[Avodah] Halachic Texts: More Background

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:14:57AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> : > 1- The Gra only violated mimetic precedent when he believed it to
> : > be provably wrong.
>
> : Is this a fact?  have you surveyed all of the GRA's objections to status
> : quo? ...
>
> It's the product of a perusal of Maaseh Rav. However, if you're convinced
> that the Gra poses a problem to normative halachic process, despite the
> large acceptance of his ruling as a valid eilu va'eilu (if not accepted
> by too many as /their/ "eilu"), the burden of making a survey would fall
> on you.
>

No eilue v'eilu is about IDEAS not normative procedue
Accordin to YOU the original eilu v'eilu would make beis shammai as
normative as Beis Hillel!
Aderabba, the only point about Eilu v'eilu is that STUDYING beis Shabammi is
legit, DOI Beis Shammai is dvaka ANTI-mormative and is like


   1. R. Elizer Hagadol [tanu achneai
   2. R Yehoshua ere: the Calendar
   3. Beis Shamma in general

I post that when th GRA violates nimnu v'gamru his rulings CANNOT be
accepted. Teh proof is thath th Cheyei Adaim didn't perpeutate the Gra's
practices.  he knew better.  you bring ME proof that the Cheyi Adam was
wrong and I'll listen!


>
> I'm trying to defend the normal stance, by defining halakhah
> descriptively.


You are equating status quo with halachah. It is by far the msot circular
form of Halachic justifcation I have found.It is OK because we do it. Which
by the way is 180 degrees AGAINST the GRA. so you are taking TWO
diameticcally opposed postions. I posit that if YOU lived at the time of the
GRA and found him to upset the stauts quo so much you would be screming
about 30 times more against HIM than agaisnt me.1 But since 200 years past,
the GRA is grandfathered in and you take my objections to status quo as
problematic.



>
> :> It would seem he holds that mimetic precedent really only has enough
> :> weight to stick with existing practice even if the practice seems valid,
> :> but weaker than the one you would otherwise choose.
>
> : I don't get this. Posqim have uniformly required tallis gadol for all
> : inlcuding Rema and Mishna Brura. how come this status quo is not subject
> to
> : revision as a minahg Ta'us?
>
> You're arguing that something doesn't fit halachic process by appealing
> to halachic process. You instead need to appeal to the virtues of the
> artgument itself -- not who held it.


Posqim [by and lartge]  DO NOT approve of not wearing a Tallis Gadol. You
accept the minhag even though it has no basis. and You attack me for
attacking a non-Halchic norm

Then you defend the GRA for attacking a non-normative minhag that goes
agianst text. Please take a stance one way or the other!



>
>
>
> : This has nothing to do with a Rishon's level. It has to do with settled
> : law.  Rabbeinu Tam is on a Rishon's level, too  is that mean I may make a
> : bracha on his Tefillin INSTEAD of Rashi's? if not why not?
>
> A shitah that can be shown to be internally flawed isn't settled law.
> You're just reinvoking what I tried to dismiss in #1.


Yes and the shita to NTO wear a Tallsi Gaddol is so flawed that the Mishna
Brura objected to it!  never mind the Rema and the Ba'eir Heitev!

What is inherently flawed anyway?  How do you define it? how do you defined
the issue of 2-3 matzos? Tanu Achnai? R. Eliezer hagaold CERTAINLY proved
beyond a dobut that his opponents had FLAWS in their opinions. Adn R.
Yeshoshua was quite logical in finding a flaw in the eidus accepted by
Rababn Gamliel.  So what is jsut such a FLAW anyway?




>
>
> : Alternatively may I eat hametz after hatzos on erev pesach beusase the
> ba'al
> : hama'or paskens it's a valid form bf bi'ur/? If not why not?
>
> Let's invoke the same three criteria:
> 1- How is the pesaq not to internally flawed?

According to a Rishon this argumetn is kosherh


>
> 2- Are you textually equal to a rishon?


Why not? After all  I am QUOTING a rishon!

>
> 3- 3 you actually have -- there was no formal nimnu vegamru. Which reduces
> the rov who do not allow you to do so to a factor that may be outweighed
> by another. Not a rule that removes the option from the table. (See below)


So then yo uagre Ba'al hama'or was NOT rejected. how can acharonimim say
"kayma lan" e.g. re: Rabbeinu Tam and Ta'am k'ikkar. How can it be kayma Lan
when Rishonim e.g. Rashi argue!?


>
>
> : > 3- There isn't really a rule of rov poseqim when no one enters the room
> : > for nimnu vegameru.
>
> : Who says?
>
> I should have been more clear. When I said "isn't really a rule",
> I should have better emphasized the word "rule". It's still a factor
> on the poseiq's pro-vs-con sheet. What I meant was that it's not an
> algorithmic rule, making it impossible for other factors to bring it back
> into discussion. When there is a formal head count, such as in Chananya
> ben Chizkiya ben Guryon's attic, azlinan basar ruba is an actual rule
> (given all the details and caveats to the rule in Mes Horios) not a
> factor to consider among others.
>
> :    1. The Beis Yosef in YD 101 says there IS and tha's how he rejects the
> :    Rif
>
> And yet the SA violated his own rule of nimnu vegamru in numerous
> places.


and maybe we need NOT to follow him in those exceptions!




>
>
> :    2. MB uses Rov acharhoim in MANY places as HIS sources in Sha'ar
> :    Hatziyyun such as BE'tzitzis
>
> And he also violates it in many places. Such as the tzeirei in
> "Yisgadeil".


Ein hachi name that is why I hold NOT like the MB in this case. even
Artscroll states "we follow MB EXCEPT when most people don't..." or
something to that effect.

IOW the mitzva d'orasisso of acharei rabbim lehattos trumsp again.  The Rosh
would agree on this FWIW.


>
>
> Because saying that it carried the day in one din or antoher doesn't
> mean it's the factor that will always carry the day.
>
> : GRA deviates from settled law and status quo - let's say about 200
> times...
> : BUT he keeps it to himsef and WARNS people NOT fo follow his p'sak
> [witenss
> : chayei Adam]
> : But his talmiddim take HALF of wat he says and uncacnels it. Maybe the
> GRA
> : would have bee nalaremed if he knew Maa'seh Rav would be published  Read
> : on!
>
> In which case, when did they turn iut into common practice. As the ghetto
> walls were falling and people no longer could rely on the mimetic lifestle
> of the past now that they were more mobile.
>
> You held me to the date the emancipation actually hitthe ghetto, as
> opposed to the general air of openness that forced the need for Chassidus.
> Then you delay the actual acceptance of this change in din to the next
> generation. Thereby moving the actual halachic change to after the
> walls fell.
>
> But that's tangential. If there was enough openness in the Gra's day
> that the Besh"T needed to inspire the masses, there was already enough
> decay of mimeticism to warrant a greater interest in texts.


Aderabba,  It was loyalty to mimeticism taht preserved tradtion. Reform was
VEY adept at adapting texts to mattir organs in shuls. The early Reforms
quoted Talmud to trhow out Tradition so often that it prompted the Chasam
Sofers' retort "Chadash Assur min Hatorah"

FWIW, R. Nosson Adler the Elder was thrown out of Frankfort - ostensibly for
following text and doing daily duchan when the minahg hamakkom siad NOT TO.
And inf Frankfort they did  NOT take kindly to deviation from Minhag
Hamakom!

Also Rabbiner Hirsch considered it OK to use German but verbotten to give up
piyyyutim, even though he COULD have used the GRA as a basis to do so. So
mimetics was not dead. It's a nice prsumption, but there is no eveidence to
support it.



>
>
>
>
> 1- The argument that RER is a throwback can't be supported. Just because
> there is no objective metric doesn't mae the claim any less obviously
> absurd.
>

IOW throwback is in the eyes of the beholder. So WHO determines WHO is a
valid "throwbacker?"




>
>
> One can only select among eilu va'eilu, not invent ideas of whole cloth.


As long as one can justify his opinion withing the text he may ignore
precedent. This is the GRA's shita, Probably Meharshal's and Bach's, too.
ou see mto want ti both ways at times, I stil don't get it


>
>
> ...
> : My point is that if the GRA lived today, you would find him to be far
> more
> : distrubing to status quo than Wolpoe.
>
> Quite likely. But it would still be obvious he had broite pleitzes.


ein hachi nami. The greater the Gaodl IS the more DANGEROUS his deviatoin.
If Rabbi ploni in oshkosh is radical WHO CARES?!  AISI R. Eliezer Berkowitz
was not a big enough Gadol to stir the pot too much. But R. Elizer Hagadol
when HE STIRRED the pot the repsonse was shamta!

