[Avodah] KSA, MB, AhS, Chayei Adam and other codes

[David Riceman]

> <RMB>
> :>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...
> <me>
> : I don't understand this.  Didn't Rabbi Soloveitchik rule that we need an 
> : explicit tradition about makom hamizbeah, rather than our best 
> : deduction.  Why didn't he reject that opinion as well, since it requires 
> : us to throw out much of sidrei kodshim and tohoros?
> <RMB>
> Apples and oranges.
>
> RYBS doesn't believe in two kinds of innovation (at least).
>
> 1- The general Brisker belief that only halakhah can create halakhah,
> and science without mesorah can't establish din. So, it would take
> Eliyahu haNavi to restore techeiles, identify maqom hamiqdash, etc...
> (It's not throwing out qodeshim, it's postponing it.)
>
> 2- There is a concept of halachic engineering; finding a means to change
> the situation to one where an issur doesn't apply. E.g. heter iska. RER
> is proposing another example of engineering. However, RYBS doesn't
> believe one can accept engineering that oviously must have crossed R'
> Aqiva Eiger's mind and that he didn't recommend. That alone is proof
> that the engineering doesn't work.
>
> An objection that's only an issue to prove the engineering is no good,
> and not about other kinds of innovation.
>   
This is a lovely hiluk, but its not germane.  RER's observation, IIUIC, 
is that tav l'meisav is deduced from the observations that (a) women 
marry for status, and (b) women's primary route to status is through 
their husbands.  Nowadays women have an equally viable route to status 
through careers, so that deduction is no longer applicable (ad kan RER).

Careers as a means to (female) status have become viable for amcha only 
since the nineteen seventies.  How could R. Akiva Eiger have predicted this?

I only heard of this comment of RAL's through you, so I don't know how 
much I can read into it that you didn't intend to put there, but let me 
repeat what you wrote:

<RMB>
:>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...

To me this reads as though RAL/RYBS is adumbrating a principle: any 
hiddush which negates large amounts of halacha is, ipso facto, 
incorrect.  If so, why shouldn't it apply to the "general Brisker belief 
that only halakhah can create halakhah"?

David Riceman