[Avodah] Eilu v'eilu

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, November 15, 2007 4:59 pm, cantorwolberg at cox.net wrote:
:> "Eilu va'eilu doesn't mean everyone's perception is equally valid."

: I agree. So how do you determine who's correct when one godol says
: another godol's p'sak is invalid? ...

You follow your rav.

It means that every rav has to have two definitions of correct: What I
believe the halakhah is, and what I believe is within the range of
other answers.

:> To carry this further, how come
:> when a majority of poskim rule one way and a bas kol tells them that
:> the minority opinion is correct, we don't listen to a bas kol? And
:> to answer "lo bashamayim hee" to me, is not satisfactory....

WADR, if the gemara's answer isn't satisfactory, then you've dismissed
the source upon which the entire topic is based. Might as well fold up
shop and go home. However, you're safe -- it's unclear what the gemara
meant.

This was discussed at length in the past. There are a few takes on the
subject, since it was a bas qol that told us to follow Beis Hillel
rather than Beis Shammai, and that one we do listen to. Rishonim vary
between explaining why we listen WRT following BH (eg: they were
majority, so the process requires it anyway) and thus making the norm
not listening), to explaining why we didn't listen in the tanur shel
achnai case since normally we do (eg: G-d was saying that in general
we listen to RE, but this is an exception). So, the rishonim are split
as to whether the story means G-d has no vote.

RYBS has a beautiful explanation of why Hashem would have no vote,
including explaining His chuckle at the end of the story, "Nitzchuni
banai". The whole point of the Torah is to be a covenental
partnership, a collaboration between Hashem and man. Halakhah is not
to be dictated from above, but to be worked by man according to His
rules.

(And eilu va'eilu is limited to other answers that follow those rules.
But, just to remind people of what I think is the sticky point, among
the things the rules do is allow for the evolution of the rules! So,
if the pesaq is produced in compliance to rules for pesaq created by
following the rules for pesaq, etc... back to Sinai, then it's part of
eilu va'eilu. Add to that that the rules indicate preferences that --
when conflicting -- might not be given the same preferences as another
poseiq. Such that disputes aren't only in whether it's A or B, but
whether A is more important than B. But importance, the weighting, is
ALSO limited by the process. Etc... until the self-referentiality of
law makes you dizzy. But back to RYBS:)

Thus, when man took up the gauntlet, and didn't require that Hashem
carry the whole collaboration on His own, Hashem declared in joy, "My
sons have made Me eternal!" Only such a Torah could last through the
changes of situations and realities.

: It would
: seem that one must be able to listen to reason and just because the
: majority rule one way, does not mean they are right. That's why I
: believe the mathematically perfect luach is valid for determining
: Rosh Chodesh. The witnesses were replaced by g'dolim who had the
: brilliance to form our calendar.

Rosh Chodesh is a totally different topic. Chakhamim do not only
determine the halakhah, they were given the power to create it. RC is
defined as the day the Sanhedrin declares RH. The Sanhedrin have to
base it on the celestial phenomena as seen by witnesses, but it's not
the testimony or the moon which causes it to happen, it's the
declaration.

: So to imply that eilu v'eilu is fine as long as it's your "eilu
: v'eilu" or your rebbe's eilu v'eilu, to me is strictly subjective.
: Objectivity is often times never achieved since we get in the way.

Why do you assume halakhah is supposed to be objective? And even if
objective, why would that necessarily mean universal?

My objection to Cantor Wolberg's mixing in qiddush hachodesh is
related to a similar objection to a point made by RRW last week.

On Thu, November 8, 2007 5:32am, Rich, R Joel wrote:
: What is the traditional understanding of the Sanhedrin/finalization
: of psak history/process? Is it that Sanhedrin continually functioned
: from the time of Moshe Rabbeinu on and was the final arbiter of all
: issues but chose which to decide and which to leave local? For example
: machshirei milah on shabbat or chicken and milk...

... or Rashi vs Rabbeinu Tam tefillin, which dates back to the beis
din hagadol era too.

Except I wouldn't include of vechalav. That wasn't a matter of pesaq,
but of making a takanah. The difference in practice wasn't a machloqes
about preexisting din, but that there was a delay in it being
nispasheit through the qehillos of the Galil. (The similarity is that
this too is about chakhamim constructing, not interpreting, the law.)

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha at aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv