[Avodah] Sephardi-ism: some food for thought

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Chana Luntz <chana at kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:

> RMB writes:
>
> > IOW, the Sepharadim are complaining that the typical Ashk
> > methodology is different than theirs. More development of one
> > idea and its justifications than of the list of shitos.
>
> Well it is more than that, because, stepping back from the
> Askenazi/Sephardi divide, the question really becomes - to what extent
> is it appropriate to ignore what has previously been said.  The argument
> for those who list shitos is that we stand on the shoulders of giants,
> so how can we not take what they say into account - and so even if you
> want to disagree based on lomdus, it is important to grapple with those
> of your forebears and contemporaries who appear to say differently (or
> to find comfort from those that disagree).
>
> Regards
>
> Chana
>

To me it's not essential to list every shita every time.

What bothered me in RMF/IM's tehsuva on eating matza ashira erev pesach he
gave the 4th hour as a slam-dunk time limit for matza ashira.  This is a
matter of dispute. RMF imho did not have to mention the dispute in detail. I
would have been OK had he simply said that this is in dispute and *I* pasken
like this!

No secular scholar would be able to state a matter of dispute as a matter of
fact! If a Talmid of mine stated a disputed fact as a matter of Halacha I
would ream him out. MANY times a Talmid has told me that Being Hshmashos
Bgein at Shki'a. I immeidately challnge him waht is his source and what does
he mean by shekia. To say what WE call sh'kia is the beginning of bei
hashmashos is a BIG ahalchic dispute. I would NEVER accept anyone trying to
slip in one shita as a fact when communities TODAY still differ! It might be
a different case if the matter had been setllted 400 years ago!

I do not mean to pick on RMF. This is just an example.  I don't think BY,
would casually mention something like this w/o attirubtion.  Even the Tur in
several places states that Ta'am K'eikar is d'oraisso, but iirc he prefaces
it by saying KAYMA LAN or something like that.

IOW there is nothing wrong with a poseik taking sides. Waht I find
distrubing is either the case where the poseik takes a position as THE
undisputed position or where a poseik outlines a dispute w/o proper
attribution.  [see MB on Zecher/Zeicher. There are 2 yeish omrim w/o any
names at all!]

I hate to think that academics are more machmir on things like "davar
behseim omro" but it sure looks that way.  Again, the ROYs and the Kaf
hachaim's generally DO give a panorama of sources. As does the Darchei
Teshuva on YD.  And in the cases when such tangents would be onerous then
simply mention the conflict and take a side.

If these kinds of things were not important the be'er Hagolah on SA and the
Shaar hatziyun on the MB would never have been written.

-- 
Kol Tuv - Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081208/697e392c/attachment-0002.htm>