[Avodah] RLakish & RElozor - Is less than honest thinking a deception OR What is honest thinking

[Rabbi Meir G. Rabi]

In response to Rb Chana Luntz posted – 1 Jan 2023

To summarise << The teacher was angry when he eventually discovered the
question posed to him by one of his students was actually an argument made
by the teachers own Rebbi, which the student failed to disclose was the
teachers Rebbis opinion. Thus the teachers ruling was in conflict with his
Rebbis ruling.>>

I asked why was he angry? - he gave his opinion as he understood it. Had he
ruled as per his Rebbi would that not be a violation of the proper method
to Pasken?

Rb Luntz said at the conclusion of her comprehensive argument [I have tried
to accurately summarise and beg forgiveness if I have misrepresented in any
way Rb Luntzs argument] – It is simply appropriate that a Talmid humble
himself to his Rav and accept that he doesn't always get things right, no
matter how strongly he understands he is right, and that when push comes to
shove, his Rav's ruling prevails.

If I may – This is precisely what I suspect is untrue – the Talmid IS NOT
PERMITTED to agree with his Rebbi when he has Qs that remain unanswered –
this is Reb Chaim Voloshiner on Pirkey Avos [Ch1] RuAch Chayim on the
Mishnah – A student ought to be covered in the dust of his Rebbis feet. He
explains that far from meaning a student must submit themselves to their
Rebbis superiority it means they MUST RAISE THE DUST i.e. engage in battle
with them
and he adds IT IS PROHIBITED – ASSUR – to accept their opinion just because
it is their opinion.

R Micha disagrees with my perspective on RCV – but I do not understand his
objections, would you please R Micha, try to again explain your
understanding.

Rb Luntz predicated her position on the ShA YD 242:31, the Rema who rules
that one may ask for a second opinion as long as the Posek is informed of
the first ruling. The Shach (58) says that if this is a case of Shikul
HaDaAs he may debate with the first Posek, and if he persuades him, well
and good, and the ruling can be retracted, but if not, then he needs to say
to the questioner - this is what I hold, but what can I do, I am unable to
reverse the original ruling. [BTW I wonder if this means that the
Questioner is now saddled with the responsibility of the decision, or that
the decision of the first Posek MUST be followed] It seems to me that this
Rama actually supports my position - every Posek MUST rule as he sees fit.
It is only when a ruling has already been issued that unless there is clear
proof that it is incorrect, then that ruling cannot be dismissed by another
Posek. This second Posek, when asked by someone else must rule as he
understands not as the other Posek understands.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230126/ab12544b/attachment.htm>