Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 085

Thursday, June 10 1999

• Re: Avodah V3 #81
• amoraim and tannaim
• Re: Keviat Seudah
• Faxes and Nolad
• Metzius and Chazal
• Chazal and Metzius
• Rashi & Maginei Shlomo
• R' Moshe Feinstein and stam chalav
• Re: Chazal and Metzius
• R' Moshe fFinstein & Stam Chalav
• RE: Kiddushe Ta'ut
• RE: Kiddushe Ta'ut
• Hypothesis, Chazal were ahead of their time
• Re: Repudiation of the Kula for Chalav Akum by R. Moshe
• Re: Repudiation of the Kula for Chalav Akum by R. Moshe
• metzius and Chazal
• Re: R' Moshe fFinstein & Stam Chalav

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 11:39:30 -0400
> From: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky" <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov>
> Subject: chickens defining bein hashmasas
> 
> Al Hadaf (an excellent newsletter to use in conjunction with daf, put out by Rabbi
> Zev Dickstein
> of Monsey) quotes the Mahari Brunah as saying that if an egg was laid and a fruit



Could you give some information about Al Hadaf and how to subscribe?

reuven

Returning to an old discussion, Rashi in today's daf yomi
says that when it comes to supporting a halacha from pesukim
the amoraim give their reasins and the tanaim give theirs.

So according to Rashi Amoraim can disagree with taanaim in terms of supporting
a known halacha.
It is also well known that rambam sometimes brings different pesukim than
the Gemara.

So the prohibition to disagree with the Tannaim and the Talmud does
not extend to this area.

Eli Turkel

In Avodah 3:84, Moshe Feldman asks:

<<< Query: in today's society, would eating a kezayit of crackers
necessarily indicate that one has been kova'ah seudah on those crackers
(considering the insignificance of crackers in today's society)? >>>

My understanding of the Igros Moshe Orach Chaim 3:32 is a very clear
"yes". See there for a fuller explanation.

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

--part1_432565f0.24910acc_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'd be interested in comments on faxes received on Shabbat in general and the 
 following  bit of give and take in particular.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich
 << 
  In a similar manner--a piece of paper that received a fax message on
  it on shabbath has achieved a NEW STATUS--it no longer has the status
  of being a piece of BLANK paper but rather it has the status of a FAX
  Hence it is "BORN" and should not be read (till after Shabbath).
  
   >>
 I'm not a baki(expert) in the laws of nolad but by your definition would you 
say a fax printed on a piece of paper that already had printing(or a prior 
fax on the other side ) would be considered nolad??
 
 Kol Tuv,
 Joel Rich >>


--part1_432565f0.24910acc_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: Joelirich@aol.com
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Full-name: Joelirich
Message-ID: <432565f0.249107d7@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:21:43 EDT
Subject: Fwd: mail-jewish Vol. 28 #69 Digest
To: micha@aishdas.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part2_432565f0.249107d7_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4


--part2_432565f0.249107d7_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

OK to post to Avoda?
Kol Tuv,
Joel

--part2_432565f0.249107d7_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: Joelirich@aol.com
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Full-name: Joelirich
Message-ID: <432565f0.249107b7@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:21:11 EDT
Subject: Re: mail-jewish Vol. 28 #69 Digest
To: mljewish@shamash.org
CC: Joelirich@aol.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4

In a message dated 6/10/99 6:05:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
mljewish@shamash.org writes:

<< 
 In a similar manner--a piece of paper that received a fax message on
 it on shabbath has achieved a NEW STATUS--it no longer has the status
 of being a piece of BLANK paper but rather it has the status of a FAX
 Hence it is "BORN" and should not be read (till after Shabbath).
 
  >>
I'm not a baki(expert) in the laws of nolad but by your definition would you 
say a fax printed on a piece of paper that already had printing(or a prior 
fax on the other side ) would be considered nolad??

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

--part2_432565f0.249107d7_boundary--

--part1_432565f0.24910acc_boundary--

CB:>>

 However, (and this is how I read the initial discussion) the historical 
question remains - without retrospective revisionism  - isn't it fair to 
assume that the original intent of Chazal was consistant with scientific 
views of their time and not consistant with any ultimate scientific truths of 
the universe and that Chazal were not privy to secrets of science or other 
secular learning that their contemporaries were unaware of?<<

Several points:

1) It IS a fair assumption indeed, but I better assumption to give Chazal the 
benefit of any doubt and to humbly question are own scientific assumptions.  IOW
contemporary science isn't infallible either.

2) Halachically speaking, the revisions in scientific data should not matter.  
We have accepted Chazal's principles as binding, even despite paradoxes.  'nuff 
said.  As illsutrated, various spritual disciplines accpet THEIR truths as 
handed down because they work within thier structures and see no reason to have 
to justify themselves scientficially. 

3) According to Professor Agus (and others), Chazal WERE privy to many things al
pi kabblolo.  Agus sepcifically pointed out that the mystery of kabbolo lay in 
its highly advanced tehcnology and that society at lesast in Middle ages for 
sure) had not yet caught up.  Picture describing a modern PC to an 18th century 
human - even to a scientist.  It would be gibberish.  So nevi'im talk of kanfei 
neshorim, but might mean jet planes.

Certain Chinese healers feel they have received a set of wisdonm still 
unfathomed by science.  Adn science has still not figured out how the Egypts 
embalmed their dead nor how they constructed the pyramids given their 
"primitive" technology.

Why should we feel OUR mesorah is inferior to others?  

4) Chazal dealt with a different fram of referene with regard to reality.  Is a 
tzuras hapesach a REAL Pesach?  I would call it a VIRTUAL pesach.  I would say 
that Chazal  frequently dealt in Abstractions, legal fictions, concepts, virtual
reality, etc. Taking a statement out-of-context and then transferring it to the 
scientific realm is a real disservice.

Lemoshol, a phsycist might listen to Mozart and describe the music in termns of 
pitch in hertz and volume in terms of devibels.  A music critic would use quite 
a different set of terminology.  Just because the music critic is oblivious to 
decibels and hertz deos nbot mean he is not a bona fide judge of Mozart's music.

The lense of Chazal when looking at the world was not the lense of the 
sicentist.  It was the lense of Torah, halocho, machshovo.  It's NICE to 
reconcile them, but should not suppose that Chazal were WRONG or in error 
simplky becau their map of the universe does not match conptemporary science.

5) We have no Sanhedrin. we have accpeted upon ourselves certain fixed halachic 
foundations.   I think it unwise to undermine any of those foundations by 
engaging in speculation.  And by speculation realize that while Halocho evolves 
ever so slowly, science is frequently revising its own paradigms at a 
frightening rate.  EG ATOM is by definition THE smalles particle.  The 
sub-atomic particles described by science is an oxymoron.  By exact definitoin 
there is NO smaller component thatn the atom.  Despite this, we have split the 
atom.  And uncharacteristically perhaps, still use THAT term.

>>On can conclude, that if that is the case, if science
should prove that the original ideas were faulty, that we could change the
halachos on that basis.  ...
Shaul weinreb<<

Q: Who out there believes be'emnuo shleimo that today's scientific assumptions 
will be considered faultless 1500 years hence?

Rich Wolpoe 

Someone posted:

"There are stories about the Meginei Shlomo and Rashi, that Rashi gave him a
yasher
koach for being meyashiv him."

It may be a story but it is not--as the poster makes it sound--bubba meissas
floating around: the "story" is recorded in the introduction to "Maginei
Shlomo." (I'm doing this by heart; I sure hope I'm accurate.)

A poster posted:

"If the Niftar didn't publish those teshuvos in his lifetime than there was
probably a good reason.

