Avodah Mailing List

Volume 39: Number 46

Wed, 19 May 2021

• 1. The Axaronim (Jay F. Shachter)
• 2. Re: The chiyuv hishtadlus of parents for children (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Re: Can One Take In Shavuot Early? (Isaac Balbin)
• 4. Re: Can One Take In Shavuot Early? (Michael Poppers)
• 5. Re: Can One Take In Shavuot Early? (Akiva Miller)
• 6. Re: The chiyuv hishtadlus of parents for children (Micha Berger)

>
>> ... It is astonishing, then, that this practice is so entrenched,
>> especially since it has no basis in Chazal or the
>> Rishonim.  According to strict Talmudic law, ...
>
> This is not the first time I've seen this sentiment.  Why do I see a
> disdain for the Acharonim so often?
>
> There are many practices that are not discussed in the Gemara and
> Rishonim, and did not surface until the days of the Acharonim, just
> as there are many practices that are not discussed in the Gemara and
> did not surface until the days of the Rishonim.  Why do some people
> have the attitude that there is a cutoff point beyond which halacha
> can no longer develop?
>

I agree with you, about practices about which the Rishonim are
completely silent (but see the qualification below).  I hope that you
agree with me, with respect to new interpretations of Talmudic topics
about which the Rishonim are not silent.  Because that's the
definition of the word.  That's what "the Axaronim" means.

If a Shakespearean scholar, even a brilliant one, were to propose
today, in the year 2021, that "a bare bodkin" means "a pastrami
sandwich", he would not be believed, or even seriously considered.
The response would be: A lot of smart people have been studying
Shakespear over the past four hundred years; large numbers of them
have made the study of Shakespear, their life's work.  None of them
has suggested that "a bare bodkin" means "a pastrami sandwich".  Even
if you are smarter than all the Shakespearean scholars who have come
before you -- and we are not saying that you are not -- if "a bare
bodkin" means "a pastrami sandwich", it is implausible that none of
the scholars who preceded you, thought of that.

The transition from the period of the Rishonim, to the period of the
Axaronim, is when we began saying that to scholars of the Talmud.
Rishonim were allowed to propose interpretations of the Talmud that no
one else had previously thought of ("were allowed to" means "were
taken seriously when they did").  Axaronim are not.  You can still be
`oqer a din in the Shulxan `Arukh, but only if you find a Rishon on
whom to base your psaq.

Of course, none of this applies, if you have access to evidence that
the people who preceded you did not have access to.  Thus, if
archaeologists unearth a previously-unknown kosher deli in the
vicinity of the Globe Theatre, owned and operated by Shlomo Bodkin,
that specialized in pastrami sandwiches, you are allowed to propose
that Shakespear's audience called a pastrami sandwich a "Bodkin", and
that bodkins were normally prepared with mustard, or coleslaw, or
special sauce, and that a pastrami sandwich prepared without any of
these things, was called a "bare bodkin".  "Allowed to" again means
"taken seriously if you do" -- but only because none of the
Sheakespearean scholars who preceded you, had access to the evidence
that makes your theory plausible.  And the same applies (or, I should
say more precisely, should apply, among people who have intellectual
integrity) if you have access to evidence that none of the Rishonim
had access to -- but only because they did not have access to the
evidence that makes your psaq plausible.

With respect to things about which the Rishonim are completely silent,
then you are allowed to propose new pisqei din -- but only if it is
plausible that the Rishonim were completely silent about the halakha
that you are proposing.  Thus, if there are no ancient sources that
say that men and women have to sit separately in synagog, and you are
now proposing that men and women have to sit separately in synagog,
you should probably address the question: Why are there no ancient
sources that say so?  And then you have to plausibly say, It was so
much taken for granted, that no one thought there was a need to say
so.  Thus, in my edition of Amy Vanderbilt's Complete Book of
Etiquette, by which I live my life, there is much talk about what fork
to put out for various foods, and what spoon, and what knife, but in
the entire book she does not say anywhere that you have to eat with a
fork and a spoon and a knife, that you cannot eat with your fingers.
If you then wish to pasqn, for people who wish to live their lives
according to Amy Vanderbilt's Complete Book of Etiquette, that it is
assur to eat with your fingers, you should address the question, Why
did Amy Vanderbilt never say so?  You can then say, Because it was so
taken for granted, that she saw no need to say so; but you may be
legitimately challenged by other Vanderbilt scholars who say, No, she
was telling you what fork to use, if you chose to use a fork at all,
but there is no issur to use no fork at all, and to eat with your
fingers.  You may win the controversy, or you may not win the
controversy; but even if you win the controversy, and it becomes
generally accepted that it is assur to eat with your fingers, a
hundred years after you die, someone may propose that although it is
assur to eat with your fingers, Amy Vanderbilt never intended that it
should be assur to eat with your toes.

The last paragraph may seem humorous to you, but times change, manners
change, and Axaronim -- and we are the Axaronim -- must bear in mind,
that just as there may be some things that earlier generations thought
were obviously assur, whereas it is not obvious to us that they are,
there may be other things that we think are obviously assur, that
earlier generations never imagined would be thought assur, and
therefore, saw no need to explicitly permit.  Thus, I know some people
-- and there seem to be more of them every year -- who think that men
and women have to sit separately at weddings.  There are even some,
r"l, who think that there has to be a mxitzah between them.

                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 North Whipple Street
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784   landline
                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

.
R' Marty Bluke wrote:

> Rav Slifkin quoted a psak from Rav Zilberstein (
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hHXxuQkIrjU/YJvlXCGteoI/AAAAAAACUE0/5ZptYy3hBh82XV0INVJu_3L00VG98TctgCLcBGAsYHQ/s933/ChildSiren.jpg
)
> that parents have no chiyuv to wake up sleeping children when
> the air raid siren goes off and take them to a shelter. His
> reasoning is that going to a shelter is hishtadlus and children
> have no chiyuv hishtadlus.
>
> I don?t understand this at all. If he is right, we shouldn't
> take children to the doctor either, that is also hishtadlus.
> We also wouldn't need to watch that they don't do anything
> dangerous, that is also hishtadlus. Yet, I never heard of
> anyone who doesn't take their children to the doctor when
> they are sick. What am I missing?

Excellent question. Thank you for posting the source, so I could read the
original. So now I have another question:

Could it be that according to Rav Zilberstein, even though the children do
not need to do this hishtadlus for themselves, the parents *do* have to do
this hishtadlus for *them*selves. Therefore, the parents must go to the
shelter, and leave the children at home. Right?

Alternatively: Since the children are patur from hishtadlus, the parents
who watch them are also patur from hishtadlus, just like a husband who
(from what I've seen in various places) can sleep in the house instead of
the sukkah, because that's where his wife is.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210514/6880a58a/attachment-0001.html>

From: <allan.en...@gmail.com>
> The issue with this particular practice is that it is based on an 'drasha'
> on a word in a passuk that was never darshened until relatively recently,
> and new drashas on pessukim have been outlawed since the era of the amoraim.

Indeed, this is an area that the Chafetz Chaim was critical of R'
Hersh Leib (the Netziv). The Netziv sometimes supports his view with a
new interpretation of a pasuk which had never seemingly existed prior,
thereby affixing a deorayso like imperative to same.

In Avodah V39n45, referring to the subject, RAE responded to RAMiller:
> The issue with this particular practice is that it is based on an
'drasha' on a word in a passuk that was never darshened until relatively
recently, and new drashas on pessukim have been outlawed since the era of
the amoraim. <
Accordingly, RAE, you would join me in having a problem w/ boys not being
*mis'ateif* [in public/at a *minyan*] until marriage (a recent practice
seemingly based on "ki-yiqach" following "g'dilim"
<http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0522.htm>)?  Just curious....

Chag Sameach! and all the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210515/946396d2/attachment-0001.html>

.
R' Allan Engel wrote:

> The issue with this particular practice is that it is based
> on a 'drasha' on a word in a passuk that was never darshened
> until relatively recently, and new drashas on pessukim have
> been outlawed since the era of the amoraim.

How can we tell the difference between a new drasha that should not have
been darshened, vs. an old one that simply had never been written down
before?

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210516/605c308e/attachment-0001.html>

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 04:45:05PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> Could it be that according to Rav Zilberstein...

None of your answers really address the question. Regardles of hishtadlus,
since when do we say you're allowed to ignore safeiq piquach nefesh in
order to aid the next day's learning -- or for any other mitzvah? Making
this a she'eilah of whether histadlus is required is itself something
very hard to understand.

We have three mitzvos that are yeihareig ve'al ya'avos -- and learning
isn't one of them -- but we have NO mitzvos that allow risk to someone
else's life.

(Said mitzvah would be the father's obligation of veshinantam, since
the boy isn't a bar chiyuvah. But that seems tangential.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


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



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


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


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

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

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)