[Avodah] Tartei d'Satrei

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 08:06:29PM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote:
> RMB wonders, in my terminology, if the Sanhedrin gives only pure psak,
> and I respond by saying that in some circumstances they can't -- the
> decision of RYL requires a mixed psak, and the Sanhedrin can't just
> refuse to pasken. How, according to RMB, would they avoid this problem?

Actually, I was operating in an entirely different paradigm, so there
is no rephrasing into your terminology.

But I like your model, except for a quibble with using the term "ta'am",
so I'll run with it rather than continue that old train of thought.

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 02:09:44PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote:
>> Of course the Sanhedrin ruled by majority, so following the Sanhedrin's
>> psak entails the same problem.

> Isn't that oversimplifying the process? If the Sanhedrin did not have
> a Mesora on the issue, then they would have a debate until they all
> (or at least a majority) agreed.
> 
> As Meforshim on the Mishna (Sanhedrin 11:2) explain:
> Yodunu Bo kFi HaSevoros veHekeshos haTorios

You see, that's the terminology quibble. I think your RDR's "ta'am" is
more commonly called "sevara", even if it is a derashah. "Ta'am" has
come to mean a lesson we can take from the mitzvah, or perhaps even
some aspect of Hashem's Intent in commanding it. I found RDR's use
confusing.

But in any case, what I was thinking was closest to RDS's point:
> I would assume the debate took into account the Tartei d'Satrei
> aspects. We're talking about The 71 Gedolim of the generation, after all.

That would mean that the Sanhedrin would try for consistency in sevara,
as per the way the mishnah is generally understood. And so you would not
get two pesaqim in case law that contradict in implication on the ta'am /
sevara level without the second ruling being an overturning of the first.

However, we know that the NbY didn't believe this was true of batei
din in his day. It's not just "the 71 gedolim of their generation", it
was also the stature of chazal, not matched by acharonim.

So on a practical level, RDR's question would still hold. We could end up
enshrining two pesaqim from acharonim as precedent and halakhah lemaasah
that are based on conflicting sevaros.

I simply don't think you should be knowingly following both.

Unkowingly, though... Yeah, I see the issue.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 It's nice to be smart,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   but it's smarter to be nice.
Author: Widen Your Tent                      - R' Lazer Brody
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF