[Avodah] klalei psak

[Danny Schoemann]

Another approach.

I recently read a (Hebrew) 500+ page sefer titled "HaRif bein Sefarad
l'Ashkenaz" by R' Emanuel Elalouf (rifyomi at gmail.com) of Har Nof.
(Never heard of him before - nothing useful on Google.) He promotes a
Rif Yomi program.

His approach is that the Ashkenaz and Sefard psak diverged due to
geopolitical reasons.

Since the Geonim and the  "Spanish" Jews lived under the same rulers,
they were able to communicate relatively easily. They would send their
questions to Bavel, the Geonim would discuss it at the Yarchei Kalla
and send back a response. (Since the mail route passed through Cairo,
these Teshuvoth were copied while passing through and eventually
landed in the Genizo, which is why we have copies of them.)
As can be easily proved, the Geonim paskened each question on its own,
irrelevant of prior psakim.

Since Ashkenaz was under "enemy rule", there was no easy way for them
to communicate with the Geonim. Communication was tedious and rare.
That is what forced them to figure out new questions based on earlier
psak and similar concepts. (The ball being rolled from place to
place.)

Chodesh Tov,

- Danny

RMB wrote in part:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 04:29:47PM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> > Rav Asher Weiss-The Rules of Rendering a Halachic Decision
> > https://torahanytime.com/lectures/283345
>
> R Ashar Weiss opens by making a contrast between Sepharadi Rishonim and
> Baalei Tosafos. The Maharshal says the latter make shas into a "ball"
> and they "rolled it from place to place", referring to how they will
> understand one sugya in light of the other. While Sepharadi rishonim
> stayed much closer to the geonim.
>
> WADR to RAW, given comments in Teshuvos haRambam, I don't think the Rambam
> felt all that compelled to follow the geonim.
>
> Talmud Reclaimed, by R Shmuli Phillips (who is easily reachable on Facebook),
> gave a different explanation of the Sepharadi position. They would take the
> masqanah from the primary sugya on a topic. And if that means they ruled in
> ways the Baalei Tosafos would deem inconsistent, so be it.
>
> RSP feels that this makes the whole Brisker project suspect, as it is
> looking for the Rambam's "ball" of Talmud, and the Rambam never tried
> to make one.
>
> I disagreed. Compare to physicists -- some are experimentalists,
> others are theoreticians. The Rambam's approach to pesaq parallels the
> experimentalists. Tosafos -- theoreticians. That doesn't mean that when
> all is said and done, there shouldn't be a theory unifying the disparate
> "experiments" / pesaqim. Since the Rambam's Derekh is Emes, one of the
> Shiv'im Panim, there has to be an explanation for it. Even if the Rambam
> himself didn't seek one.
>
> But, it does require being much more strict in chiddushim, in not
> reshaping the Rambam's ruling with an uqimta or such in order to make
> it fit your theory.
>
> In any case, back to RAW, he holds that this Sepharadi perspective is
> found ad hayom hazeh. That a Sepharadi poseiq is more likely to cite
> sources than write his own sevara. (R Ovadiah Yosef came to my mind
> when he said that.)