[Avodah] RLakish & RElozor

[Chana Luntz]

RMGR writes:

<<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 think already here there is a problem.  The description here makes it
sound like this was merely an interchange in the Beit Midrash.  But it was
not, it was a situation where a putative Kohen had come to Reish Lakish for
psak as to his status.  And Rabbi Elazar let Reish Lakish go ahead and
posken in an actual case without Reish Lakish knowing that he was in fact
poskening halacha l'ma'ase against the view of his Rebbi Rav Yochanan.

<<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.>>

Slight oversimplification, in that I also said that additionally he ought to
(and might well be required to) try and persuade his Rebbi to his way of
thinking - but that if he couldn't do that, there were times where he might
be required to acquiesce, halacha l'ma'she, against his own opinion in
favour of his Rebbi's.  Not give up his own opinion - but either withdraw
from ruling or tell the questioner that I cannot rule against my Rebbe and
my Rebbe holds X and therefore this is the prevailing psak in this area as I
am under the jurisdiction of my Rebbi.

<<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.>>

Again, what Reb Chaim is saying seems to me perfectly consistent with what I
have said.  Within the Beit Midrash context, a talmid is required to keep
arguing so long as he still has questions, and he won't do his learning any
favours if he doesn't.  But I do not believe Reb Chayim was in any shape or
form suggesting that such a talmid should go out and rule, halacha l'ma'ase,
on the basis of his position knowing that his Rebbi disagreed with him.
That is the difference between learning and psak.  (BTW though, were Reb
Chaim to have come out and actually been flat out against the Rema based on
earlier rishonim, not that I think he would have done, I would struggle to
see a vort of Reb Chaim on Pirkei Avot as being a source to trump a Rema in
Shulchan Aruch, but luckily I don't think that is an issue).

<<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]>>

No, the first opinion must be followed, that is very clear from all
surrounding discussions.  It is as if the first posek had rendered the item
actually treif by his ruling (chaticha na'asit nevela if you like).  And the
second posek and the questioner are bound by that, unless and until someone
is able to persuade the first posek that he got it wrong and he retracts his
ruling.

<< 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.>>

Again, there seems to be a confusion between learning and psak.  In terms of
learning, the second posek can (and might be obligated to) go and debate
with the first posek.  What he cannot do is *rule*, as that would be
usurping the first posek's prerogative.  The most he can do is to try and
persuade the first posek to rule differently.  Similarly with a Rebbi and
Talmid relationship. The  Talmid cannot rule (ie posken) at all without the
Rebbi giving permission (even though he might be encouraged to debate his
Rebbi until the cows come home). Difference between halachic debate and
psak.  In the circumstance it is perfectly reasonable and appropriate that
Reish Lakish would not want to be poskening directly against the position of
his Rebbi Rav Yochanan.  If he had known, he might well have refused to
posken and told the questioner to go to Rav Yochanan instead, or he would
have gone and debated Rav Yochanan rather than posken.

The place where the difference between how you learn and how you posken is
seen most clearly is of course the halacha of zaken mamre.  A zaken mamre
has to be a serious and notable talmud chacham (see Rambam Hilchot Mamrim
perek 3 halacha 5) - but the key element that leads to his being liable for
the death penalty is not how he learns the halacha, and not even how he
teaches others, but his ruling in practice, halacha l'ma'ase.  In other
words, his psak (See Sanhedrin 88a, Hilchot Mamrim perek 3 halacha 6).  And
yet even someone at the level of a zaken mamre is expected - not to change
his mind, but not to posken in according with his own understanding - "ma lo
horgu Akavya ben Mahalalel - mpnei shelo hora halacha l'ma'aseh).  He is
required to have the humility to accept that he has been overruled in
halachic matters and not to rule.  If Reish Lakish had known of Rav
Yochanan's position, it therefore seems highly unlikely he would have ruled
in the case in front of him without at least first going and trying to
change Rav Yochanan's mind, and he might well have refused to rule at all
(and indeed he might be required to do so).  He was deprived of this by Rav
Elazar withholding information, so it seems to me he had the right to be
angry.

Meir G. Rabi

Regards

Chana