[Avodah] Mesorah

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 09:21:03AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> If RSZL has any authority WRT the discussion of the CI from an
:> impact-on-halakhah POV, it's because of the "R", not the "Prof".
: 
: I am not sure how one subdivides the person. His opinions are not
: segregated by title.
: R Prof Leiman is not a professional rabbi or posek.

I know that; I grew up around the corner from his home and we davened
in the same small shul, after all. Which is why I wrote "if he has any",
to distinguish from the CI (to pick another name from the discussion.

I'm having a disagreement with someone who believes that without a
Sanhedrin, halakhah is a science, and therefore an academic's opinion
carries equal halachic weight in his eyes as somoene who thinks in the
modes that grew up alongside the material as part of the mesorah.

You appear to agree below that a "Rabbi ... PhD" would slide into two
different modes of thought depending on the context. Whether he "expect[s]
to affect psak" (or at least his own behavior) or not. And I agree that
of course, since they're both from one mind, each informs the other.

However, in terms of *authority* being a great academic doesn't make
one an authority in rabbinic mode thinking. And therefore, if RMM wants
me to care about what RZSL says for the sake of a disscussion that is
about what the halakhah is, then the R' is the relevent title -- and
that difference is itself part of the conversation.

....
: In general I didn't understand the post of Micha. An academic discussing
: a gemara or a shita in the rishonim does not expect to affect psak.

My entire point is just that the two are distinct.

And so, RMShapiro's book about who believed what had no impact on whether
I wwould use wine handled by someone who only believed a subset of the
ikkarim. (I think RMShinnar and I disagree over whether the 13 ikkarim
were acceptd to an extent that they are halakhah; not on this point,
if they were.)

To return to where this thread began... RMM wrote in v26n121 quoting
RMShapiro's article on how Brisk could't be the intent of the Rambam.
His conclusion from that quote was that RMShapiro was jutifying Brisk's
authority on basically deconstrutionist grounds. I spent some time
thinking about academia, deconstructionism and how halakhah works, and
re-started the discussion explaining how I thought mesorah, being an
Oral Culture (even if not actually entirely oral anymore; the caps are
to denote my use of a buzzword), differed. In short, because the
tradition on interprettion, the culture of the batei midrash and beis
medrashes is part of the general flow. One therefore isn't left with
the dichotomy of original intent vs personal encounter
(deconstructionism).

I then continued that this basic error, viewing a pesaq as a stand-along
point to understand in one of those two terms, pulls one away from the
modality of thought that produces halakhah. RET, you find this point so
self evident, my saying so confused you. However, it seems clear to me
from my discussion with RMM here and on Nishma Blog (in response to a
entry by RMM) that RMM does not. And, after all, look at his usual pool
of sources cited here on Avodah. Do they reflect an awareness of the
significance of the difference of expertise in the two disciplines?

...
: In summary when I learn or teach I frequently will bring in historical
: information (just did that in the discussion about Baba Butra and the
: bet hamikdash in Baba Basra)
: Doesnt mean that I would change halacha according.
: However that doesnt diminish a historical analysis.

I consider it dimished in the sense that it's not the ikkar qiyum
hamitzvah of talmud Torah for the same reasons that it doesn't influence
pesaq. Not less important than studying science qua maasei Hashem.

...
: BTW there are claims that the Rambam did change psak if he felt that the
: answer of the gemara was dechuka.

I think more that the Rambam pasqened according to pesaqim more than
sevaros. Therefore, the Gra writes that if the Bavli had a shaqla
vetarya that concluded some peshat, but the Y-mi had an explicit "Amar
Ribbi ..." the Rambam would follow the Y-mi. Which would rule out his
following 98% of the dechuqos on those grounds.

How much the Rambam believed that halakhah is a science is a different
discussion. I think RMM would be closer to incorrect if we were all
following the Yad rather than the SA and Mappa. But that's for a later
post.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha at aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter