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

[Chana Luntz]

RJR writes:

>> Let me go back to the case of the Rav who told my friend to
>> keep tryingwhen we all know there is a very simple heter that should
(and because
>> she psak shopped was) employed in this case to enable her to have
>> children.  Is it not crystal clear that after 120 years, when this
Rav
>> goes to face the din emes, if my friend had in fact followed his
ruling,
>> then this Rav would have been held accountable for the children (and
all
>> the countless generations possibly after them) that did not exist,
not
>> to mention the enormous suffering of my friend and her husband, that
he
>> had caused?  In fact did not my friend, on a deeper level do this Rav
a
>> big favour, because now his din will only be dealing with
theoreticals,
>> not actuals.
> ===========================================
> Not crystal clear to me. Perhaps the Rav in question had other reasons
> for his not using the heter, perhaps HKB"H had a different result in
> mind. 

Well of course it is hard for us to speculate on HKB"H intentions - but
he certainly had lots of other means at his disposal for preventing this
couple having children, if that was his intention.  As it happened, the
Rav did not inform them of the heter, they continued not to have
children until they went to the Dayan who steered them through the
heter.  Then they had children.  HKBH could certainly have found methods
to prevent them having children even once they heter was imployed, but
he chose not to implement them.

Regarding the Rav, I confess I am at a loss to explain what other
reasons he might possibly have for not using the heter.  Given the
weight placed within halacha on the mitzva of pru u'rvu, and the extent
that this is a case of, as people have articulated, hanhaga, and one
that is pretty generally recognised by many many gedolei yisroel as one
that is to be waived in order to allow for the mitzva of pru u'rvu, it
would show and enormous level of confidence and courage in one's own
poskening ability to come out against such gedolei yisroel - without
either articulating such reasons or even telling the people involved
what has been done.  From a Rav of a local shul, pretty unlikely.  Far
more likely is that he just didn't know.

 As long as we're conjecturing, what if someone takes advantage of
> a minority opinion and has children that they "shouldn't" have had.
> Does the new rav in question suffer for that?  

I am not sure that the question has much teeth if you are talking about
taking advantage of a bone fide minority opinion.  But OK, let's
strengthen the situation and say that the Rav in question, out of
compassion for the couple, allowed them to do something that is bone
fide against halacha as all see it in order to have children (I don't
know - how about having relations during the actual flow days, to make
the case as extreme as possible, assuming, against most biology I would
have thought, that this was the only time she could conceive).  Assuming
the couple had no idea (or were prepared to trust the Rav that this must
be OK, and they had reasonable grounds to trust the Rav - ie this was a
case of a Rav appointed to a local Orthodox shul, where a not so learned
couple should reasonably be able to expect that he knows what he is
doing) then yes, it seems to me that the issur is on the Rav and not on
the couple, and the din emes would be against him, not the couple, who
thought they were doing what they were permitted to do.  The Rav might
have averah lishma arguments perhaps (see Horayos 10b), I don't know.

> KT
> Joel Rich

Regards

Chana