[Avodah] [Areivim] Polygamy

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, January 31, 2008 11:57 pm, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: It seems to me that Chazal generalized when it came to human nature
: intersecting with Halachah. For example, IIRC, it's a Mishnah/Gemara
: in Eiruvin that says that if a man is in his daughter-in-law's house
: for Shabbos (and he is also in the Techum of his own house) that he
: isn't Koneh Shevisah by his DIL's house because DIL's and FIL's don't
: get along...
: How do we interpret this? Are Chazal saying that the underlying human
: nature is absolute? It might appear that the FIL and DIL get along,
: but there is some predisposition to argument that will always remain?

On Fri, February 1, 2008 9:27 am, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: R' Joel Rich:
:> yes and  the interesting question ( a la R'YBS) is when were they
:> making sociological observations subject to change and when were
:> they stating ontological truths?

: That discussion was regarding Tav L'Meisiv Tan Du, right?

I just heard RARakeffet discuss that talk by RYBS. He found a maqor
from the Dor Revii (R' Moshe Shmuel Glasner, the Klausenburger Rav,
greatgrandfather of our chaver, R' David Glasner) that explicitly said
that chazaqos need to be reexamined as the realia change.

We mentioned this teshuvah from Tel Talpiotin the thread at
<http://tinyurl.com/2qognu?section=R#RYBS%20AND%20CHAZAKAH%20TAV%20LMEITAV>

RAR sent a copy of the article to RERackman, who in turn eventually
published it in a Bar Ilan journal. (Complete with RAR's handwritten
words in the margin.)

So, RAR had trouble understanding RYBS's, his rebbe's, shitah. As both
he and RALichtenstein give shiur in Gruss Kollel, RAR asked RAL for
his take. Here's the understanding they reached:

RYBS's big objection was not to "tav lemeisiv". It was to hafka'as
qidushin. If it were valid, RYBS said, we could throw out much of
Yevamos, Gittin, Even haEzer, etc... The Chasam Sofer and CI didn't
simply resolve problems through hafka'as qidushin. Are we wiser than
them? 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.

RYBS's objections to tav lemeisav were incidental, and specific to tav
lemeisiv. Not that all chazaqos are permanent existential truths, but
only that this particular chazaqah is part of the story of the eitz
hada'as and happens to be an unchanging truth. But more than the
validity of this consideration, RYBS was raising it as a possibility,
as a reason why it's non-trivial to introduce a mechanism that was
available and apparently rejected for millennia. One needn't agree
with his assumption to agree with RYBS's larger point.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha at aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507