<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Micha Berger <<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 12:30:05AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:<br>
: My issue with this is that any traditional Ps'ak with any amount of<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">: consensus can be overturned by "rayyos" from the Gemara.<br>
:<br>
: I'm not accusing the GRA of abusing this prvilege, but I am saying that this<br>
: started imho a very slippery slope.<br>
<br>
</div>The process as a whole is conserved by later generations (in the Gra's<br>
case, the CI is an example; but I heard the same of the Besh"t)<br>
declaring him a throwback to the rishonim. Thus, the Gra can go back to<br>
the gemara and pasqen directly,</blockquote><div> <snip></div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
-Micha<br>
</blockquote> </div><div><br>AFAIK RMF and Mesharshal did, too. Bach to a lesser extent<br><br>Bu my point is whether you accept R. Y Karo Rema or even Levush they all rejected to the Back to the Talmud movement. It seems to me that this is a nimnu bv'gamru by klla Yisroel that there was a hasssimas harishonim<br>
<br>The Idea of the Gra being a trhwoback sounds like an after the fact justification rationalization rather than a really good Halachic structure.<br><br>Let's extrapolate; Since Behag is "bar Samcha" and Divrei kabablh then make HIM a throwback to the Amora'aim? Then of course how come Rambam and Tosafos argue on Behag? Anwwer? he is NOT a trhowback DESPITE being a Bar Samcha etc.<br>
<br>You have a mah nafsach at work here:<br><br>Either you hold from closure of an era:<br>OR<br>you hold from hasima of th Talmud itself and nothing else<br><br>This is the criticism I have about th Orthodox Halachic proceses not adhering to a consistent model.<br>
<br>It seems to me that RY/Rema and the Advent of the SA as the end of an era. You could shlug up acharonim with Rishonim but you do not pasken from the Gmara anymore. The SA more or less coidifes this in Ch. 25:1 when he adds Poskim to the list of normative books.<br>
[See Rema for possible exceptions] <br></div><br></div>Rare is the poseik that sticks to a consistent method.<br><br>That said let me add the following:<br><ol><li>I don't see any problem arguing against Halachic precedent from an academic perpsective<br>
</li><li>I don't see any heter for using arguments to uproot [universally?] accept [praxis<br></li></ol>Take these 2 rules and you can go back and question the Mishna itself and every text from then on.<br><br>But you have no permission to change the Halachah based merely upon Kushyos.<br>
The Aruch Hashulchan seesm to have broken this rule re: breaking a fast after shek'iah. Usually he does not step over that line<br><br>The BY over-ruled his Beisd din to pasken 3 matzos isntead of 2. {yeah there I go again]<br>
<br>So my problem is not with the GRA trying to shlug up an accepted practice in his sefer, my problem is PASKENING like that upshlug when the Halacha has already been firrnly set into place. Im kein, ein ledavar sof . That means there is no Halachah that is NOT subject to revision. <br>
<br>The Taz in O. Ch. 46 re: hanoesin Layo'eif Ko'ach gives an apporach that sort of goes along with this.<br><br>But frankly the entire Ashkenzic structure is based upon Precdeent over fundamental text with rare exceptions<br clear="all">
<br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>