[Avodah] Halachic Texts: More Background

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 11:17:30PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: I'm not taking sides - accept to be open-minded to the possiblity of change.
: And I'm not saying R. Rackman has the facts. I am just saying he COULD
: construe the facts as having changed.

If we cared about how people could construe things, then eilu va'eilu is
altogether out. Once you allow plurality, anyone will argue that their
position is simply another "eilu".

Bottom line is that R' Rackman innovated two things that have no basis,
regardless of our differences in how to trate things that do:

1- Considering a later personality change, career failure, or other
issue to be "mekach ta'us" rather than "nistapkha sadeihu".

2- Hafka'as qiddushin where (1) the husband did no ma'aseh attempting
qiddushin or geirushin, and (2) on a casewise basis rather than a general
policy set in advance that whenever X, the marriage is annulled.

Both of us should agree that places his position objectively outside the
fold. There is no maqor. It's his own invention. Our debates over how do
decide between answers that actually have mechanics which trumps which
and how has nothing to do with this.

RER's belief that he has justification doesn't change the fact that
according to everyone else's rules, he doesn't.


: Or he could say that any woman protesting her fate vociferously is part of a
: minority that prefers isolation to suffering an abusive relationship.
...
: The point is taht RYBS said that tav lemseisav is an aboslute. WADR, I
: disagree.

The essential issue is NOT tav lemeisav, although that came up in part
of the mekach ta'us argument. Everyone discusses RYBS's reply about it
because his reply has philosophical content and is therefore more
interesting than the lomdus.

But according to RALichtenstein, the iqar of RYBS's objection is that if
one could simply invoke hafka'as qiddushin in this way, we could throw
out much of Yevamos, Gittin, Even haEzer, etc... The Chasam Sofer and CI
didn't simply resolve problems through hafka'as qidushin. Are we wiser
than them? RYBS described it as cutting off the branches of the very
tree one is sitting in. IOW, there is a basic problem of precedent and
halachic process here.

To put it in my own words: lo ra'inu eino ra'ayah doesn't apply to
cases where someone claims there is something 3 feet across sitting
three inches in front of your face.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha at aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore