[Avodah] Lo Ra'inu Eino Raya ==> Blanket Heter

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

R' Rich Wolpoe asked:
> Please follow this logic and try to isolate the precise flaw - if any.
> Given:  anything not prohibitted by Shas
> Is therefore permitted by Shas
> Therefore, when one adds a prohibition not found in Shas - one is ipso
> facto disputing Shas

As far as I can tell, there is no flaw in this logic.

However, this logic can be -- and often is -- applied in a flawed manner.

I agree that if one takes an activity which Shas doesn't prohibit, and then he prohibits it, that is against Shas. However, if one takes an activity which Shas *doesn't* prohibit, and he recommends avoiding that activity, that is NOT against Shas. Avoiding that activity might even be a good thing.

For example, to the best of my knowledge, nowhere in Shas does it say, or even suggest, that it is assur to get married today (Erev Rosh Chodesh Av). Yet it certainly is avoided (at least among Ashkenazim; I'm not familiar with others).

But referring to this avoidance as an issur does confuse people, and I think it is wrong, and probably counts as the "disputing Shas" that RRW asks about.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
SS Disability Attorney
Dallas, North & East Texas. Free consult with Dallas attorney Denman.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=Bvl_K4HXmGjqlk3N0EZeyQAAJz3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAUAAAAAAAAAAIV8wD7JZxLHTZ5vDBdmZ9jZ9SGVAAAAAA==