[Avodah] daas torah & history [& O vs. C methodology]

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale at gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Example, AFAIK ZERO Reishonim prohibit women reading for Megillah
> onbehalf
> > of other woemn and Rashi/Rambam EVEn permit it for me. Many acharonim
> > changed this [see Beis Yosef and Magen Avrahm]
> > Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
> > RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
>
> Rabbi Henkin has an interesting article on this in Equality Lost (and
> Bnei Banim). I forget all the details, but he says something about how
> there are three shitot:
> 1) Women = men, b'klal


This is an explicit Rashi and Tosafos



>
> 2) Women have mitzvah to hear, and a lesser obligation than men to
> read. So women can read for each other, but not for men.
> 3) Women have only obligation to hear, and they cannot read even for other
> women
>
> I think number 3 is Tosefta, either 1 or 2 is the Talmud, and I forget
> what the other one is.


The Beis Yosef having seen Tosafos's defense of BEHAG frames R. Henkin's #3
as  #2. AFAIK NO RISHON  equates the Tosefta with #2 and AFAIK the Magen
Avrham is the first to make #3 the peshat in BEHAG/Tosefta as normative.

Surprisingly, RYDS seems to back up this MGA over the
Rambam/RAshi/Tosafos/BY etc.  Quite an anomaly to my mind.

This is the problem of a systme that says "IQ" trumps.   Since RYDS has a
higher IQ...therefore we should ignore Halachic history and toss out
Rishonim and start from scratch!

BTW, the BY [and FWIW Rema] tried to get away from an ego-centric system to
an objective survey the poskim methodology.   Both wer too humble to rule
solely on the basis of their own "gefeel" and relied upon precedent..


>
> So, Rabbi Henkin brings many sources (Rishonim on 1, Gaonim on 2, if I
> remember correctly). Then, he brings Tosafot and the Rosh who hold
> number 2. But they were misunderstood by many (including Korban
> Netanel and Mishna Berurah) to hold 3, but Tosafot haRosh (unavailabe
> to KN and MB) clearly and undoubtedly holds 2, so women can most
> definitely read for each other.
>
> A primary issue for some, between 2 and 3, was kavod tzibur....
>
Mikha'el Makovi
>

Just my opinion but WADR some people come up with Halachic kullos from left
field and this seems to be from Right Field!  Did Rashi/Tosafos/Rambam ALL
overlook this issue?
And what about Beis Yosef who frames it as hakkol moddim that #2 is a
minimum!

I don't like Radical shifts in Halchah from Left or Right because I see
Halacha as based upon a precedent type systems. I also see an issue of
zilzulei devei dina.

Now for academic purposes I don't have an issue if a sincere effort to read
BEHAG as 3 is supported by really good reason. But I would not overturn BY
on this basis.

Lemme give you an example of a radical  read:
Hilchesa ysavui ysavinan mevorchai lo mvarchinan [sp]

Traditional Read: one MUST sit in the Sukkah on Sehmin ATzeres in the Golah
BUT w/o a bracha.
Radical Read: one MAY sit in the sukka on Shmini Atzeres [optional] but
certainly a bracha is assur [probably due to bal tosef]

This argument MIGHT be used [and has been used] to defend a minhag of not
sitting in the sukkah  on ShAtz, but to introduce this as a brand new model
and run with it is  IMHO  radical shinuy.

Re-reading the Behag to be #3 after ALL Rishonim see the possible positions
as  between #1 and #2 to me is a shinuy.


-- 

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/20080323/5af265eb/attachment-0002.htm>