[Avodah] schechtworthy

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 02:06:15PM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
:> It's saying that this person refuses to follow 
:> the pesaqim of his community.

: That begs the question, who is his community and what are its pesaquim -
: and how far does the concept of poretz geder extend  - which was the
: question I was asking.  The specific example that RZS gave was of
: somebody who trimmed his beard in a community where people didn't - this
: potentially constituting poretz geder...

Which is following a different pesaq than that of the people who hired
him as a shocheit. Yes, in the case of a national brand, the definition
of that becomes iffy. But primary sources on shechitah predate such
concepts. A poseiq would have to step in to adapt precedent to this
reality.

Beard cutting is actually a simpler case than television watching, which
is where we began. If the poseiq in question actually believes, beli
guzma, that watching TV inevitably leads to watching things that are assur
-- and remember we must include ads, double-entendres, news about Pres
Clinton or NY or NJ governors... I could easily see the tzad issur. And
if the hiring kehillah holds accordingly, then he is poreitz geder in the
same sense as someone who is the town's only meiqil on electric shavers.

And not in the same sense as someone who has green tablecloths on
Shabbos. (Which match our walls quite nicely, thankyouverymuch.)

Even if certain terms -- pesaq, cheirem, kofer, etc... -- have been
abused to build up those gedarim, one can still dig through the layers
anf find who really violated a society's *halachic* norms rather than
lesser norms labeled in guzma-ridden terms. Notice that I am implying
(now stating outright) that someone who violates halakhah in a way
everyone else does would not necessarily be unsuable as a shocheit.

AIUI, this is the definition a wise woman brought sources for in v24n47.

Of course, many people may not believe TV ownership isn't actually
assur. But if the poseqim who decided that community's norm did so
on halachic rather than lifnim mishuras hadin grounds, then the
person would be a poreitz geder, lose his chezqas kashrus, and be
unusable as a shocheit.

In the historical case: A shocheit in Hungary whose wife didn't cover he
hair was unusable, a Litvak in the same shoes was. (Barring complicating
issues, like the Hungarians imported a Litvisher shocheit, etc... Much
like the case RZS cited where the L community in Melbourne asked their
rebbe about the cleanshaven German shocheit.)

BTW, RDR wrote on Tues Mar 11:
: Zev Sero wrote:
:> It's a question of poretz geder.
: But that's not a Biblical prohibition.

The phrase "poreitz geder" is biblical, although I think RDR means
deOraisa. Koheles 10:8: "veporeitz geder yishkanu nachash". So, even if
derabbanan, it's described as death-worthy.

But here we're not talking about issur; LAD, it's something simpler.
Somoene who proved himself capable of resisting positive social pressure
in one sin simply can't be presumed not to cut corners in other ways.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha at aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l