[Avodah] Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:23:00AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 09:24:29PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:>:> And no one knows the technical limitations of derashos anymore -- one
:>:> of the reasons (perhaps the lack of Sanhedrin is a 2nd) we don't in
:>:> practice make new ones even lefi haRambam.

:>: Except that
:>:    1. The Taz created a new Halacha of davening Arbis after Tzeis becuase of
:>:    Temimos

:> Not a derashah. "Temimos" is being translated.

: I  call this a distinction without a difference.

But the difference is huge! Rambam is discussing the power of beis din
to make a halakhah that didn't exist before using the middos shehaTorah
nidreshes bahen.

The Taz created a chumrah, it's unclear if he thought is was baseline din,
through reading a pasuq and getting peshat. He interpreted existing law,
and found the norm to be non-ideal. It's like the MB looking at peshat
in a pasuq and saying "ur'isem oso" would be better done with the strings
out where you could see them. A chumrah based on reading the deOraisa.

But in any case, it's not derashah in the technical sense of the word. No
gezeira shava, no kelal uperat, etc...

By using the word "derashah" loosely, you're making the Rambam say
something he didn't intend.

...
: Ataully the Same Zohar that says NOT to wear TEfilin on Hol HaMo'ed says it
: is EIDUS SHEKER al atzmo NOT To wear Tzitzis whilst reicting Shema.  If the
: Zohar is normative [I think not aiui but YOU do] then I ask mah nafsach!

Actually, I do not believe halakhah operates the way you're assuming.
The Zohar is a consideration. It's not a halakhah text, so it isn't
used to define normative, just to choose among options. But if it has
a strong argument, it may motivate stretching my set of of normative
options to choose something a poseiq wouldn't have otherwise.

After all this time, you're still trying to understand my position in
terms of algorithms. Something is "normative" or not. Black-and-white.

: See Darchie Moshe ho'oruch.  It is in effect either
:    1. Being mevateil a mitzvas Aseih by not permiting young men to wear them
:    2. If in the case of young men wearing Tallis Kattan, then the problem is
:    the Bracha.

Which has nothing to do with Shema, and thus the Zohar is irrelavent
anyway.

:    4. Maharil is in concert with about 90% of Yekke minhaggim but they
:    reject this one- why?

A major problem in our communication is that we're doin g different
projects. You're looking at theories on how halakhah works, and
rejecting the numerous exceptions as being an abuse of the system.

I, OTOH, and looking at how halakhah is made, not only as per Frankfurt
prioritization, and trying to deduce what rules exist in practice.

You're being prescriptive, I'm trying to be descriptive.

:    6. If this is  NOT a drasha then what is it and why do people follow this
:    minhag in face of Poskim [such as MB] who rule otherwise?

It's not a derashah because it doesn't create issur or chiyuv, just
minhag. And I think it just post-facto supported minhag, anyway. As you
write:
: that is true. Which is  part of my point.   The ONLY reason this drassha
: exits is AFIK becausing Taleisim [or talittot] were not readily avilalble so
: it was a limud z'chus...

:> We're also discussing whether they can be wrong, or if they define
:> "right". This is a tangent; which is okay if it doesn't leave the first
:> issue unresolved.

: Of course Hazl CAN be wrong. But we may have to accept their p'sak anyway.
: This si the yamin us'mol point.

You are making a distinction that I wouldn't, since pesaq isn't about
finding truth, it's about defining law. My "can't be right" is referring
to the same thing as your "have to accept their p'sak".

Yes, they can be wrong on the facts. I'm not sure we would accept their
pesaq even lequlah (the Gra and RAYK wouldn't), but you wrote "may"
and we'll leave it like that.

But we were talking about them being wrong on halakhah. The rav who
didn't err in procedure defines halakhah. So, if we trust that they used
the process correctly, Chazal defines "right" in the sense of correct
practice, what is halakhah. We have to accept their pesaq, because their
pesaq is halakhah.

: In YOUR universe, I would not only have to accept the p'sak of the umpires,
: but I would have to believe that they ruled correctly! ...

If their job wasn't just to apply the rule book to the game, but also
to define the rulebook in the same statement, they would rule correctly.
Their decisions would always match the official MLB rules!

...
:> In any case, Rebbe dies in 220 CE R' Hillel II died in 385, Ravina died
:> in 399. (Rav Ashi lived until 427, but the gemara persumably had to be
:> written when both were alive.) So, by the narrowest definition, there
:> were 180 years of amora'im, of which only 14 didn't have a Sanhedrin.

: But Amoraim in Bavel were w/o Semicha.  And there is LITTLE evidence that
: Hillel II ruled on 99% of the drashos in Bavel.

I'm not sure of the relevence. We're talking about authority, not whether
the authority was in practice used. I have no idea how the Sanhedrin
operated in this era. However, there was a central beis din with the
power that their decisions were that of everyone's poseiq.

So even aside from derashah or other means of legislation (again, we're
working within the Rambam who has derashos as a means of legislating
new deOraisos), Sanhedrin at that time had the power to make binding
interpretations of existing law.

And they were umps who modified the official MLB rulebook.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          reliable person?