[Avodah] Some thoughts on Shemonah Perakim

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 07:53:41PM -0500, R Yitzhak Grossman continues
our discussion of his blog entry at <http://tinyurl.com/5sl3hy>:
:> About the title of the post... "Two Chief Rabbis On Rabbinic Wills
:> And Halachic Ways" This is somewhat misle[a]ding...

: 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.

I didn't say you intended to mislead, just that it does mislead, and in
fact, I approached the whole topic with a false assumption about where
you were going. I think I would have avoided offending you had I written
"I was misled, and I think I wouldn't be alone".

(Here we pause to allow RnTK celebrate my remembering to omit the "a" in
"misled". <g>)

Although, some of my assumption about what thesis you're trying to
develop was because I have been coming across too many citations of R'
Uzziel lately by people trying to prove he believed in kulah shopping. (As
someone noted to me in a personal exchange recently, it seems I tend to
bring too much history to new conversations.)

I suggest referring to the web page while reading this post (ask me for a
copy if you have email only access).

It is clear R' Uziel writes in terms of the case at hand:
> Rav Toledano apparently felt that the desparate circumstances of such
> children born out of wedlock should motivate the Posek to find a basis
> for obligating the putative fathers to support them, in spite of ...
> the earlier precedents...

That it's an issue of "vedal lo tehedar berivo". The question is whether
that's R' Uziel's only point, or is he saying something beyond cases of
competing litigants.

Because of the title line, I was predisposed to find such things in
R' Uziel's words, so perhaps he doesn't. (A partial retraction of my
earlier email.) I see the paragraph beginning "Sanhedrei gedolah" to be
an argument for a more objective attitude toward halakhah in general,
not just in cases of two litigants. A search for amitosan shel hadevarim,
yiqov hadin es hahar, even though ein ladayan mah she'einav ro'os. Even
though the paragraph has the words "baalei din", the argument has
nothing to do with it. It's a straightforward statement of an obligation
to get as close to Truth as possible.

...
: 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.

I don't understand R' Zevin's citation of RYESpektor, since the gemara
already singles out hataras agunos as one of the few special cases, and
therefore I don't see how it can be proof of what to do in general. Just
as citing an example of a din Torah between two parties can't be used as
a proof for objectivity in general.

I earlier asked how RYG can draw this conclusion, I still can't see it,
but being RSYZevin's conclusion, I presume there is something else I'm
just not getting.

As for whether he refers to "a broader spectrum of Agunah" rather than
the derabbanan case -- actually, of real agunos, nearly all cases of
question are derabbanan, particularly once the telegraph was invented.
As for mesarvei get, there one gets into deOraisos, but ones caused by
"kol hameqadeish..." and therefore gives chakhamim some power as well.

But regardless of how we justify Chazal having the power to say "search
for ways to avoid an agunah", they do. And so RYES's attitude toward
agunos could be explained entirely by the gemara's known statement that
hataras agunos is one of a few special cases. For that matter, because
Chazal have a need to give this rule WRT agunos, eiruvin, perhaps a
subsection of mamzeirus (any other cases?), I would actually conclude
that the general rule in the rest of Torah is not to engage in this kind
of seeking!

: 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.

And I would say he is addressing that case, where the argument is
stronger, but is mentioning along the way that hunting for leniency is
wrong in general (except for a couple/few special topics, as per above).

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha at aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507