[Avodah] Women's zimun

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Nov 15, 2007 7:26 PM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, November 12, 2007 12:50 am, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> : Diclaimer I DO NOT insist pesak is algorithmic. I am on record as
> : saying otherwise although on this thread i have not taken ANY side
> : whatseover!
>
> I do not see how that's consistent with the words at the end of the post:
> : AISI this system is totally subjevtive. If Tsoafos says to ignore a
> : Mishnah it is OK but if a C rabbi says to follow a Tur or a Rambam he
> : is WRONG.
> : HOW?
>
> If you think the alternative is fatally subjective, how can you say
> you aren't supporting algorithmism?
>

See Sunday's Daf with Artscroll
Rabban Gamliel claimsha we are Boshin over  Chadhashim
Artscrol explains it that he QUESTIONS the rule of the lekuchos  it but does
not DISPUTE IT

QUESTIONS on methodology are not necessary a  REJECTION of methodology

I actually do not have a firm position. What I do say is that I have not
seen a convincing arugment

The only thing I have rejected up until now is your PROOFS that the system
is YOUR way.  Se kesubbos 2b Just as the Gemara does not reject the logic of
Rava re:  Ein ones begittin but dimissies [with quite a big of kvetch I
might add] all of the RAYOS brought to bear, similarly I reject your
arguments because they are not convincing.

And because I fault your logic you seem to think I agree with the opposite
side. Not so!




>
> But in any case, the above is my best attempt to explain how the
> baalei Tosafos and the C Rabbi are doing something different. Your
> claim is similar to saying that once I open up room via eilu va'eilu
> for personal differences, how am I not including everything? Simply,
> the nature of the system creates limits to the range of possibilities.
> Otherwise, your air conditioner goes on when it hits 30degF, and and
> your heater when it reaches the 90s (also F).


I understand your analogy. but you have not addressed my point.
How is an O poseik CORRECT when rejecting a Mishna and a C posiek WRONG when
overlooking ONLY a Tur?  to whom  dioes to'eh bidvar hamioshna apply?

>
>
> ...
> :> The concept of halakhah kebasra'i is often cited as the reason why
> :> the Bavli has more authority than the Y-mi. RRW would take this to
> :> mean "Bavli trumps Y-mi".
>
> : Look the Riof and Ri Migash say this. an dAFAIK so did R. Sa'dyah
> : Gaon. I am not advocating this position, I am only the messnger don't
> : shoot ME!
>
> None used the word "trump".


Quibble on semantics.  They rule that Bavli rule over yerushlami. AIU IRi
migash was explained to me to not even factor in Yerushlami at all since if
the Bavli is silent it is ignoring the Yer. by design. That goes beyond
trumping a conflict!


> The question of whether we hold the Bavli
> carries [much] more authority than the Y-mi or that the Bavli "trumps"
> the Y-mi would require a diyuq lashon. And given the use of absolutes
> in Hebrew (dating as far back as Leah being described as "senuah"
> rather than "less loved), I don't think such a diyuq is viable.


There are many clallei p'sak. some poskim use them as absolutes. But even if
they are NOT 100% absolute they ought not to be dismissed arbitrarily.
According ti Choeshn Nishpat 25 there is possibilty for error

OTOH

> http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/shoah/03shoah.htm

If, on the other hand, our faith in the sages must be unequivocal, as Rabbi
> Dessler argues, then it is impossible for them to be mistaken. Therefore,
> there is no need to defend them on the level of historical analysis. This
> leads to the far-reaching conclusion that religious leadership has the
> all-encompassing authority to issue instruction in all matters pertaining to
> reality and history, but they are exempt from any criticism – including,
> apparently, even self-criticism.
>
 <http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/shoah/03shoah.htm>
This quote deems a kind of infallibilty. If the gedolim say it, it must be
so EVEN in retropsect.
AFAIK even a Sanhedrin can be 2nd guessed after the fact and bring a korban
over horayos!


>
>
> Mayim acharonim weren't permitted until after the saqanta was
> eliminated. Fish and meat stays in the books with a constant comment
> about chamira saqanta mei'issura (not that I claim to know what that
> tzora'as related saqanah is...)


Which book? the Gemara is limitted to the case of COOKING fish and meat and
then eating it. Cold contact per se is not in the Gemara. So the Sakanta has
morphed.  And Bet Yosef and Levush even claim fish and MILK as a problem!
If indeed"chamira saqanta mei'issura: we should reject the Rema'squestions
and follow that chumra!

But Ga'onim have waived all medical concerns from the Talmud.  That is how
one rav [viz R. Mordechai Aderes] understands the waiver for mayyim
acharonim.  So at least as HE sees it my question is valid re: fish/meat.

Anyway with allthe fuzzy loigc and heuristics what is the VALID RANGE of
eilu v'eilu!  E.G.
when Chabad holds that keilim used with "haleiv hacompanies i"s treif EVEN
when relyinh upon RMF's pesak are they saying

   1.  those who follow RMF on this issue are beyond eilu v'eilu? Or
   2.  does eilu v'eilu STILL apply but the dishes can STILL be viewd as
   Treif!

So then can we could say that community X's dishes are treif but they STILL
are in the eilu v'eilu paradigm!?

Can anyone defined THEIR valid range?
Can they define ROYs valid range?
RYBS? RHS? RMF?




Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071120/76a2beba/attachment-0002.htm>