[Avodah] Halachic Texts: More Background

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:46:39PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: > 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....

Justification? Definition!

As I said, I'm being descriptive. Given that what we're doing is halachic
process, what generalizations can we make from what we see done to define
that process.

This whole thing began with you and Rabbi ABC wondering what the rules
were. Now, given that we don't know what the rules are, because no one
ever sat down and articulated them, the only thing left is to see what
implied rules we see in practice.

: by the way is 180 degrees AGAINST the GRA...

Which means the process must be broad enough that you could take it in
both directions.

Either that, or you need to declare either talmidei haGra or some other
group to be non-O.

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

No. My stance is that halakhah is NONALGORITHMIC. (Sorry for shouting,
but I've been saying it for over a year now.) My stance is that the
process defines which issues require consideration, and general
statements about how much weight to give each issue, but different
derakhim justify variation in which matter to weigh more.

The person who supports textual conclusion over mimetic precedent AND
the person who supports the mimetic precedent as the greater of the two
are both working within the process.

As per above -- it has to be a system flexible enough to include both
talmidei haGra and Breuers'.

And yet not so flexible as to be limit-less. Which is why (along with
the fact that this is what we see in O) I posited that there are limits,
algorithmicly defined limits, over which issues are to be considered
altogether, and there are limits in variation of weighting.

But all-in-all, the last step in pesaq is often (at least in the more
interesting problems) weighing halachic pros vs halachic cons, and thus
differences in pesaq will emerge.

:> 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!

And so in their consideration, the sevara cons outweighed the mimetic
pros.

...
: 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.

Nor did I make it. You're still talking absolutes, which is not the
plane I'm in. I said the Gra and the SAhaRav's more sevara than mimetic
approach to halakhah was possible because mimeticism was decaying. The
actual collapse was never total, and certainly ran at least from their
lifetimes through the Shoah through the "slide to the right".

:> 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

But there is no text in RER's case!

: 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.

TuM and TiDE are dangerous. Trying to pre-filter the world, which can
never be perfectly done, carries its dangers. Trying to flee dangers is
dangerous -- you'll turn the Torah into fundamentalism! Since when does
dangerous mean wrong?

: 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]

I deny that any of it is radical. You can follow a nusach haGra siddur.
Pre-Gra variation in siddurim, eg Edot haMizrach, is broader in difference
-- and they're similar enough that I can follow in one of them, too.

Obviously having problems with both #2 and #3 opens the door to a
"conflicting desirata" view of halachic decisionmaking.

: 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.

And so, a year later, you're still at "if it ain't an algorithm, there
is nothing".  And a thermostat which uses fuzzy logic, might turn on
the heater when the temperature outside goes up. Because if there is no
hard-n-fast rule, it's a free for all. Right?

: I see no reason NOT to accept RER or REB or any other Radical Reconstruction
: of Halacha becaus after all their are sniffim involved...

No, because some of their sniffim are made up, with no precedent or
source in any domain othwer than their own theories'.

: 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.

No. I'm saying
SINCE we accept the Gra but not RER
and SINCE we go with the flow,

what can we deduce about the as-yet-unknown laws in the flow?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha at aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507