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

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:

> 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 MB [and others] treat this Taz as ps'ak iow as normative.  Why?


>
>
> 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.
>

So I'l lback off the Taz and attack those who TREAT this Taz as anything
beyond a mere suggestion based upon the text.

Bu my point is that this understanding of Temimos is an unprecedented use of
the terms in a Halchic context. It might as well be a drashh.  If I can
manufacture  something out of a passuk w/o any precedent and it becomes
noramtive how does that differe from what Sanhedrin might have done? Only
that  it takes  a slightly different route



>
>
>
> :    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.
>

IOW ae you saying that anything practiced is ispo facto normative and ispo
facto correct?



>
> :    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:


IT's a minhag that is being mevateil the proper use of Tallis according to
many poskim, Rmea, MB, and BA'eir Hetev  included. Is this Minhag legit?


>
> :
>
>
> 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".
>

So Rabbi Rackman's afkin'u  of Kiddushin cannot be attacked so long as he
does what?  IOW there are no boundaries so as long as the game is played
within the rules =-anything goes?

The C Teshuva on driving on Shabbas would lay claim to "playing by the
rules" Since the combustion in the engine does not resemble the hav'ara in
the construction of the Mishkan it is not a d'orassio yada yada yada.




>
> But we were talking about them being wrong on halakhah. The rav who
> didn't err in procedure defines halakhah.


If a Rav ignores a "mishna" of a accepted [p'sak he is to'eh didvar mishan
as per choshen mishpat 25.  His onlyh wiggle room is articulated there.
Using corrct procedure and paskning a deviant p'sak is still not kosher

That is why we KNOW that techeils is NOT m'eakeiv es halavan because it is
an open Mishna that has been accepted as p'sak. if you atack this mishna you
might as well attack hazakkos, too!  einb ledavar sof.  Every Halachah can
be revise as long as one follows certain parameters [although I am not quite
sure what they are.] how can the term kayma lan EVER have any meaning?



>
> ...
> :> 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.
>

The Existing BD is really not related to Rav Ashi and RAvina as sof hor'ah.
I am interested in knowing how this connection was made because no one else
I know ever invoked this connexion. OTOH I have heard that the Yersushalmi
was a product of Musmachin while the Bavli was not.  But I would not call
that a mainstream argument either.



>
> 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


So how can ANYONE say the  Halachah is like the Bavli or like Rava over
Abbaye AFTER the  LAST Sanhedrin closed up shop?

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080530/481c4c45/attachment-0002.htm>