[Avodah] Derech psak

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 01:01:42PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote:
: R Micha wrote:
: > I think lomdus is more in the style of Tosafos, focusing on how we
: > understand the gemara, with "only" implications about practice. Rather
: > than focusing on getting to a lemaaseh. It's just a different subject.

: Firstly, I think we overemphasise the chidush of lomdus. Granted, R'
: Chaim's derech and subsequent Brisker development was something new in
: its explicit conceptual tools. But to say that being able to see all
: sides of a sugya with great clarity is a new thing, well isn't that
: part and parcel of classic ameilus batorah? ...

Except I didn't. I likened it to Tosafos, a precedent. The use of a tool
for understanding shitos in a straight ameilus beTorah as though it were
a tool for pesaq -- that's a chiddush.

...
: In general, the impression one gets is that the basic learning of the
: batei medrash of the amoraim was to to do exactly what we call lomdus,
: just that the format of the gemara doesn't record exactly how that process
: happened, presumably to maintain the oral/mimetic nature of the process
: of learning Torah. Nonetheless we don't find that this amoraic/tannaitic
: lomdus inhibited the ability to arrive at halacha l'maaseh.

What do you call the shaqla vetarya of the gemara if not Rav and Rav
Yehudah's (as founders of Sura & Pumpedisa, respectively) style(s)
of lomdus?

: Slightly derech agav, drashos on pesukim seem to be used both to create
: new halachos and also verify oral traditions. The Netziv in the hakdama
: to Vaykira in Haemek davar makes this explicit and the Rambam in the
: Shorashim (2 or 3?) seems to say the same, although there seems to be
: some comtemporary debate about this issue...

I think it's use to verify runs to the end of shas or so, but the use
of derashos to create halakhah dies off well before then. Perhaps with
the composition of the mishnah. Rav Meir had already closed the door
on darshening cheseiros and yeseiros for pragmatic reasons. The gemara
(Pesachim 66a, nr bottom) invokes ein adam dan gezeira shava le'atzmo
to a maaseh involving Hillel. (There it's contrasted to qal vechomer,
where one may. So what about the other rules of derashah -- like g"sh,
already put to rest, or like qv"ch?)

Li nir'eh, though, that it's safe to say amora'im weren't creating
new dinim or interpretations of dinim using derashos.

...
: All of which still leaves me uncertain as to why (some) Briskers find it
: so hard to pasken rather than cover all bases. Of note, despite claims
: by some talmidim that RYBS wasn't really a posek, more a Rosh Yeshiva,
: because he changed his mehelach in gemara sugyos freqently, a la Brisk,
: it's clear that he was very clear and consistent in many issues of psak
: over a long period of time when dealing with shailos for the RCA rabbonim
: as recorded in their documentation. So at least one Brisker didn't have
: trouble paskening l'maaseh despite his aptitude in lomdus.

Boston, a lot more often than the RCA. Think how much more often people
had questions about their kitchens or taharas hamishpachah compared to
the number of questions RCA faced. And for individual RCA rabbanim,
RYBS often (usually?) helped them reach their own pesaq than impose his
own pesaq on the moreh de'asra.

But I think he did show signs of Briskness. How many other posqim
(beyond Brisk's influence) would tell balebatim to observe yahrzeit in
both Adars? And as for ignoring mimeticism.... Sitting for Havdalah is
one example that really caught on in some YU circles.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
micha at aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter