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

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, March 20, 2008 12:46 am, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: What I have added is that I have seen MANY Ortho responsa also abandon
: Halachic proces in favor of reaching ad conclusion and retrofitting
: the sources to fit, as opposed to honestly viewing sources.

Define "halachic process". Until you do that, how can you assert that
teshuvos do or do not abandon it?

This was my objection some months back... You are critiquing O fealty
to halachic process while at the same time saying you never saw a
clear definition of that process. Why not deduce the process from the
examples?

IOW, are contemporary acharonim overruling precedent (whether sefarim
or minhag) in ways that rishonim wouldn't? Overruling or force-fitting
texts isn't a violation of the process until you prove it's not part
of the process.

...
: I am also concern3ed that O abandonenmnet of [legitimate] Minhag Avos
: in favor of certain textualism as a VERY dangerous precedent at times.
: Yekum purkan and the yehi Ratzon [i.e Tefillas Rav] before birchas
: haschodesh [Aruch hshulchan jumps on this one, too!] are much more
: halachically problematic than Baruch Hashem l'olam!

Again, only if you don't have a notion of when minhag avos outweighs
textual argument... No, even that is phrased wrong. Not all minhagei
avos or sevaros are created equal. A poseiq not only has to have a
clear sense of the importance of precedent and of sevara in general,
but also the quality of each instance in their particular collisions.

On Wed, Mar 19, '08 11:49pm EDT, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:> What outweighs minhag WRT qitniyos? Tefillin on chol hamo'ed
:> violates an aggadic value,

: and is omitting a mitzva d'orraiso!

Nu, it omits a qiyum asei besheiv ve'al ta'aseh.

:> if you base your agadic values on the Zohar,

: When did the Zohar become an authoritative text in Ashkenaz!

Never. That's why I didn't call it a sevara (textual procedural)
argument. Rather, it comes from the need to accomodate people's
religious needs. And as an aggadic source, the Zohar has some
authority. (Unlike, say, egalitarianism.)

> Qitniyos violates what? Simchas Yom Tov?

: Minhag Ta'us.. Vilates nothing buit if minahg avos is dsiposable why
: keep a minhag Ta'us? se Beis Ysoef!

Isn't every minhag ta'us /someone's/ minhag avos -- otherwise in what
sense are we using the word "minhag"? The question is defining grounds
for repealing a minhag. The post to which you're replying argued that
in order to be be disposable, the minhag has to actually violate
something, not just be basis-less. This is an argument the Rambam
makes WRT elements of shemitah bizman hazeh, as already discussed
months back when this discussion began (last revived).

Qitniyos doesn't actually violate anything. For that matter, it would
seem that the question of not performing a qiyum asei -- tefillin on
chol hamoed -- isn't sufficient grounds. At least in the eyes of those
poseqim who would not tell those who don't wear tefillin on ch"m to
start wearing them.

However, if someone feels that Barukh H' leOlam violates semichas
geulah letefillah, then his sevara is that the minhag actually does
violate something. And, given his assessment of the quality of the
sevara, the quality of the minhag, and the inherent weighting he gives
sevaros and minhagim, he could decide to do away with saying BHlO on
those grounds. You may disagree with the importance he gives each and
thus his conclusion, but procedurally it's something very different
than doing away with something basis-less. (E.g. Qitniyos for reasons
other than simchas YT; which, I admit, may be arguable.) That's
eliminating minhag avos with no other Torah value in mind.

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 11:31pm EDT, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Tngentially I'm not sure how it came about that if Ga'onim are closer
: to the Talmud how come Rishonim over-rule them anyway?

: Is being close in time and place a factor or not?

Not by itself. One needs both rupture and reconstruction to delimit
eras. Without mishnah, shas, the SA (et al) or the like, there is no
era definition. From a halachic authority POV, a gaon are just another
kind of rishon. (More complicated is whether the savoraim were amoraim
or rishonim. That in itself seems to be a machloqes rishonim. Although
"Ravina veR' Ashi sof hora'ah" seems in my eyes to be incontravertable
evidence for shitas haRambam that they are "rishonim", not "amoraim".)

Rishonim never accorded ge'onim the same "who are we to argue?" that
they gave amoraim because they aren't dealing with a reconstructed
version of shitos hage'onim. And without reconstruction, halakhah
kebasrai, since he sees the arguments of the earlier in addition to
his own.


On Sun, Mar 23, '08 10:30pm EDT, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: 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!

And therefore there is no value to sevara, and nothing should keep
minhagei ta'us in check?

The truth is that your characterization of the position "'IQ' trumps"
is so far from anything I described, I don't know where to begin.

: 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..

They relied on balancing precedent, sevara, and the need for practice
not to be out of touch with "Torah values". That balancing act
requires a feel, a weighing of the factors (pros and cons of each
alternative, as in any decision making) that can't be done
mathematically or algorithmically. Not only sevara, not only minhag.

On Sun, Mar 23, '08 10:55pm, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Many Ortho's have made wholesale changes to nusach.  Too many to even
: list. An Ortho working as educational director in a C shul told me
: that he could not understand the hypocrisy of attacking C changes in
: Nusach when  many ortho's have done it, too.

Isn't the issue one of procedure, not results? In which case, what's
the question here? One change could be within the process, perhaps
because it is in response to an argument from textual mesorah or some
aggadic source, whereas the other is outside the process, because it's
in response to a desire to be more egalitarian by including the imahos
or to stop mentioning qorbanos or...

Until you define to your own satisfaction what the process is, I fear
these conversations will never reach conclusion. But certainly such
critique as the one here or the one quoted at the top of this post is
premature.

: Disclaimer:, I am in no way endorsing the C position as Halchially OK
: on this issue  but as far as stam yeinam goes, there is SOME wiggle
: room here and even the Rema opened the door on this with a radical
: Teshuva. AIUI a lot of commercial wine is precessed w/o human contact
: at certain critical times.

This is Silverman's argument, and it's flawed on both levels. We
discussed it on scjm, where R' Craig Winchell (who at the time owned
Gan Eden wines) contributed some information about the metzi'us.

No or almost no commercial wine is processed without human contact.
And of the little that isn't, one would still need a mashgiach to
eliminate the possibility. It's simply too common.

Second, the Rama was mangled beyond recognition. His teshuvah states
that stam yeinam is clearly assur. However, since the Jews of Moravia
have been drinking it for generations, they are still kosher Jews WRT
things like minyan despite being avaryanim in this regard. To use the
Rama to argue lequlah is to quote part of the teshuvah out of context
to prove the opposite of the author's intent. (This is actually one of
the examples I was thinking of when I said such mis-quoting was
endemic to the C responsa I have seen. R"Dr Josh Backon went as far as
putting the teshuvah on line for the disputants to share.)

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