[Avodah] Sefer HaChinuch on why 2 weeks Nidah for a girl andonly 1 for a boy

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Rich, Joel <JRich at sibson.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> (We have Rishonim saying that other Rishonim are wrong. No chidush. We
> have Achronim saying that a Rishon is wrong if it's to come to defend and
> explain the intent of a different Rishon. No chidush there either. But
> saying a Rishon is wrong is a big deal.
> ===========================================
>
> FWIW AIUI this is something "we" have taken upon ourselves, not something
> inherent in the system.
>
> KT
> Joel Rich
>
>
>
>
It seems that as the generations grow 'smaller" niskatnu hadoros" there is a
tendency to make our "gedolim" more and more infallible.

Onoe thing HAS changed over the doros. USUALLy ahcaronim have been called
upon to justify their decisions, whereas Rishonim were more terse and often
did not bother justifying a deicsion.

It is interesting that Rashi rarely explains WHY he gives a certain peshat.
He jsut does.  Rambam, too.

While Tosafos bends over backwards [most of the time] to try and PROVE his
point.  Many find Tosafos pilpulistic as a result. I find it refreshing to
see someone wrestling with the issue and not just coming down with a
decision.

While the Tur is terse, he gives most sides to the issue.  In that sense he
is more Mishnaic than the Rambam who gives his side and his side only.

The Beis Yosef works hard at arriving at a conclusion. The Shulchan Aruch
does not. It is a problem today in tht we learn Shulchan Aruch w/o Tur/BY
first.  SA [and evn Rema] come across as "pontificating" but they are not
because they have justified themselves [for the most part] in earlier works.

========================================================================

As for the other thread involving challenging Rishonim etc. there are
rules/guidelines as to how to do this. Choshen Mishpat 25 is a starter.

BEH  I will be posting on the Aruch hashulchna and Minhag, soon based upon 3
statements in Hilchos Megillah

There is a LOT of confusion about Halachic methodology out there.  And there
are different schools of thought as to how it works.  And there is further
confusion because people conflate those schools at times.

The Rambam et. al. seem to be pretty sure that NO poseik after the Gemara is
absolute [aside perhaps for local g'zeiros that is in the purview of a mora
d'asra].  According to that school ANY post Talmudic source is disputable
and debatable.  That is how the Rambam often ignored many Ga'onic decisions
and precedents, although the Yad is replete with exapmles of perpetuating
Ga'onic decisions, too.

Ashkenazic P'sak IS different. But remember, the midget on the shouldder of
giants model.  And that is the point. If I question RMF or Mishna Brura, it
is NOT to say I KNOW better, it is to say that I have seen other approaches
that make more sens to me - and often they  will make more sense to any
objective person  who is  not blinded by the name of the author. {The WHAT
would turmp the WHO for an open-minded person - The WHO trumps the What for
a person who judges books by their covers.] Caveat, you cannot completely
ignroe the WHO and I certainly do not either.

Illustration: I usually follow Rema, When it coems to ta'ruvos, the Rema
states Basar sehma azlinan. But if is clear that t'am k'ikkar is usueless in
that defintion. And so the  Shach is massig on the Rema with raya bruros.
Chochmas Adam et. al follow Shach w/o a question.  This Rema has a definite
Tiyuvta - and so we don't follow it [except where bittul is by 100:1, 200:1
etc. as with the noted exceptions by Shach himself. So Rema is NOT 100%
wrong...]

That is how the game is played. The Shach "shlugs up " Rema [on that
matter]. Anyone who does what the Shach does can do it.  You need NOT be a
gadol, but you MUST do your homework. and if you do it well, you can answer
the possible counter questions to your thesis.  This Shach has survived
"peer review."

There are more sublte cases.  Shach nad Taz argue why salt from slating meat
is considered 100% unkosehr as oppsed to the amount absorbed

Taz- Chaticha na'asev neveilha
Shach- we do not know how much is absorbed.

The Taz is LOGICALLY wrong!  Why? Becasue the mechabeir does NOT hold from
Chaticha na'aseh neveilha besh'ar issurim. It  rpovieds a contradiction. The
Shach  is consistent with  other examples of  measuring by the max [e.g.
kachel]    You do no have to be a gdoal to se teh sheverkeit in this Taz. It
is apparent and manyacharnim have noted it. This does not mena the Taz is
not a Gadol or tht he is ALWAYS wrong. But kabedihu vechashdeihu anyway.
You cannot accept the Taz w/o analysis. That is  why they print the Shach on
the  YD on the other side.

Same for Rashi and Tsoafos

And that is EVEN true fro Bavli. There is a yerushalmi tht sometimes come up
with other teirutzim.

and even the Mishna has a Tosefta, and we sometimes pasken like the Tosefta
over the Mishna [e.g. by havdlah the machlokes Beish HShammai and Beis
Hillel we  pasken like R. Yehudah in the Tosefta over R. Meir  in the
mishneh as per R. Yochanna in Arvei Pesachim - based upon nahagu ha'am!]

KT






-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080227/1f1b51c3/attachment-0002.htm>