HM"

A good reason: yes, such as it was more important to answer the sho-el than
to review galleys.  While what HM says may be true, academic completeness
and "be-tzedek tishpot amisecha" require HM to call R' Mordechai tendler
&/or R'Shabsai Rappaprot and confront them with HM's accusation.

Finally, perhaps the "agendizing" as M calls it was not the posthumous
collectors but R' Moshe's!

In a message dated 6/10/99 9:47:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 
 Q: Who out there believes be'emnuo shleimo that today's scientific 
assumptions 
 will be considered faultless 1500 years hence?
 
 Rich Wolpoe 
  >>
Doesn't this all go back to a very basic question - did Chazal receive 
"science" through mesora (revelation) or not.  If yes, then we have to accept 
and try to reconcile with our "lying eyes" ; if no, we do the same thing that 
Chazal assumedly did if this interpretation is correct - take "facts" ( as we 
know/understand them) and work them through the halachic process.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

PS In answer to your question - no doubt someone will eventually be myashev 
quantum and Newtonian physics :-)

After my previous post in response to HM's on this subject, I read RDE's
comments on the matter.

In all fairness, there is, within the first two or three volumes of Igros
Moshe, a definite shift in R' Moshe's opinon on the matter.  One has to say
so, else one would say "If I didn't know better, I would say he forgot the
first teshuva."

The difference in the two letters may be the dates--about 17 years apart, or
the sho-el, or the context.  Either way, some explaining needs to be done.
Is RDE up to helping out?

RE: Kiddushe Ta'ut:

I haven't posted b/c I am waiting for the sources from an article on the subject of 
wife abuse and chiyuv Get, but I must comment.

A wife who is subject to abuse does not have to seek out a method of escaping the 
marriage through "Kiddushe Ta'ut", especially if she mistakenly thought that the 
so-called "one time" wouldn't become the "first time".

Wife abuse comes under the heading of "living with a snake" and from the sources (to 
follow later) - she can come to a Beit Din at any time and there is no necessity of it 
being a "first time" and it never comes under the heading of 'she agreed' (in any shape 
or form!!!).

The desolution of the marriage then depends on the Dayanim whether they judge that the 
couple "should" divorce;  pasken Chiyuv Get (which allows, according to some, the 
application of some sanctions of Rabbeinu Tam) or they paskened for K'fiyat Get, which 
allows full sanctions.  At this point there is relevance to a discussion of the psika 
of Ge'onim for an annulment based on "Al Da'at Rabanan", but this is very complex and 
it really is up to the specific Dayanim who rule with the guidance of Hashem based on 
the complete information available only to them - and not to us who are analyzing 
theoretical cases.

Shoshana


-------------------------------------
Name: Shoshana L. Boublil
E-mail: toramada@mail.netvision.net.il
Date: 10/06/99
Time: 05:30:09 PM , Israel

This message was sent by Chameleon 
-------------------------------------
Torah U'Madah Ltd. is developing a DB on the topic:
"Environmental issues and the Halacha (Jewish Law)"
any and all related information would be welcome.

--- toramada@netvision.net.il wrote:
> The desolution of the marriage then depends on the Dayanim whether
> they judge that the 
> couple "should" divorce;  pasken Chiyuv Get (which allows,
> according to some, the 
> application of some sanctions of Rabbeinu Tam) or they paskened for
> K'fiyat Get, which 
> allows full sanctions.  At this point there is relevance to a
> discussion of the psika 
> of Ge'onim for an annulment based on "Al Da'at Rabanan", but this
> is very complex and 
> it really is up to the specific Dayanim who rule with the guidance
> of Hashem based on 
> the complete information available only to them - and not to us who
> are analyzing 
> theoretical cases.

Isn't the discussion we've had up to now dealing with kiddushey ta'ut
essentially dealing with annulment based on "Al da'at rabanan?"

While I appreciate the benefit of analyzing specific cases rather
than theoretical ones, I do believe that there is room for us to
discuss the issue of kiddushey ta'ut based on hypotheticals we've
drawn up.  The advantage of hypotheticals (rather than real cases) --
as those who have attended law school will appreciate -- is that when
one of the participants in the discussion has an objection we can
easily change the hypothetical (in fact, in a recent posting, I did
exactly that).  That way, we can zoom in on the essence of the issue
rather than doing what dayanim typically do, which is to be metzaref
various kulot together.  (By the way -- for legal practitioners out
there -- the same point applies to secular law as well.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Shaul Weinreb besheim RSR Hirsch
>>And if, as we see things today, these instances are considered 
fiction, can Chazal be blamed for ideas that were accepted by the 
naturalists of their times?  And this is what really happened.  These
statements are to be found in the works of Pliny, who lived in Rome at the 
time the Second Temple was destroyed, and who collected in his books on 
nature all that was well known and accepted in his day." Ad Kan Leshono<<

Hypothesis: Chazal were 3,000 years ahead of their time technolgocially 
speaking.

Questions:
Would they have let on to the "velt" about their superior knowledge?
Would they have paskened practical halocho based upon suppositions that would 
have been totally over the heads of the hamon am
OR
would they have adjusted what they said to fit in  with the times despite 
ralizing that the underlying assumptions were faulty?

Rich Wolpoe

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> 
> Harry Maryles wrote:
> 
> > richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> >
> > > Didn't R. Moshe recommend not tampering with the kulos that have been
> > > accepted, even if they might be questionable?
> >
> > I would like to know the accuracy of the above statement.  If true, then
> > it would seem that the last volume of Igrus Moshe which seems to
> > indicate that R. Moshe recanted his original Kula regarding Chalav Akum
> > (i.e. Cholov Stam). This last volume was published posthumously, I
> > believe, by his grandchildren and I found it very suspect that R. Moshe
> > would have written such a clear and beautiful heter (KULA) for Chalav
> > Akum only to repudiate it later in life.  My gut feeling is that the
> > last (posthumous) volume. was written with an agendized attitude. I am
> > always suspicious of Halacha sforim put out by Talmidim etc. who only
> > have anecdotal knowledge of psak halacha.  If the Niftar didn't publish
> > those teshuvos in his lifetime than there was probably a good reason.
> >
> > HM
> 
> The above is - to put it mildly - slander. Gut feelings are not
> justification for undermining the reputation of talmidei chachomim - or
> anyone else. Furthermore you are publicly questioning the veracity of the
> Igros Moshe based on your gut feeling.
> 
> Two points need to be made. 1) your reading of the tshuva in the 8th volume
> is simply incorrect. Reb Moshe is not repudiating a kula. He is dealing with
> those who have insisted on using only chalav Yisroel milk (without a hetair)
> - while being fully aware of the hetair. He says that they should not change
> practice so quickly merely because of economic considerations. He also
> insisted - elsewhere -  that schools and camps use regular chalav yisroel
> milk. In sum, a person's use of a kula is not mechanical and there are
> clearly circumstances which militate against its use.
> 
> As to your gut feeling - I asked Reb Dovid Feinstein about the material
> which was included in the 8th volume. He responded that it was simply a
> question of whether the material should be lost or published with clear
> indications of it nature. The family decided that it was better to publish
> the material - carefully labeled as to its nature and relationship to
> previous tshuvos - and leave it to the reader decide how to utilize it.
> 
> The Igros Moshe was not meant for baalei batim. Reb Moshe clearly states in
> his introduction that his purpose was to provide poskim with his reasoning
> on various issues - and it is up to the reader to decide whether to utilize
> the material.
> 
> As to your accusation of agenda. One rosh yeshiva pointed out that if there
> was an agenda - it was strange that there is such strong anti- college
> material included. The main work on the 8th was done by Rabbi Shabtsai
> Rappaport - son-in-law of Rav Moshe Tendler and Rabbi Mordechai Tendler -
> the son of Rav Moshe Tendler. Both are more than anecdotally acquainted with
> psak halacha.
> 
> In sum - your criticism is inappropriate.
> 
> Rabbi Rappaport's telephone number is .(02) -641-5579 Bayit V'gan Israel
> Rabbi Mordechai Tendler's number is (914) 354-0498 Monsey New York



