[Avodah] R Michael Avraham

[Eli Turkel via Avodah]

After another shiur with R Michael Avraham (RMA) I wish to clear up some of
my previous posts. Apologies for repeating some material but I wish to make
it self contained.

1)  With regard to Pluaralism, Monism and Harmonism these are typologies.
As with any typology real people are combinations and pure members of these
groups.
Avi Sagi has a book on the topic with listing on many reabbis on each side
of the topic.

Pluralism means that one accepts ALL opinions as true and legitimate. There
is no one single truth Certainly as long as it doesn't harm someone else.

RMA pointed out that pure pluralism is not consistent as it would mean
accepting monism as also a legitimate truth
Nevertheless it is popular in some circles

2) Monism says there is only one truth. I accept that one truth based on
the normal rules of halacha, eg majority, chazakah etc.  Nothing is ever
known with 100% certainty both that is irrelevant.

2b) accepting monism (savlanut in Hebrew) . Though there is only one truth
we accommodate those within a certain radius of the real truth even though
they are wrong

Normally we view pluralism as being more "mekil" than monism. However he
considered the case of giving someone food that I consider kosher and he
doesn't . The pluralist won't do it because his position is also truth and
he doesnt consider the food kosher. However the pure monist has no trouble
giving it to someone else. He is wrong and I am right and so the food is
kosher (again the fact that he might be right is irrelevant - a bet din can
kill based on rov and certainly for shabbat and kosher food we work on
majority)
The accepting monist won't give the food to someone else. Even though he is
wrong I respect his being wrong as long as he is within my radius - ie he
relies on someone I consider legitimate and not just an idiotic opinion.
OTOH I would give him the food if I feel his "chumra" is too wild fetched
and beyond my radius as distinct from the pluralist

3) Harmonism states that both sides are only part of the real truth. Rav
Kook and others bring the second gemara about "Elu V-elu". The gemara in
Gittin discusses why the man from Binyamin killed his mistress)(pilegesh
be-givah) - after an amoraic argument the truth was both were right either
because he found a fly in his soup but got angry only he found a hair in
the soup. So both views were ight and "Elu V-elu"

Based on this RMA had a different interpretation of the argument between
Bet Hillel and Bet Shamai  Both sides presented arguments supporting their
position.  Both sides agreed that all the arguments were legitimate.
However, in the end one has to make a decision when there are legitimate
arguments on both sides and Bet Shamai and Bet Hillel arrived at opposite
conclusins.
The Harmonism implies that both sides have legitimate arguments. Hoever, in
the end there is only one truth that comes out of contradictory arguments.
The harmonism means that both sides are right (pluralism) on the basic
stands. But only one side is right (monism) in the final decision.

As stated before the one truth is found based on standard halachic grounds.
Nothing is ever known 100% but that doesnt matter.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150503/adfc2507/attachment-0007.html>