On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:27:pm EDT, R Samuel Svarc wrote:
: On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:
...
:> RSMandel convinced me way back in 2002 (see
:> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol09/v09n055.shtml#04>) to take the
:> MB's haqdamah at face value. It was written to be a survey of
:> shitos...
...
: To quote (using RSMAndel's translation) "The second reason [that we
: see that only a small number of people set a seder for learning
: halacha l'masseh]... is that it is difficult to know the halokho
: l'ma'aseh because of the multiple disagreements brought by the
: acharonim". The reason that R' Micha is quoting, that people don't
: have access, is written after the CC's second reason as 'V'od'.
: Is it reasonable to suppose that the CC wanted to fix the problem of
: "it is difficult to know the halokho l'ma'aseh because of the multiple
: disagreements brought by the acharonim" by making a "survey of
: shitos"? This is illogical and a clear misreading of the hagdamah.
OTOH, it is illogical to think the CC didn't hold like the MB, if he
intended the MB to be a seifer pesaq -- and there are numerous cases
where he didn't.
I like RRW's list of points in the haqdamah. At 9:22pm GMT,
rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com wrote:
: I find he says 4 reasons:
: 1 [starts with "ach"] The SA w/o Tur is a sefer Hasum
: 2 [sibba sh'niyya] Rabbu hadei'os in SA
: 3 [od ra'issis v'hisbonanti] the Ba'er Heitev was out-of-date
: (obsolescent)
: 4 [zos od v'acheres] People have to look hither, thither, and yon amongst
: numerous acharonim
: One might say that #3 viz. giving more sheetos conflicts with #4
: I.e. settling the issue.
Both RRW and RSS understand #3 as being about giving an answer. One can
avoid RRW's conflict as well as RSS's question by realizing that the
point of a survey is to give someone tools to get an answer.
Quoting RSM's translation:
So that now if a person
wants to understand some halokho l'ma'aseh that is not fully discussed
in the SA, he will have so search in many acharonim... Therefore I have
strengthened myself with the grace of G-d to fix these matters. I have
written an explanation to the SA that is sufficient in my opinion... and
explained each din in the SA with its reasons and logic from the g'moro
and posqim... and in each matter where there are disagreements among the
posqim I have presented the conclusions of the acharonim (gathered from
the BaH, the D'risha, the Elya Rabba, the G'Ro the P'ri M'godim...)"
Notice how the MB tells you the halakhah lemaaseh inheres in his survey,
not any personal proposal.
BTW, in that same discussion RDEidensohn posted the following
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol09/v09n061.shtml#03>:
> Just spoke with Rav Michel Shurkin about these topics
> 1) Regarding Tzitzis he said that Rav Mendal Zaks had told Rav Moshe
> Feinstein that his father had charata concerning what he had written in
> the Mishna Berura. This would explain the disparity between the Mishna
> Berura and the fact that the Chofetz Chaim did not wear his tzitzis out.
This is a one-off item, and I'm only including it because I did
mistakenly include wearing tzitzis tucked in among the list. It doesn't
change the fact that RMZaks testifies that the CC didn't make a separate
berakhah on desert, despite the MB's conclusion. He did atifah as other
Litvaks did, not as per the MB's citation of the Ari. The CC writes that
he himself carried in city eruvin. The CC didn't say Berikh Shemei. His
kos for the seder was too small. Etc...
R' Hillel Zaks (RMZ's son) makes a blanket statement, quoted in Shoroshei
Minhag Ashkenaz I pg 164 (in a discussion of Berikh Shemei) that the CC
often didn't hold like the MB -- both lechumera and lequla.
As I wrote above, it's not maintainable that when the haqdamah says
he is giving you a way to know pesaq the MB is telling you that he's
handing you a pesaq, halakhah lemaaseh. Because his own maaseh rav doesn't match!
So the question is how to understand his statement aboutg needing to
know lemaaseh given that he also says it's a survey and we know the CC
didn't follow it lemaaseh. My suggestion is that he meant the survey
will give you what you need to reach a lemaaseh.
...
> [4]) Regarding the Mishna Berura as source of psak. He said that the
> change to regard it as source of psak was initiated by Rav Elchonon
> Wasserman. After the War the need for a common basis for halacha for the
> Orthodox world resulted in a campaign of gedolim that it be accepted as
> such - resulting in its current status.
> It would seem to follow from this that the Chofetz Chaim would not have
> been upset about this change from his original purpose since his prime
> orientation was to provide practical sefarim which satisfied the needs
> of the people. The needs changed after the War.
Now, I'm not saying that the switch being REW's decision rather than the
CC's, and probably the CC would have been happy with it anyway, takes
much authority away from the MB as a seifer pesaq.
However, it doesn't change the fact that RMShurkin also thought this
was a shift from the author's original intent.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter