[Avodah] Classical Academia, Deconstruction, and Mesorah

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:12pm IDT, Michael Makovi wrote:
: According to Professor Shnayer Z. Leiman, "Hazon Ish on Textual
: Criticism and Halakhah - A Rejoinder" (Tradition 19:4, Winter 1981),
: responding to Zvi Yehuda, "Hazon Ish on Textual Criticism and
: Halakhah" (Tradition 18:2, Summer 1980), if we found Moshe Rabbenu's
: Torah scroll, we WOULD change our Torah scrolls to match it. Professor
: Leiman notes that Rambam himself altered his Torah scroll to match the
: Aleppo Codex, so why wouldn't we change our Torah scrolls similarly if
: we found Moshe's scroll?

(There is a good reason why we "err" on the side of putting "R" for Rav,
or if need be "Reb" before every name. RSZL is a musmach, and speaking as
someone who grew up in the same shtiebl he attends, quite the lamdan in
the more classical talmud Torah sense. It's an interesting shteibl that
had in those days a number of "Rabbi Dr"s. E.g. that's also how I know
R"D David Berger, whose YK mussaf still defines the experience for me. I
don't think that RSZL's success at a different endeavor should detract
from our acknowledging his competence benidon didan. I personally am
uncomfortable seeing a talmid chakham called with just the honorific
"Prof". I presume someone else might be upset that I'm about to drop
his professorship for the test of this post; but such is my assessment
about which "bemoso yiqakh ... yeileikh acharav...")

BTW, if you have a subscription, RZY's article can be found at
<http://www.traditiononline.org/news/article.cfm?id=104187> and RSZL's
rejoinder at <http://www.traditiononline.org/news/article.cfm?id=104250>.

Before I answer this question, though, I want to jump ahead to one
RMM adds in a "PS" email. On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:16pm IDT, Michael
Makovi wrote:
: Another note: Lo ba-shamaim hi says we go by humans and not G-d. Where
: in this principle do we learn that we go by mesorah and not new
: textual discoveries? If we discover Moshe Rabbenu's scroll, relying on
: it would be relying on humans, not on G-d. Lo ba-shamaim hi means only
: that we don't rely on supernatural revelation, etc., but unearthing
: new manuscripts is quite temporal and mundane!

The question, as I see it, is what is pesaq on a deOraisa? Is it the
determination of truth, or authoritative legal process? Along these
lines is the question of what "eilu va'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" means,
and how it interacts with "lo bashamayim hi" (since "eilu va'eilu"
was itself said min haShamayim).

If it's about finding the true Will of G-d, then the story of the tanur
shel achnai and lo bashamayim hi can't be taken naively. After all,
what better indicator of the Truth than what He Himself tells us, and
thus possible justification could there be for a kelal to ignore His Word?

Thus, I think the two conversation are linked because assigning authority
to MRAH's seifer Torah over following rov reflects the notion that
there is One True Ratzon haBorei, and rov is simply a birur when we
can't get at it. OTOH, if Ratzon haBorei is "follow halachic process"
and not either particular pesaq to the exclusion of the other, then we
follow rov when it comes to the tanur, despite nissim, and we follow
rov sifrei Torah despite archeology.

These two approaches to what is pesaq is old. I would argue it's a
machloqes Rashi and the Rambam, and follows down to today, between
RMF's explaination of "eilu va'eilu" in the introduction to the IM and
both RYBS's and R' Velvel's explanations of RCBrisker's derekh (that he
rejected Radziner techeiles on the grounds that science can't take the
place of mesorah).

: Additionally, Professor Leiman disputes Zvi Yehuda's description of
: the Hazon Ish...

The debate between RSZL and RZY has two parts: First, what would "the
rishonim say", including the earlier acharonim. There, as I wrote above,
I believe both shitos exist. I don't think either of them listing those
that agree with their perception of the CI's shitah is particularly
convincing, because I didn't enter the discussion assuming consensus.

The second is which side did CI himself take? In general, the CI is a
"pesaq is correct by assigned authority" approach. Which is why a pesaq
made during the 2 millenia of Torah (ie before the codification of the
mishnah) based on bad science is no leshitaso subject to change just
because we now know the assumptions were faulty.

And in fact, I didn't find RSZL's counter-argument convincing. Eg. his
example of the CI being willing to amending texts isn't based on finding
new manuscripts but on response to girsaos found in equally authoritative
sources, or the power of sevara from those sources. Not didon didan --
using new information from outside the mesorah.

I would simply conclude that I don't know what the CI said, given these
two vastly different takes. A talmid is both more likely to know the
rebbe's intent and more likely to forget where that intent ends and one's
adaptation begins. However, I do believe it's easily demonstrable that
both shitos are as old as the rishonim.

Which is why, in my previous post, I tied the current conversation to
earlier ones about finding Ezra's seifer Torah without stating an implied
conclusion from that linkage.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
micha at aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fullfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH