[Avodah] chumrah and kulah

[Eli Turkel via Avodah]

In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on the
grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on the other.

Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA)

1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be
machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without
kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from
simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends)  from
joining together for a meal

2) RSZA always took simchat shabbat/yomtov into account in his
piskei halacha. A rabbi who is machmir not to allow using a shabbat
elevator may be forcing someone who lives on the 30th floor to spend every
shabbat without a minyan and without any company and certainly without oneh
shabbat. RSZA was an advocate of tzomet because he felt it important to
help especially the disadvantaged. Thus, he felt it important to invent a
wheelchair good for invalids that can be used on shabbat

3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt
that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out
that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when
they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects
many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc.

4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most
halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is
overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity might be
depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone agrees that in
monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA points out that this
is true even in many yoreh deah questions as inheritance rights. Releasing
an agunah from her chains is also important even when it relies on DNA
evidence.

This is just a sampling of many areas where some poskim try and be
conservative while RMA insists that just blindly doing the old thing is not
necessarily the conservative or macmir way.

His favorite analogy is a group of people who live in the tropics and wear
swimwear. Because of circumstances they move to a colder area. There now
arises a dispute should they continue to wear swimwear because thats what
their ancestors wore or do they change to warmer clothing. The change is
also meant to be conservative: the ancestors wore clothing that matched the
climate and so they should wear clothing that match the clothing. The
reformists change clothing simply because they dont care what the ancestors
wore

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160503/613d8cf5/attachment-0003.htm>