[Avodah] Sephardi-ism: some food for thought

[Chana Luntz]

RZS wrote:

>I hear what you're saying, but I don't see it, either in that Rashi or
in RYK's post. 

RYK's post was, I believe, dealing with slightly different issues, but
he makes the statement, with which I agree that "The term "Koach
di'hetera adifa" is a pedagogic term, not a legal one."  As I have
explained the Rashi, that remains the case, the matter is pedagogic.
But as you are explaining it, the matter is substantive, not merely
pedagogic.

You state:

> All Rashi is saying is that if you want to show that someone really
holds a particular shita, give an example where it leads him to be 
>mekil, because if the only examples you have are chumrot then it
doesn't prove that he really holds that way.  Maybe he's not sure, and 
>that's why he's machmir, or maybe there were other reasons that he
didn't want to give a heter, even though he held that one was possible. 
>But if we find him being mekil then he must really be sure of himself,
because one can't permit something if it's really forbidden.

But one cannot always find a circumstance when a particular shita leads
the person to be mekil in another area.  There are many shitos which are
just machmir.  And, according to this understanding, what is the
sensible thing to do if faced with two shitos, once which is makil and
one which is machmir?  Well, the mekil is clearly a vadai shita, because
he must be really sure of himself to be mekil, and the machmir is a
safek, because maybe he is not for precisely the reasons you have given.
So if choosing between the two, a vadai and a safek, would it not be
correct to follow the vadai?  In such case, the original position
posited by RMM (or even a stronger version of it) would be correct.
Koach d'heter adif would mean that we should indeed seek out every mekil
position from a reputable source in order to follow them, because that
way we are getting close to the emes, and try and veer away from the
machmir, since a machmir position could well be a product of uncertainty
or due to other considerations which we do not fully comprehend and
which may be irrelevant.

I think there are indeed some who want to read the Rashi this way, but
it does mean ignoring what I agree with RYK is very much the thrust of
the gemora, which is about which position to teach, not about which
position to follow.

-- 
>Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this
Court's

Regards

Chana