[Avodah] Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos

[Arie Folger]

I wrote:
> In conlusion, I do not believe that we can find a single overarching
> principle that explains all ma'hloqot in halakhah.

RJR wrote:
> Which is exactly what bothers the unified field theorists -  then
> halacha seems arbitrary and the halachik process not reproducible.

That shouldn't bother us at all. Halakhah isn't one set of principles, but 
several layers. There is DeOraita, Derabbanan, splitting into asmakhta, 
gezeirah, taqanah, and there are various layers of minhag. The list isn't 
exhaustive, but does demonstrate that one overarching principle isn't called 
for.

DeOraita seems to have, at its core (OK, there are different approaches here, 
but this one is quite coherent and was used on this list repeatedly) the 
qabalah from Sinai. Derabbanans are made by people, responding to specific 
circumstances, and as such, might best be described again by qabbalot, but 
from 'Hazal. Same for minhag.

In addition, there are principles that modify a host of halakhot, esp. 
derabbanans, such as gezeirah she-ein hatzibbur yakhol la'amod bah, bettel 
hata'am - where sometimes we say batlah hagezeirah, while at other times we 
don't. In addition, there are the principles of 'et la'asot laShem, eivah, 
darkhei shalom etc. which can even modify a deOraita.

But besides the fact that halakhah is composed of several entirely different 
layers, I would like to make the following observation:
Halakhah - esp. derabbanans and minhaggim - should not be compared to 
mathematics, but rather to law, and law does not exist independently of its 
interpretation. Lo bashamayim hi. (Though I should add that Halakhah is 
always being interpreted, even when observed in the breach, possibly 
resulting in the Tokhekha becoming realized.) Of course, that does not mean 
that we are free to interpret it as we please, nonetheless, as long as we 
[meaning, the halakhic literature] do[es]n't look at it, it isn't defined. 
Perhaps the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would be a good metaphor for the 
hard sciences people.

Anyway, this law, Halakhah, is subject to constant revision by posqim, who 
test whether our interpretations (practice, too, is a form of interpretation) 
are still within the bounds of the acceptable, and, sometimes, whether our 
interpretations are still within the spirit of the acceptable.

It is through the human agency of the posseq that these reevaluations take 
place, and it is through acceptance by the posqim community that a posseq's 
arguments stand or fall.

Lest all this bother still you, I strongly believe in the description of 
RYBS's "encounters" with Rambam or even more, feeling the Divine Presence. A 
posseq who sets out to pasqen with yirat shamayim and basing himself on Torah 
lishmah will have sayata diShmaya.

I am reminded of the story of a rav in a certain European city, where the rosh 
kollel, who was even more learned than the rav, once remarked that he does 
not understand how the rav can pasqen, having too little knowledge by the 
rosh kollel's standards. Nonetheless, said the rosh kollel, the rav has 
always pasqened correctly. (The story was related to me last year, as I 
visited that city after the rav had moved on.)

In short, the posseq who is pasqening is experiencing revelation. But just as 
only Mosheh benefited from aspaqlaria hameirah, so too, not every posseq's 
revelation is of equal stature, leading to the possibility of non acceptance 
of any given posseq's particular pessaq.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com