First of all let me apologize if I offended or slandered anyone in my 
above quoted  post. I am certain that the publishers of the volume in 
question are men of the highest integrity and had only the noblest of 
intentions when they published it. I, also, believe that R. Eidensohn is 
on a similar level of integrity.  As to the motives for publishing 
stated above, again, I am certain that they are accurately represented. 
Furthermore my memory of the Teshuva which I saw a couple of years ago 
may have been faulty and not as harsh as I remember it. And, it's true 
that I had a gut reaction, as I indeed stated. But there are several 
reasons why I wrote my post that way. Let me explain. 

One of my big issues is the unwarranted and unfair chumraization of Klal 
Israel. This is manifest in so many area's of life. Whether it is the 
manner of dress of Yeshiva students, or the color, size and style of 
their Kipot, or whether it is in the total rejection of mixed seating as 
the norm for events such as weddings, bar mitzvos, or banquets, the 
chumraization has cast a pall on those of us who were brought up in a 
world where even the Gedolei HaDor went to mixed seating events and sat 
with their wives.  The talmidim of today have become Kana-im for their 
Rebbeim and Roshei Yeshivos in certain areas of Yahadus. In past 
generations that was not the case. My Rebbe ,HaGoan R. Mordechai Rogov, 
ZTL, said that in Lithuania they were not makpid on such things.  I 
recently saw some Archival footage of Yeshiva bachurim at pre-war 
Ponovich. The bachurim and Yungeleit were ALL wearing light colored 
suits and hats, and they were all clean shaven with no peyos. Can you 
imagine walking into Lakewood today and seeing even one student wearing 
a light colored suit?

I have written about this before and do not want to bore anyone with 
excessive repetition.  Suffice it to say that there IS an agenda out 
there by some, to Chumraize Klal Israel.  And, It is succeeding. You 
would not believe the pressure a close friend of mine received from the 
Roshei Yeshiva of Telshe here in Chicago, to have separate seating at 
the wedding of his daughter a few years ago. (BTW, he succumbed.)

But, I digress. Publications that are published posthumously,  are not 
subject to the scrutiny or subtle nuance of the original writer, or in 
this case, Posek.  No matter how noble the intention of the 
publishers, they cannot know if the author wanted to even have his 
manuscripts published w/o further review and corrections.  Mistakes 
cannot be corrected by the author.  R. Aaron Soloveichik has often said 
the sefer of his great grandfather, the Bais HaLevi was written by the 
Beis HaLevi's students and therefore there are many inaccuracies 
contained therein. It is also, possible that the publishers may have 
even misunderstood some of the non-manuscript/anecdotal Teshuvos. 

Not possible?  Consider this. The Eruv here in Chicago was authorized by 
a highly respected Posek in New York and executed by a highly respected 
Rav here in Chicago, who was indoctrinated in Lakewood and still has 
complete loyalty to that institution and it's Hashkafa. In the 
publication that was distributed at the time the Eruv opened, there was 
a quote from non other than R. Dovid Finestien (R. Moshe's son) stating, 
basically, that his father, R. Moshe would have approved the Eruv. Other 
poskim of very high repute say that R. Dovid was wrong and didn't 
understand his father's Teshuva.  R. Aaron has stated publicly that 
anyone who uses the Eruv is being Mechalel Shabbos BeShogeg and that his 
main objection to the Eruv is not his own Brisker Shita that defines 
Reshus HaRabbim more narrowly, but that R. Moshe would have assur'd it. 
 

So, according to R. Moshe, which is it?  Eruv... or no Eruv?

See what I mean?  

Now that this volume is published, even with it's disclaimers as stated 
by R. Eidensohn, it has attained the same status as the rest of the 
Igrus Moshe.  

