[Avodah] schechtworthy

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, Mar 24, '08 @ 10:36pm PDT, I wrote:
> 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.

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.

What I was trying to say is that peritzas geder itself is not an issur.
Shelomo haMelekh writes harshly against it -- thus the concept is
"biblical" for those of us who want to be pendantic over RDR's choice
of words. But peritzas geder isn't assur deOraisa -- which is what I
think RDR intended to talk about.

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.

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.

However, even without documentation, we already cited a number of cases
where this was almost followed lemaaseh:

1- RSZ's case of the the shaving German in a Lubavitch kehillah.
The LR justified his use of another pesaq only because it was his point
of origin. Implied is that if an L chasid had chosen to use a shaver,
his shechitah wouldn't be good. Notice here it's a divergence in pesaq.

2- I started to bring the case of the Litvisher shocheit in Hungary whose
wife didn't cover her hair. Here the pesaq is consistent, however, in
Litta this was a commonplace violation, and not peritzas geder. Again,
the Maharshag allowed the use of this shocheit, butr only on technical
grounds. He wasn't a poreitz geder, his wife was. (And who ever said
Jewish husbands are controlling?)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

PS: With thanks to RDR, who had to put up with getting his post rejected
for replying to something I didn't mean to say. I figured it was better
to clarify than to have people reply to his (very logical) misunderstood
version. Moderator's perk, I guess. Or maybe just an abuse of my power.

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
micha at aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln