[Avodah] schechtworthy

[chana at kolsassoon.org.uk]

RZS writes

>Well, trimming the beard is a matter of halachic psak, not just
>communal norms, but another example I gave was wearing galoshes,
>which nobody holds is inherently assur, and today everybody wears
>them without question.  And yet, when they were new and "modern",
>a shochet who wore them would be sacked on the spot.

Yes but on what halachic basis?  I am still waiting for the halachic 
sources that provide the underlying fundamentals of these decisions.  
So far you have quoted a case from the LR, but not his sources (and 
since he was permitting, and we are only deriving the issur by 
implication, even that is not very conclusive).

I am, as I made clear in my previous post, doing this because poretz 
geder is a term that is being flung around a lot today, and it struck 
me that if it was going to be discussed anywhere in our sources, 
disqualification for shechita may well be the place - but so far I 
can't find it.

-- 
>Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this 
Court's

And then RMB wrote:

>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.

I did indeed, but if you look at what I wrote there - it was as 
follows:

<<the proof text for poretz geder is Koheles 10:8 [v'poretz geder 
yishkanu
nachash] which Rashi explains there refers to a siyag shel Chachamim
l'avor al divreheim, which seems to be the way it is understood in the
gemora as well. And I note that the Ramban (in his hakdama to Sefer
Hamitzvos - chelek 1 (5)) understands that a violation of the lav of 
lo
tasur only occurs in relation to something that is d'orisa or halacha
miSinai in origin, but in relation to takanos and gezeros, one is not 
in
violation of the lav, albeit that there is misa b'yadei Shamayim based
on the concept of poretz geder (ie the death b'yadai shamayim is
encapsulated in the form of the nachash).  So unless you say that the
shitta adopted is that of a zaken mamre, prima facie I can't see how 
you
get to poretz geder no matter what motivates the change.  Agreed there
are some citations of the concept in the Shulchan Aruch which might
suggest a slightly wider definition, but those seem to be of the 
nature
of creating effectively a local and specific takana - which again 
would
draw it back to a violation of divrei Chachamim.>>

I still don't get from there to your average community norms of the 
nature being cited - certainly nowhere near galoshes.  Nor do I see the 
necessary connection between possibly being worthy of misa b'yadei 
shamayim and having one's chezkas kashrus withdrawn.

>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. 

You made mention in a later post about the fact that husbands are not 
controlling, but the issue here is, I believe, that we are dealing with 
a violation of daas Moshe - ie a d'orisa, and something which is 
specifically stated as a reason a woman should be divorced in the 
Mishna in Kesubos (along with, I would note, feeding her unsuspecting 
family treif).  As a  divorce is indeed within the control of the 
husband, the connection is quite close.  The somewhat unusual aspect of 
this psak appears to be that the community norm might be said to go so 
far as to permit somebody who is over on an issur d'orisa or who fails 
to divorce his wife in accordance with the Mishna in Kesubos which 
would seem to require it.

None of this is, to my knowledge, the subject of any halachic 
dispute.  Hair covering and the misnah in kesubos is not, in fact, a 
"question of psak" at all - it is a more Torah MiSinai than anything.

And in a later post RMB wrote:

>Half of my thesis, which was based on a post by RnCL from last year, 
is
>that a poreitz geder is defined in terms of violating the local 
locale's
>pesaq. Thus, we have to be talking about issur, even if it's only 
assur in
>the eyes of some -- assuming that "some" include the local 
rav/rabbanim.

Well, I will need to go back and look up the Shulchan Aruch sources 
again, but I don't think that is what I either thought or said.  Rather 
it seems to be used, as far as I could tell, in a situation where the 
Rabbonim have instituted a siug or geder, and there is a specific 
violation of that.  ie there needs to be either a or universal local 
takana, and then a violation of it.  It seemed to me to be much 
stronger than mere psak - even if the local rav poskened one way, and 
the individual acted another based on other sources - so long as the 
local rav did not claim that he had instituted a takana that was 
binding on all in his locality, I don't see the source for poretz 
geder.

