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

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:18:38AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: 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: through careers, so that deduction is no longer applicable (ad kan RER).

RER makes a number of claims.

Even if tav lemeisav is no longer true, it doesn't mean his action is
okay. That's what I was saying besheim RARR and RAL -- RYBS's primaty
objection was NOT about tav lemeisav being an exitential permanent fact
of human nature since the eitz hada'as. Just that people remember his
philosophically interesting point.

It extends the set of kinds of flaws a man can have, but only those flaws
that existed at the time of the wedding. Otherwise, nistapchah sadeha. See
IM EhE III:45 -- he requires a ta'am hagun for why, if a personality
flaw existed, they stayed together. And in that case it was only 7 weeks!

Although the canonical IM on the subject is EhE I:79-80.

So, if one is annulling a marriage because the guy is a jerk, you have
to prove he was always an intolerable jerk and there was a reason why
she stayed with him despite that.

But RER not only invokes meqach ta'us, he also invokes hafka'as
qiddushin as a 2nd snif. The problems with that I already discussed at
greater length.

Note to RRW:
    So, no matter how much value you give the project of matir agunos,
    there is no way to
	a- take a meqach that wasn't a ta'us at the time
	b- make a hafkaas qiddushin that isn't a set rule "whenever
	   X,Y" and
	c- that isn't invalidating qiddushin or validating a bad get.

    Even with a heuristic, there are limits, and eilu va'eilu isn't endless.
-- end note --

: 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"?

Because non-halakhah isn't a chiddush. What we're saying is that if
RER's method works, since it's obvious, and would be a better solution
than the steps the gemara took, why didn't the gemara take it? Remember,
a key part of the question is "Are we smarter than Abayei veRava, the
Rambam or the Shagos Aryei?"

What are you asking? If an archeologist with today's equipment can
identify the maqom hamizveiach, why didn't the Shagos Aryei? Or,
if not knowing the maqom hamizbeiach means no qorbanos, why did
Rebbe write an entire seider qodshim instead of destroying all trace
of the location?

I don't see the parallel.

The way I put it last time was: Lo ra'inu eino ra'ayah doesn't work
when it's a yard-across disc that someone claims is right in front of
your face. At some level of obviousness, their not taking that choice is
proof against the choice.

The question would be on heter iska -- if it works, why wasn't it done
before?

One reason is that the heter iska is oly about a century or two newer
than the ubiquity of banking on ribis.

A second may be that it's simply not that blatantly obvious.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
micha at aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard