[Avodah] Street Minyanim/sh'as hadchak

[Chana Luntz]

I wrote:
> As mentioned the Rema is quoting the Rashba which is found in Shut 
> HaRashba Chelek 1 siman 253 where he sets out rules of poskening, and
says:
> 
> "that we do not say it is appropriate to rely on ploni in a time when 
> there is one who is greater than him in wisdom and number.  And the 
> halacha pesuka
> [CL: is this not the same as ikar hadin?] is that they go after the 
> one greatest in wisdom and number....

And RMB replied:

<<I would think that halakhah pesuqah is in contrast to ikar hadin.
Iqar hadin is the theoretical what the law requires.
Halakhah pesuqah is a pragmatic application of the law.

It's going to include policy and slippery slope considerations, (and in the
other direction) considerations of significant communal need, etc...
so many factors that separate theory from practice.

(You know the difference between theory and practice? In theory, there would
be no difference...)>>

But it seems clear from the above that the Rema is using halacha pesukah the
way you have explained ikar hadin.  That is, the theoretical what the law
requires, without the policy and slippery slope considerations.  Because
what does he describe as halacha pesukah ... "that they go after the one
greatest in wisdom and number".

This is the language of the Rashba (that he is summarising) Shut HaRashba
Chelek 1 siman 253 :

שאין כל הפוסקים והחכמים שוים ולא כל המקומות שוים מן הדין. כיצד שורת הדין אם
שנים הפוסקים באחד זה אוסר וזה מתיר. אם נודע האחד גדול בחכמה ובמנין ויצא שמו
כן הולכין אחריו בין להחמיר בין להקל. היו שניהם שוין ולא נודע מי גדול משניהם.
בשל תורה הולכין אחר המחמיר דהוה ליה כספיקא דאורייתא ובשל סופרים הולכין אחר
המקל וכדאיתא בריש פרק קמא דעבודה זרה (דף ז). ומי שסומך על המקל בשל תורה
עובר. [proof text from Hoshea omitted]. אבל אם היה רב אחד במקומם ולמדם הן
הולכים אחר דבריו.


That not all poskim and chachamim are equal, and not all places are equal
from the law.  How do we rule the din if there are two  poskim where one
forbids and one permits.  If we know that one is greater in wisdom and
number, and it goes out his name so we go after him whether for stringency
or leniency.  If there are two that are equal and we do not know which one
is greater of the two of them.  For Torah we go after the stringent one that
it is like a safek d’orisa and of the rabbis we go after the lenient one and
like it says at the beginning of the first perek of Avodah Zara (7).  And
one who relies on the lenient one when it is from the Torah sins.  [proof
text from Hoshea omitted].  But if there is one Rav in his place, and he
teaches them they go after his words.

That is the ikar hadin as you have defined it (it ultimately stems, from
achrei harabim l'hatos). The question of  bideveds and sh'as hadchak then
comes in to deal with other aspects, including and famine times and such.

> And he goes on to discuss the question of giving honour to a Rav in 
> his place (like Rabbi Yosi hasGalili where they ate chicken with milk, 
> and Rabbi Eliezer where they cut the trees to make the knives on 
> shabbas for the bris)...

RMB further writes:

<<On a different topic, I find it interesting that the Rama focused on the
authority of the rav/rabbanim giving the pesaq, and does not mention the
poseiq using his own shiqul hada'as to assess the merits of each argument.

There is a crossover here to the discussion about the Litvish innovation of
pesaq. (My disagreement with including the AhS in that list is another
conversation.)>>

You are looking in the wrong place.  Where you need to look is the Rema's
introduction to his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch.  Here he is doing what
he says he will do in gathering together comments from various authorities
and bringing them where he feels the Mechaber has not included what the Rema
felt he needs to include.

Hence he says:

ובלא זה, השלחן אשר הוא ערך לפני ה' (ו) לא נתנו עדיין לבני אדם אשר במדינות
אלו, אשר רובי מנהגי מדינות אלו לא נהיגין כוותיה, כי כבר אמרו ז"ל [עירובין
כ"ז ע"א] אין למדין מן הכללות ..., כ"ש מן הכלל שכלל הגאון הנ"ל מעצמו לפסוק
אחר הרי"ף והרמב"ם במקום שרוב האחרונים חולקים עליהם, וע"י זה נתפשטו בספריו
הרבה דברים שאינן אליבא דהלכתא לפי דברי החכמים שמימיהם אנו שותין, והם הפוסקים
המפורסמים בבני אשכנז אשר היו לנו תמיד לעינים ופסקו מהם קמאי דקמאי, והם האור
זרוע והמרדכי ואשר"י וסמ"ג והסמ"ק והגהות מיימון אשר כולם נבנו על דברי התוס'
וחכמי צרפת אשר אנו מבני בניהם,... 
ואני ראיתי כל דבריו כשלחן ערוך כניתנו מפי משה מפי הגבורה, ויבואו התלמידים
אחריו וישתו דבריו בלא מחלוקת, ובזה יסתרו כל מנהגי המדינות, ..
…, על כן ראיתי לכתוב דעת האחרונים עם המקומות שלא היו נראים לי דבריו, בצדו,
כדי לעורר התלמידים בכל מקום שידעו שיש מחלוקת בדבריו, ובכל מקום שידעתי שאין
המנהג כדבריו אחקרהו ואמצאהו אכתוב, הכי נהוג, ובצדו אשים. ואף כי דברי סתומים
וחתומים ואין ערך להם עם דברי הגאון כאשר כל דבריו נמצאים בספרו הגדול בית
יוסף, מ"מ הלכתי בדרכו לכתוב הדברים סתמא, כי לרוב גם דעתי בספרו תמצאהו
והמעיין יבחר. ואם לא ימצאהו בספרו ידקדק בדברי האחרונים אשר נתפשטו במדינות
אלו אחת הנה ואחת הנה וימצא מבוקשו, כי מעט מזער הוספתי וכתבתי מדעתי כן נראה
לי להודיע כי ממני יצאו הדברים, ואקוה להש"י שגם דברי הארוכים יתפשטו בישראל,
ושם אגודות אגודות חבילות חבילות של ראיות וטעמים, ונמוקי וטעמי בכל דבר לפי
השגת ידי  ומי שיש לו חיך לטעום יבחין המטעמים בטעמיהון בעצמו ולא יסמוך על
אחרים, ומי שלא הגיע למדרגה זו לא יזוז מן המנהג,

And without this [CL the Rema’s commentary or tablecloth], the table which
he [Rav Yosef Karo] has arranged before G-d will not be given yet to the
people who are in our lands, as the majority of the customs of these lands
do not conform with it, because already they say [Eruvin 27a] we do not
learn from general rules..., all the more so from a general rule that the
aforementioned Gaon [Rav Yosef Karo] has created by himself to hold like the
Rif and the Rambam in a place where the majority of the later commentators
disagree with them, and by way of this has set out in his books many matters
that are not according to the halacha according to the words of the Sages
from whose waters we drink, the famous poskim amongst the people of Ashkenaz
that they have always been our guides and we have followed them from
earliest times, and these are the Or Zarua, the Morderchai, the Ashri, the
SMaG, the SMaK and the Hagahot Maimoniot which all of them are built on the
words of the Tosfot and the Sages of France which we are their children’s
children...
And I see all his words in the Shuchan Aruch [risk being treated] like those
which we were given from the mouth of Moshe from the mouth of the Almighty,
and that the students who will come after him will drink his words without
dispute, and in this they will conceal all the customs of our lands ….  
And therefore I saw to write the opinion of the later commentators in the
places where it seemed to me that his words were not correct, at the side,
in order to awaken to the students in every place that they should know that
there is disagreement with his words, and in every place that I know that
the custom  is not like his words I will investigate and I will write, and
this is the custom, and I will put it at the side, even though my words are
closed and sealed [i.e. the reasons and proofs for these positions have not
been given] and are not arranged like the words of the Gaon where all his
words [i.e. proofs and reasons] are found in his book the Beis Yosef, in any
event I went in my way to write the words simply [CL: i.e. without reason or
proof], because for the majority I know  they can be found in his book [ie
in the Beit Yosef] and one who will investigate will find them.  And those
that are not found in his book can be derived from the works of the later
commentators which are spread out in our lands one here and one there, and
it will be found with difficulty, that with some trouble I have gathered and
when I have written my own opinion I write “so it seems to me” to make known
that from me goes forth the words.  And I hope with the help of G-d that
also a lengthy version will be spread out in Israel, and there will be
included many bundles and many parcels of proofs and reasons, in every
matter according to my ability, and one who has the ability to engage in
halachic reasoning will discern the reasons by himself, and he will not rely
on others, and one who has not reached this level will not move from the
custom ...

>From this it seems to me that the Rema saw his role as threefold:
a) firstly to bring the actual customs of the Ashkenazim within the world of
the Shulchan Aruch (for while Shulchan Aruch is translated as “prepared
table”, it would not be a table prepared for Ashkenazim if it deviated
significantly from what they in fact practiced);
 b) secondly to bring the words of Rishonim that Rav Yosef Karo effectively
ignored by paskening only from the Rif, the Rambam and the Rosh.  And while
in this context  the Rema mentions the Or Zarua, the Morderchai, the Ashri,
the SMaG, the SMaK and the Hagahot Maimoniot, presumably here in Choshen
Mishpat he felt Rav Yosef Karo had not adequately provided for the Rashba;
and
c) thirdly to make sure that students of halacha don't think that what the
Shulchan Aruch writes is like halacha Moshe MiSinai, without understanding
that there are many disputes about it, so that, if they are at the level
they are able to do it, they will engage in their own halachic analysis of
the proofs and reasons, while if not they will know the custom in Ashkenaz
to rely on.

But of course just because that is how the Rema saw his own commentary, that
does not mean that everybody agrees with this.  Rabbi Akiva Eiger in
particular (see eg Rabbi Akiva Eiger Ketubot 9b) holds that "we do not have
the power even by way of questions and pilpulim without number to determine
against the Rema, but we need to bend ourselves to receive his opinion".

However it does mean that built into the whole Ashkenazi psak structure is
this introduction of the Rema, and the original intent of his commentary.
And it is what allows the Chazon Ish to say, for example (Chazon Ish
Shevi’it siman 23 letter 5): 

וכן אחר שו"ע אנו נוהגין להורות ע"פ גדולי האחרונים אף נגד השו"ע כמו הש"ך פר"ח
הגר"א וכן אנו סומכים בדינים פרטים על אחרונים ז"ל אף נגד השו"ע כגון הנו"ב
ועוד, ...

… and so after the Shulchan Aruch we are accustomed to rule according to the
great ones amongst the achronim even against the Shulchan Aruch like the
Shach, the Pri Chadash, the Gra, and so we rely in specific matters on
achronim even against the Shulchan Aruch like the Nodeh B’yehuda and others
…

However Rav Ovadiah modifies this as follows (Shut Yabia  Omer Chelek 5
Orech Chaim Divrei Peticha) where he says:
…that in the Chazon Ish (Mas’arot Siman 13 letter 1) he writes that we do
not accept the words of the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema except when the
matter has been weighed, and the matter cannot been decided by way of
proofs, but if there should be proofs in the achronim against the Shulchan
Aruch there is to rely on the achronim …

However this is not in my (new) version of the Chazon Ish in any place I
have tried to look (I gather that this is a reference to the original
edition, which I do not have, and that they completely rearranged the topics
and simanim in the newer editions) - if anybody has a pdf of the original
version, they could show me, so I do not have to rely on Rav Ovadiah as a
secondary source, that would be much appreciated (and/or if anybody could
point me to where this piece is in the newer version).

And even given that flexibility, it doesn't say whether to rely on achronim,
as the Chazon Ish suggests, or go back to the original rishonim (which is no
doubt what the Rema had in mind).  
...
> Or you can understand that demai is assur (rabbinically), but when the 
> rabbis banned demai, they allowed for sh'as hadchak situations, of 
> which being an oni is one of them, and that pushed aside the ikar 
> halacha that demai Is assur.

<<If she'as hadechaq only has impact on a din derabbanan, we could perhaps
view the rule as akin to "bemaqom peseida lo gazru rabbanan", or "bemaqom
tza'ar..." or "mipenei kavod haberios lo gazru rabbanan".>>

Yes, that is exactly what I have been saying.  The question is, is it only
d'rabbanan.  The Shach certainly thinks so, and the piskei teshuva, but it
would seem that the Rashba (and hence perhaps the Rema, in bringing this
Rashba) holds that where there is also a hefsed meruba, it can operate even
in a d'orisa context, or at least so holds the Bach.

>-Micha

Regards

Chana