I have yet to see the takana on galoshes or even beard trimming.

>Is it assur deRabbanan to violate minhag hamaqom, in particular when
>using the word "minhag" to refer to local pesaq? I don't know. When I
>wrote "we're not talking about issur", I assumed not.

As I tried to bring from the sources in the paragraph above, that does 
not appear to me to be the understanding of the rishonim either.

>The other half of my thesis, for which I still owe RnCL 
documentation,
>is that even someone who violated no issurim, technically, since he
>is capable of that level of contrarianism as to be worthy of death by
>snakebite, we can't assume he'll conform WRT hilkhos shechitah

Yes, I am seeking sources.  Especially as the form of poretz geder 
that I could find seemed to be about specific challenge to local 
rabbinic authority acting in their capacity as such, more than just 
plain contrarianism.  Nothing even remotely like tableclothes, or 
galoshes, or even beard trimming.

And I am further seeking sources that even if somebody is poretz geder 
- where the loss of chezkas kashrus comes from.  My understanding of 
chezkas kashrus was that it was only lost vis a vis the particular 
averah that was done  (unless you are talking about some of the real 
big'uns, such as being mechallel shabbas b'farhesia).  So to hear that 
chezkas kashrus was lost for a bit of contrarianism, or even takana 
breaking was news to me.

Of course that rather does get us back to the Big Event - if you 
understand a kol koreh as having the force of a modern takana (which is 
what it presumably purports to be).  This rather goes to who one 
believes is equipped to pass takanos (if anyone) today and if so, how.

>Just a reminder, from the two sentences quoted from a newsletter,
>all we know is that the teshuvah is written with the perspective that
>television is assur. We have no idea that the Shevet haLevi thought
>that TV is assur lekhol hadei'os and the fellow is simply an avaryan,
>or -- as RSZ suggested -- that he was aware of and acknowledged a 
shitah
>lehaqeil, but it's irrelevent for our purposes since the shocheit 
would
>be a poretiz geder anyway.

I think this is very relevant for our purposes.   To the extent that 
the community rabbaim can  be deemed to have effectively passed takanos 
forbidding television (and that will depend on the extent to which you 
believe the rabbonim of today can legitimately wield such power and how 
extensively), I can see this case as being legitimately within even the 
definitions of poretz geder I brought above (how that is linked to the 
validity of one's shechita, I am still waiting for somebody to tell 
me).  

But, I am afraid that while I cannot see galoshes or even beards, I 
can see Big Event concerts and, I'm afraid that also means I can see 
book bannings as well - so long as the legitimacy of the book banning 
is based on the argument that this is takana instituted by the local 
rabbonim as a siyug (eg on divrei emunah). You may disagree with it, 
but doesn't that just make you a contrarian?  

I confess that I am rather loathe to take the postion that significant 
numbers of the members of this list have lost their chezkas kashrus -  
but that seems to be being what is being argued here. Or at the very 
least, that those within such communities (ie those who fall within the 
legitimate province of the takana) are legitimate in regarding those 
outside it, including large numbers on this list, as having lost their 
chezkas kashrus.   Or at the very very least, people who might have 
once been deemed to have been within such a community, but are now 
expressing views and writing books that are outside it must be said to 
have lost their chezkas kashrus for being contrarian.

I personally, as this must make clear, struggle to believe that is 
what poretz geder is all about.  Bli neder, I will be working a bit 
less next week, so hopefully I will have time to go back over the SA 
sources that I found last year and which point to a more local 
definition of poretz geder (because if you go on the version of Rashi 
and of Ramban, you seem to be more dealing with divrei Chazal than 
anything else).   But in the meantime, I would appeciate some rather 
harder sources in the face of what seems to me to be assertions with 
such significant consequences.

-Micha

Regards

Chana




______________________________________________
33% off Norton Security from Tiscali - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc