[Avodah] Who Brings the Chatos? Who may argue with BD?

[Meir Rabi]

Regarding my posting that > : The KesefM explains that the notion of
AmoRaIm not arguig against TaNaIm is not more than a convention ...

R Zvi Lampel, urges that we not forget that the Rambam (following Rav Hai Gaon)
limits Beis Din Gadols ability to overturn the decisions of any earlier BD
to rulings other than Takkonos and Gezayros, which can be overturned only
by a BD that is greater BeChochMa U'BeMinyan, and that Seyagim can NEVER be
overturned.

I dont know why this might be an important observation to take note of in
our discussion.


Reb Micha also commented on my observation that:
: The KesefM explains that the notion of AmoRaIm not arguig against TaNaIm
is
: just a convention, a non binding convention. He is compelled to say this
: because of the Halacha that a Dayan and a BD must not bow to their
: predecessors who were without doubt greater than they, if this BD's
: analysis of the Halacha leads them to a different conclusion. That being
: the case the KMishneh explains that AmoRaIm can certainly disagree with
: TaNaIm and the RULE is not a RULE but a non-binding convention. Its not a
: Chiddush that Rav may argue, the Chiddush is that the others did NOT.

Reb Micha suggests that it IS a Chiddush as we can see from the Gemaras
need to justify Rav's breaking the convention --
"Rav tan hu upalig" is only necessary because otherwise it /would/be a
chiddush.

And I say that ANYTHING that is a change from what we are familiar with is
a Chiddush. I was and continue to refer however, to Chiddush as in change
from the Gemaras and the Halachas basic principles, which are that we MUST
stand by our own understanding and conclusions. So the REAL Chiddush is
that such a convention was initiated and implemented.


Reb Micha also disagrees with the principle that we MUST stand by our
understanding of Halacha and not just accept the rulings of those we
consider greater than us.
Reb Micha suggests that perhaps this Chiyuv does not apply at all times. He
proposes that there are those who are far more informed and far more in
line with the right modes of thinking to decide Pesak and we should
therefore suspend our own judgement.

Now to prove or illustrate his point, Ren Micha refers to Rishonim who seem
to be in agreement and support a thought or argument that I disagree with,
I must accept I am wrong even though I don't know how or why.

Now this a misrepresentation of what I am explaining. The Gemara and
Rishonim clearly are the benchmark against which we measure our thinking
and from which we draw our life values. Like the stories of the Besht,
those who believe ALL of them are just foolish, those who believe NONE are
pretty close to being an Apikores. Where is the truth? Somewhere undefined
between those two extremes. And so too with Halachic knowledge and the
power to Pasken. As one grows and becomes more aligned with the Gemara
think one becomes more adept at understanding the Halacha. But this
necessarily follows a system of thought that CAn and MUST be explained,
that finds agreement or finds reasoned arguments that challenge it.

Otherwise Lo BaShaMaYim Hi.




Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130329/9ae7b999/attachment-0002.htm>