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

Mon Aug 25 22:01:51 PDT 2008

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:

> sadeihu".
>
> : Imagine personality can mamash CHANGE within  JUST ONE liftime, but human
> : nature cannto change in 1,500+ years of history! I am indeed perplexed by
> : this paradox!
>
> Where do I say anything about human nature? I'm writing about his claim
> of makach ta'us applying to something that wasn't part of the deal when
> they got married, and you are replying about "tav lemeisiv". Even if tav
> lemeisiv changed, to say that she later found him to be a jerk qualifies
> for makach ta'us is a chiddush without prior basis.

YOU missed my point. her LATER discovery was of a character trait that WAS
ALWAYS THERE and did not change, it was just masked. the Mikash Ta'us is
that had she been aware of the pathology of the person day one she would nto
have agreed to the marriage.

I have actually seen marriages like this. One woman complained to me that
her hubby ignored their baby [neglect] something that could not have been
evident at time of kiddushin. But the character trait was probably there
from day one and HAD the wife known about it she would NOT have marreid him
[they did divorce  BTW]

So Rackman is saying, that ROV character flaws WERE ALWAYS THERE and were
grounds from DAY ONE to be mafki'a kiddushim.  The fact that thye did nto
manifest until later is a funcion of the trait gbeing HIDDEN not of a change
of circumstances. Tht is Rackman's thesis. And if you ask most
psycho-thepists you will find that people do NOT change basic tratis w/o a
LOT of motivation.

Unless the husband suffered a trauma and afterwrds it manifested as a NEW
character flaw, Rachkman has every rigth to say that the falw was there. all
along

>
>
> It is not a case where we can make conflicting arguments to weight pros
> and cons. It's a case where his detractors claim ein raglayim ledavar
> altogether.
>
>
>
> :>
>
> In ChM, where they have hefqeir BD hefqeir, or to go beyond halachic
> norms (taqanos). Here it's lehatir, it's not ChM, I don't see relevence.
>

BD under extreme circumstances can ignroe precedent. This is clear

>
> :> Both of us should agree that places his position objectively outside the
> :> fold.
>
> : I fail to understand how your heuristic read of Halachic Judaism how
> ANYONE
> : is completely objectively IN or OUT of anything normative.
>
> I don't see how your algorithmic read includes the majority of baalei
> mesorah as engaging in halachic process.

I don't accept Rackman. But I fail to see how you cannot!  He is far less
radical than many of the shitos that you DO accept. Therein lies the
inconsistency! Fater all there IS an imperative to be mattir agunos! So his
heuristic wieghing MSUT be kosher even w/o a defeinte precedent.

The Beist Ysoef says lo r'inu ino raya.

>
>
> :> There is no maqor. It's his own invention.
>
> : Yes I saw that the Kitzur Misgeres hashulchan accused the Kitzur SA of
> the
> : same a few days ago. He says [in the R. Mordechai Eliyahu edition]  Taht
> : there is NO MAQOR in poskim fro this decision.  And what does that prove?
>  A
> : snif here and a snif there and presto it's Halachah!
>
> No maqor means no senifim. Not by implication, by identity. If there
> were senifim, they would each be pieces of a maqor. Here, there is just
> reasoning that was never used before that would provide a more derekh-noam
> solution that thousands of pages of gemara, rishonim and acharonim.
> Saying that reasoning must be wrong, not a factor to be added, is quite
> strongly supportable.

HUH?  The misgeres says KSA has not maqor. what does sniffim ahve to do with
it! My sniffim comment was irrelveant.

I am saying this, SO WHAT if there is not maqor? How is that a flaw?  If
precdent can be ignroed it can be ignroed!

>
>
> This is what I'm talking about, that your algorithm doesn't include the
> majority of baalei mesorah. Look through Otzar haPoseqim in YD.

Who is this?

> "A snif
> here and a snif there" is lemaaseh the normal way to do things. Either
> you accept the concept, or you have to exclude the majority of shu"t
> from your notion of the halachic process. I would faster conclude your
> model is wrong.

nve saw this technique in SA/Tur and primary nos'ei keilim.

>
>
> : There are a lot of "Da'ss Yachid" types out there. Does being a Da'as
> yachid
> : preclude eilu v'eilu?  WAs the B'al Hama'ors biur hametz erev Pesach via
> : eating outside Eilu v'eilu?
>
> : Does consensus count in p'sak And ven if it DOES count, who says there
> can
> : be ZERO dissent?
>
> It counts for a lot. Not for everything, eg hefseid merubah allows
> looking for an al mi lismokh and other senifim lehaqeil, but a lot.

Rema in tach says hefsed merubah is a heter to be somiech on a meikel shita.
AFAIK it is not a heter to find other heteirim per se. Rema relies upon
precedent

>
>
> But here it's not Beis Shammai saying Beis Hillel is wrong. It's saying
> RER is wrong the way the Issiim were wrong. Not employing the heuristic.

HOW so!  Beis Shammai iwas ruled wrong bu is STILL eilu v''eilu. I don't se
HOW rackman can be any WRONGER than BS.  this huerisics is just a way of
saying tath SUBJECTIVLEY you are comfortabel weith X and not Y but in
objetive truth there is no hilluk, just a subjective impression.

>
>
> :> 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...
>
> : ein hachi nami, in a hora'as sho'oh you MAY throw them all out.  But I do
> : belive R. Rackman never meant to throw it all out
>
> He did! He may have not meant to, but the agunos who came to him didn't
> need eid echad, eid mipi eid, or any of the other super qulos in birur
> Chazal allowed to permit remarriage.

Well than maybe Rackman went fartehr than I am aware of.  But I am nto aware
of this.
I am ONLY referring to the lemafrei'a hafaka'ah point not to other
"kvetches" or abuses.

DISCLAIMER I am not advocting in ANY way RER's system, but I am saying that
he [as well as Golinkin] DO fit into your heuristic model at least for the
most part.

>
>
>
>
> http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/11/halachic-process-part-i.shtml
> http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/11/halachic-change.shtml
>
> http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/11/halachic-process-interlude-what-it-isnt.shtml
> http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/12/halachic-process-part-ii.shtml
> http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/12/halachic-process-addenda.shtml
>
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --

-- 
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/20080826/a63b9355/attachment-0001.htm>