Thus continues the Chumraization of Klal Israel.

HM

In a message dated 6/10/99 11:20:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
C-Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<< 
 Thus continues the Chumraization of Klal Israel.
 
 HM
 
  >>
You're probably right (no pun intended) on this point.  Keep in mind though 
that a common error (even amongst actuaries) is to linearly extrapolate based 
on current trends without sufficient consideration of the validity of such 
extrapolation (this is an inarticulate way of saying that life is full of 
pendulum swings).  One might posit that a  rush to inappropriate chumrazation 
will eventually sew the seeds of  its own reversal (did the inception of 
chassidut fall into this category?)

Kol tuv
Joel Rich

Rabbosai;  Iv'e been intrigued by this chazal and metzius debate and I've
been thinking about developing a consistent approach to this perplexing
issue.  I think that it is clear that we can't just make blanket
statements about Chazal's scientific wisdom without looking into each case
seperately to determine in what way did their knowledge effect their
decisions, and hence how do we interpret these decisions and ultimately 
of course abide by them.  Iv'e sort of developed several categories and
how I think they should be approached and I hope that you will find my
categorizations useful.
1)When Chazal derive a mussar lesson from an observation of the world.
	-In these instances i think that we all agree that it is really
not that important if the scientific observation of chazal is factually
correct or not.  It is sufficient for us to understand the lesson that
chazal are trying to teach us, and it is in no way denigrating chazal to
say that they understood their world in the same way as the scholars of
their generation
2)When Chazal base a halachah on a sociological fact, e.g. the tav
lemeytav debate, or the kevius seudah debate
	-in these cases it is essential to fully investigate the case
from every angle i.e. what did they truly mean when they stated this
principle? Did it in fact change? Is this principle rooted in a deoraysah
(in which case we all agree that it is binding regardless of what we think
about the truth of the principle)?
	-We also must subject the halachah to the laws of Eyn Bes Din
Yecholim Levatel Divrei Bes Din Chaveiro Elah Im Kein Hu Gadol Mimenu...Is
this a type of gezeirah which cannot be revoked even if the reason for its
creation is no longer relevent (without going into this complicated
subject in detail?
	-Another good example is Blias Keilim, for which an argument can
be made that our metals are not boleah, so one might want to argue that we
could change our halachic practice, however upon investigation one could
argue that the basis of this halachah is deoraysah and even if Chazal had
a faulty scientific understanding, we are still bound by these rules. 
3)When Chazal tell us what the halachah is and they then apply it to a
specific case BECAUSE they understood this case in a certain way e.g. the
maggot debate and now we determine that the science upon which they based
their decision is faulty
	-in these cases I will go out on a limb and say that I think we
are justified in revealuating the Psak given us by Chazal based on current
scientific knowledge.  We are in no way disobeying Chazal.  On the
contrary, we are using the principle given us by chazal - that things
which reproduce are considered alive halachically - in order to render our
decision.
4)When Chazal give health advice based on the current knowledge of science
and medicine e.g. fish and meat
	-in these cases a good argument could be made(Like Rav Avrohom Ben
HaRambam) that current medical knowledge could change our adherence to
this advice.  In fact, it can be argued that if Fish and meat is assur to
eat because sacantah chamirah meissurah, al achas kamah vekamah shouldn't
we heed current medical advice regarding smoking and other health hazards.
(sorry for the anti smoking plug there I just couldn't help but inject one
of my favorite tirades into this discussion.)
5)If a particualr issur becomes Mekubal in klal yisrael, even if it
started due to a misunderstanding e.g. electricity on shabbos ledaas R'
shlomo Zalman
	-In these cases I'm willing to buy the argument that the issur is
binding because of kiblu alayhu, in fact this is my justification for
still being makpid on fish and meat together.  I'll even buy the
metaphysical argument in these cases that if klal yisrael accepted an
issur there must be a reason for it, even if the reason is unknown.
However, I'd rather accept the argument that we can't go around being
mattir issurim based on our understanding of the reasons for the issur,
the ramifications could be terrible.  Most people will not know where to
draw the line and they would start tearing down the Torah because of their
"understanding" of things - and we would end up with the Reform movement
etc.
6)When a tradition is based on a historical fact e.g. The duration of the
Bayis Sheni and Shmitta debate
	-To me this is the most thorny issue and I'm not sure how to deal
with it.  I'm leaning towards a kimu vekiblu type of argument, but this
requires more thought.

By the way yasher kochachem for all of your insights (on list and off
list), I'm enjoying this
discussion and it is nice when we can all contribute something substantive
from which we can all learn something new.
Shaul Weinreb

Noah Witty wrote:

> After my previous post in response to HM's on this subject, I read RDE's
> comments on the matter.
>
> In all fairness, there is, within the first two or three volumes of Igros
> Moshe, a definite shift in R' Moshe's opinon on the matter.  One has to say
> so, else one would say "If I didn't know better, I would say he forgot the
> first teshuva."
>
> The difference in the two letters may be the dates--about 17 years apart, or
> the sho-el, or the context.  Either way, some explaining needs to be done.
> Is RDE up to helping out?

It would be helpful if you were more specific in what factors you think changed.

Determining genuine changes in the Igros Moshe - is not easy. As a general
rule - the  poskim I have talked to say that Reb Moshe rarely changed his
views. To establish that there was a change requires clear documentation
- which rarely exists. On the other hand there are  no lack of people who 
insist that a change was made or that Reb Moshe wrote his original position
 in a different era and therefore we can assume that he would have changed
 his mind. The current issue of women covering their hair seems to be such 
a case. Reb Moshe - like other poskim - did posken differently on the same 
issue for different people. The question comes down to - which position
 would Reb Moshe want to be publicly his? [There are a number of places 
in the Igros where he asks the recipient not to publicize the content of his
 reply] In the first 5 volumes that was answered by Reb Moshe himself. He not
 only selected the letters to be included but also altered or deleted 
material or amplified issues. The 6th volume was done with some assistance
 since he had had a pace maker implanted. The 7th and obviously the 
8th volumes were increasingly dependent upon others. The family has decided 
that the publication of a wide variety of quality of responses - e.g., those
 written by him as well as those dictated and explained through
Rabbi M. Tendler - those that explain in great detail and those that are
brief response.. Would Reb Moshe have wanted the letters to be published? 
Would he have altered anything. We really don't know. As I stated before
- Rav Dovid Feinstein told me that the family has decided that it is better
 to publish the material with careful labeling rather than have it lost.

No psak exists in a vacuum. Whether is the psak of the Rambam or Shulchan Aruch
or that of the Magen Avraham. Contemporary authorities need to decide on its
relevance for a particular case in a particular context. Ultimately - it is
the contemporary authorities who decide the relevance of a psak.

To concretize this. I recently received a phone call from some one who wanted to
know Reb Moshe's view on the hair cut given to a 3 year old. After answering
that Reb Moshe did not have a discussion of the issue in the Igros, my caller
explained that he needed to know  whether Reb Moshe held it to be doreissa,
derabbonon or a minhag. I asked him what difference did it make? He replied, "I
recently got engaged to a woman from chassidic background. Her family is having
a large celebration for the haircutting. I know that the wife must follow the
minhagim of the husband. Since it is not my practice - It is a waste of time for
me to go. On the other hand if it is doreissa or derabbonon I would go because
it is a real mitzva".
I explained that being right is not a guarantee of shalom bayis. That the
critical issue in *this* case was how the family perceived him - not whether it
was a minhag.

In sum, the issues raised concerning the impact of selecting what material
 is published are genuine. It is also not infrequent. However, on the
 practical level - the answers to these questions are provided by the 
contemporary poskim - the historical reality is not of great relevance.

                                  Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ 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         ]