explain how this is
different?!

>
> Bottom line is that R' Rackman innovated two things that have no basis,
> regardless of our differences in how to trate things that do:
>
> 1- Considering a later personality change, career failure, or other
> issue to be "mekach ta'us" rather than "nistapkha sadeihu".


Imagine personality can mamash CHANGE within  JUST ONE liftime, but human
nature cannto change in 1,500+ years of history! I am indeed perplexed by
this paradox!

Maybe Rackman holds taht a sociopath NOW was ALWAYS so, jsut like tav
lemieisav cannot change. how about that counter-argument?!

Just last nigh's Star Trek had varous officers debating whether Captain
Kirk's persona had been swapped. Despite no objective evidence, Spock
realized he MUST be differnet, [a mind meld with the later ego did help] yet
McCoy certified the Captain as fit. Lema'aseh huvrar davar lemafrei'a that
the persona HAD bee nswitched after all!

>
> 2- Hafka'as qiddushin where (1) the husband did no ma'aseh attempting
> qiddushin or geirushin, and (2) on a casewise basis rather than a general
> policy set in advance that whenever X, the marriage is annulled.


Se Hoshen Mishpat [2-5] where BD has great powers to make a hora'as sho'oh
EVEN w/o precedent when things are considered to be out-of-hand. Such powers
are always within the purview of a BD when there are abuses withi nthe Torah
[naval birshus hatorah]. If hte Halachah has a loopwhole that is explitable
a BD can at least temporarily enforce a closure, EVEN if it is not based
upon Halachic norms.


>
>
> Both of us should agree that places his position objectively outside the
> fold.


I fail to understand how your heuristic read of Halachic Judaism how ANYONE
is completely objectively IN or OUT of anything normative.

I find dancing on Shabbas mroe obejctively outside the pale than Rabbi
Rackman's p'sak ecause this is LITERALLY to'eh bidvar hamishnah.



> There is no maqor. It's his own invention.


Yes I saw that the Kitzur Misgeres hashulchan accused the Kitzur SA of the
same a few days ago. He says [in the R. Mordechai Eliyahu edition]  Taht
there is NO MAQOR in poskim fro this decision.  And what does that prove?  A
snif here and a snif there and presto it's Halachah!

Whe'res' the Taz's Meqor for making late Ma'ariv on Shavu's?   Indeed we may
daven early Maa'riv on Sahbbas itself!



> Our debates over how do
> decide between answers that actually have mechanics which trumps which
> and how has nothing to do with this.


Really? how so?



>
>
> RER's belief that he has justification doesn't change the fact that
> according to everyone else's rules, he doesn't.


There are a lot of "Da'ss Yachid" types out there. Does being a Da'as yachid
preclude eilu v'eilu?  WAs the B'al Hama'ors biur hametz erev Pesach via
eating outside Eilu v'eilu?

Does consensus count in p'sak And ven if it DOES count, who says there can
be ZERO dissent?

Who besides RYBS read teh Rambam literally taht one must sit for Ashbrie at
Mincha? The Tur/BY quote the Ramba w/o metnioning this prat which implictly
means they agree wtih Rambam but do not consture sitting as a requirement,
but perhaps as an option.
One MAY sit NOT one  MUST sit. This is obvous, but RYBS changed that read
w/o aFAIK any meqor.


>
>
>
> : Or he could say that any woman protesting her fate vociferously is part
> of a
> : minority that prefers isolation to suffering an abusive relationship.
> ...
> : The point is taht RYBS said that tav lemseisav is an aboslute. WADR, I
> : disagree.
>
> The essential issue is NOT tav lemeisav, although that came up in part
> of the mekach ta'us argument. Everyone discusses RYBS's reply about it
> because his reply has philosophical content and is therefore more
> interesting than the lomdus.


OK

>
>
> But according to RALichtenstein, the iqar of RYBS's objection is that if
> one could simply invoke hafka'as qiddushin in this way, we could throw
> out much of Yevamos, Gittin, Even haEzer, etc...


ein hachi nami, in a hora'as sho'oh you MAY throw them all out.  But I do
belive R. Rackman never meant to throw it all out


> The Chasam Sofer and CI
> didn't simply resolve problems through hafka'as qidushin. Are we wiser
> than them?


See remakrs about innovations above by Kitzur, Taz and RYBS. Were they
wiser?
Why on the page of the Tur re: Hilchos Shavu'os the
Tur/BY/DM/Drisha-Presiha/BaCh
ALL omit davening Ma'ariv late!  Magen AVraham did not Know of it either
because he requires repeating Shema ayain sham!


> RYBS described it as cutting off the branches of the very
> tree one is sitting in. IOW, there is a basic problem of precedent and
> halachic process here.


since when have you yourself subscribec to ANY prescirption or dexcription
of Halchic process. AISI, it is all the eyres of the beholder or poseik to
quote the paytan

Hinei Hadin beyad haposeik
Birtzoso mechazeik uvirtzoso memacheik

In a heuristic system one may WEIGH Heter agunost to trump other principles
wbecasue even in the Talmud itself heter Agunos trumps the requiremetn for 2
iedim mamash and allow an isha etc. Certailny it is w/o precedent in eidi
ishus to allow a woman but to mattir agunos the Talmud says it's OK.
Halachic preecedent is trhown wawy provding itself in turn anew haalchic
preceent allowing one to throw away Halachic precdent because of the
over-whlming nautre of the suffering entailed.

And since kol demkeidsh ada'as derabban mekadeish, if rabbis dems it so, it
IS so. So says Rav Ashi re: the case of being mevateil qiddushin that was
done vai shtarr or bi'ah

The requirement of having to process at least a Passul Get IS in Rashi and
Rishonim but not explicit in Shas. Why not ignore Rishonim?


>
>
> To put it in my own words: lo ra'inu eino ra'ayah doesn't apply to
> cases where someone claims there is something 3 feet across sitting
> three inches in front of your face. -Micha
>
>
See YD 1:1 the machlokes BY and Shach on lo ra'inu eino raya. I'm not sure I
get your mashal [or nimshal!]

RYBS certainly had no eye witnesses for sitting for Ashrei. and Lo Ra'ainu
is certainly the case for Techeiles. I don't know how ANYONE can revive this
w/o a definitive masorah, and RYBS and I are in agreement on this [as well
as many many psoqim] but some have found the ability to refresh TEhceiles
w/o any certainty of what a hilzaon is. Perhaps we can over-ride problems
re: birds and Chagavim based upon research instead of masorah/qabbalah, too!


Or to put it another way, if resarch can ID a chilazon w/o a precedent -
why not Chagavim?



-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080803/cb7b7471/attachment.htm>

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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 280
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."