But I do not object to the GRA VOICING a dissenting opinion. The IKKAR break
with normative Halchah is FOLLOWING a dissenting opinon as normative. It is
tanamount to replacing Rashi Tefillin with that of Rabbeinu Tam because you
consider Rabbeinu Tam brighter or more correct yada yaday yada.  By allowing
throwbacks to overturn Halachic norms I posit ein ledavar sof. You might as
well question it all

As some have proposed have Zohar Trump BAvli
Or Ari Trump Zohar
Or Rav Kook Trump Ari, etc.
Already a chaver in Teaneck has told me that RYBS trumps Kessef Mishnah.

ROY and others hve been trying to restore Traditional Judaism fomr the
onslaught of non-Traiditional deviations. While he comes from a Sephardic
model I generaly applaud his aporach. The Rema's approach [not every detail
of his p'saqim] was ratified as normative for Ashkenazim.  Just As Maran BY
was for Sephardim. Teimanim have a different Tradition.
And HAssidim started a new one.


>
>
> : But The GRA and I have something in common,
> :    1. The GRA wants to throw out some.much of Ashkenaic Rishonic practice
> in
> :    favor of a More Talmudic practice
> :    2. I want to throw out some of Ashekanzic Acharonic practice in favor
> of
> :    a more Ashkenazic Rishonic practice. {KAJ has bee naccused of davening
> :    "minhag Rishonim]
>
> I have nothing against your #2. I have something against your saying that
> this is the only way to go, when you shift from arguing in favor of the
> Maharil's perspective on precedent to arguing against the correctness
> of other weighting schemes.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>

The scheme of going back to text is slippery-slope dangerous. it is THE
major support for Golinkin and the Masorti, and actaully could justify RER
regardless of thowbackisms.

If you throw precedent to the wind, then you have a text-uber-alles legal
system that really mirrors karaism albeit with a later set of canonical
texts.

That does not mean that Halachah cannot evolve here and there. It can and it
does I am talking about:

   1. Radical changes
   2. Ignoring percedent
   3. Taking flawed mimetics over texts [e.g. Taliis Gadol]


All of the above serve to undermine any reliability for the system and makes
EACH poseiq not responsible to ANY RULES. which we see undermines Bies Din
to'e and To'eh bidvar hamishneh.

Micha, your system is really impossible to exclude vitually any decision as
a to'eh bidvar hamishne because you have eschewed any/all objective
standards.

I see no reason NOT to accept RER or REB or any other Radical Reconstruction
of Halacha becaus after all their are sniffim involved. RER would turn your
SNIFFIM arguemnt to show that we bend over backwards to be mattir agunos. I
think you have opened up a hole big enough to drive a truck through it.

Re; Ta'anis Tzibbur, Aruch Hshulchan rejects the majority and is mattir
eating after sheqi'a. But by and large he points out in many places that
haalch is like Rov Posqim. Adn he rejects minority opinions left and right.
Furthermore, he eshews any Minhag not based upon Torah. I am not sure how he
views the issue of Tallis Hagadol, but you can snip quotes that would show
it is a minhag ta'us. In fact I would doubt the GRA himself would have held
of this partciular Minhag.

BEH I will post the Darchei Moshe on this. This is NOT simply about d'var
sheker! The darchei Moshe makes MANY more arguments, and so does the MB< if
you read the MB carefully you wil see he suggests NOT making a barcha on a
tallis Katan. The Rema has similar misgivings.

Before I post the Darchei Moshe, looko up the NEW TUR [siman 8 Iirc] re: the
Drachei Moshe's take on Tallis

Micha let's face it.

Waht you are REALLY saying is
"We" accept th GRa but not RER's radical positions
"We" go with the flow, regarldess of the laws in the flow.

I see these arguemnts as merely rationalizations for the status quo w/o
taking a position.

It IS true that the Beth Yoseph took a stand and did not follow his own
rules. But that is the beauty of it. We can OBJECTIVELY point this out!


-
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/20080721/905ff01b/attachment-0001.htm>