[Avodah] Some thoughts on Shemonah Perakim

[Yitzhak Grossman]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:10:13 -0500
Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 10:38:56PM -0500, Yitzhak Grossman pointed us to
> <http://bdl.freehostia.com/2008/11/06/two-chief-rabbis-on-rabbinic-wills-and-halachic-ways/> (<http://tinyurl.com/5sl3hy>) from the blog "Bein Din Ladin":

...

> About the title of the post... "Two Chief Rabbis On Rabbinic Wills
> And Halachic Ways" This is somewhat misleeding. The idiom it refers to
> was coined by someone who wanted to imply that there is always a way,
> when there is will. His discussion is of whether rabbinic will should
> be to seek a way to push deadbeat dads to supporting their children. Not
> whether such seeking must perforce succeed.

It is not misleading.  It is indeed a nod in the direction of Ms.
Greenberg, but not an endorsement of her view, whatever exactly that
might be.  It is merely an admittedly provocative challenge to the
reader to carefully consider the relationship between Rabbinic wills and
Halachic ways.  I did not claim that the former necessarily, always, or
even usually or usually implies the latter.

> There are cases (as I recently noted WRT eiruv), where there are explict
> exceptions spelled out by Chazal. Such as an agundah derabanan, eg a
> usual case of mei'ever layam. So this:
> : Rav Shlomoh Yosef Zevin's analysis of Rav Yitzhak Elhanan Spektor's character
> : and its impact on his Agunah decisions:
> doesn't LAD seem to speak to the general rule. Rather, Chazal weren't
> gozerin in a way that maximized pain on women. And therefore one needn't
> find a resolution between that and R' Uzziel's point, R' Zevin's analysis
> is about one of the few exceptional cases.

A careful reading of the Zevin quote reveals that a) he is
referring to Rav Spektor's attitude toward Psak in general, and he
only cites Agunah as a particularly striking example and b) he refers
explicitly to a much broader spectrum of Agunah than "Agunah
Me'd'rabbanan" and includes, IIUC, those that are certainly Me'd'oraisa.

> The blogger's distinction between BALM and BALC, that R' Uzziel would
> seek qulah in the former but not in cases of "vedal lo sehader berivo",
> "ein merachamim badin", is unconvincing. It doesn't fit the quoted words,
> where R' Uzziel waxes on at length about the job of the Sanhedrin and
> subsequent poseqim to find amitah shel Torah. Nothing about judging
> between people fairly.

"Nothing about judging people fairly" - this is just incorrect.  The
very paragraph that begins "Sanhedrei gedolah" refers to ba'alei din,
and applies the verse "Arur make re'ehi ba'seser" to perjuring
litigants.  Earlier, he cites the verses "ve'dal lo se'hedar
be'rivo" (as you yourself quote!), "lo sa'asu avel ba'mishpat lo sisa
penei dal", the Gemara "ein merahamin ba'din" which he explains to mean
"ein merahamin badin le'ish al heshbon ha'vero".  The last is an almost
explicit endorsement of my thesis, that there's at least an additional
injunction against favoritism in Din beyond any basic issue of
distortion of Halachah.  Moreover, Rav Uziel repeatedly refers to
Dayyanim and Ba'alei Din, as opposed to mere Morei Hora'ah.

I do concede that the matter is not quite as simple as I originally
claimed, since, as RMSS pointed out to me off-list, Rav Uziel does
mention the illegitimacy of distorting the Halachic process to be
lenient in a question of bastardy. which certainly seems to be an issue
Bein Adam Le'Makom.  Nevertheless, I stand by what I said, that his
primary concern seems to be the unfairness of non-neutral application
of Halachah to one litigant's detriment.


> Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters