[Avodah] R' Berkovits = Conservative halacha??

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 02:32:25PM IDT, Michael Makovi wrote:
: The topic moved to discussing Rabbi Berkovits's halachic approach,
: compared to Conservative.

"Compared to" doesn't mean equated, despite your choice of new subject
line.

...
: B'kitzur: Logically-sound Talmudic rules are overriden by ethical
: imperatives themselves intrinsic to the Torah (and not borrowed from
: Western society and Enlightenment values- "darkei shalom" is a Torah
: value). This is EXACTLY what Rabbi Berkovits said, not more and not
: less. Rabbi Jakobovits says that "This argument may be capable of further
: development", and I think that perhaps Rabbi Berkovits did davka this.

The problem is in placing such aggadic values at greater importance than
textual and mimetic precedent. By playing down the fact that halakhah
is a legal process, he removes the anchor that insures that the values
used actually are Torah ones.

Values are passed on largely mimetically. Even articulated values require
shemush to know relative importance and feel. If you can put them into
words, you have already formalized somewhat.

Which means that there is no way to know when you've crossed the line
from implementing Torah values to pulling halakhic strictures into
accomodating alien ones.

This is why a society that is culturally closer to Sinai needs fewer
formal legalisms.

He is lamenting the formality rather than lamenting the reason why we
need it. Reducing the role of the formal legal process without restoring
the culture is opening a Pandora's box.

Add to that that REB doesn't trust Chazal's statements about the
limitations of the process they used, and assumes (as per academia and
C) that they had more tools at their disposal.

He repeats the old (within C) line that pruzbul as precedent for abrogating
deOraisa as opposed to enginerring around them. The chakhamim say there
never was a ben sorer umoreh, he makes that statement into finessing
the din out of existence through uqimta.

His call for values translates into much more of the same. That's
different than the full scope of liberties C takes with the legal process.
However if you invite flexibility in response to the ineffible and thus
unverifiable, is the difference one of quality or degree?

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 08:56:52PM EDT, Rich, R Joel wrote:
:> Because one rule is that bit in Edios 1 about precedent being binding
:> until one finds a BD gadol mimenu bechokhmah uveminyan. Therefore, as
:> chokhmah is lost, codified halakhah will increase. If someone refuses to
:> collect it in one place, they won't prevent ossification, they will just
:> cause more loss, and more chumros to be safe would ensue.

: AIUI Gadol mimenu only applies to gzeirot, not drashot.

It sounds like you're thinking of Hil' Mamrim pereq 2, and/or our previous
discussions of it. That is only discussing the creation of new law. The
Rambam holds that derashah is a constructive system by which one can
find new deOraisos, so it's included.

This is neither, it's pesaq. We're talking interpretation, not
legislation.

Which is the case in Ediyos 1:5, where it is explained that shitas
hayachid is recorded to provide ideas for a future beis din hagadol
mimenu bechokhmah uveminyah to possibly change the din to that shitah.
Isn't the overwhelming number of machloqesin in mishnayos ones of pesaq
that is neither arguments over derashah or new gezeiros?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha at aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie